| OCR Text |
Show 95 only a fraction ofit to Widstoc. 276 llowever, the Times included details that the Examiner left out - that the creation of the national park was contingent on state and priva1c land owners ceding their claims to the federal govcnuncnt Further, unlike the local papers, the Times reported that compensation would be given for land inside the park. 277 Bryce Canyon and the National Park Idea With passage of the Bryce Canyon legislation, the state had its second national park, if it was willing to surrender claim to land inside the park's boundaries and could convince the Union Pacific to do likewise. The state's hesitancy to cede its holdings illustrated an important concept in the cvolu1ion of the national park idea. For land to be considered for a national park, it had to be worthless in terms of natural resources. Significant potential for mining, grazing, agriculture, or timber could disqualify a landscape's candidacy. National Park historian Alfred Runte wrote: " Indeed, throughout the his1ory of the national park idea, the concept of useless scenery has virtually determined which landmarks the nation would protect as well as how it would protect lhem."278 With 13rycc Canyon, the state resisted ceding property because the land in question had value beyond scenic beauty. The state had a financial interest. 11 had sold twenty acres to the Union Pacific aod leased to the railroad the remaining 620 acres. The Union Pacific in turn built and maintained tourist facilities. According to the Deserel 276 New York Times, "A New National Park,"" September l, 1924, 20. 217 lbid. 271 Runte, National Parks: Tha American Experienc:e, 49. |
