| OCR Text |
Show 117 Railroad Co., because of the ultimate restriction of future development of the boundless natural resources of the area."342 The railroad saw a more lucrative future in transporting uranium ore, potash, and other minerals rather than tourists in the Canyonlands. Canyonlands and the National Park Idea Environmental considerations played a minor role in the Canyonlands debate. Opposing sides framed the debate primarily as an economic issue - whether tourism from a national park or industry from development would best secure the state's financial future. Governor Clyde told The Salt Lake Tribune, "This state, already largely owned by the federal government, cannot afford to lock up vast areas containing valuable natural rcsources."343 Park supporters countered that the economic potential of tourism was a safer bet. Udall told the Deserer News and Salt Lake Telegram "that the long-range economic potential of southern Utah rests on tourism ... It will not only be the best industry the state can have, it is the most stablc."344 The debate played out in local and national newspapers, providing content for numerous stories with claims and counter-claims. But neither side provided much data to support its economic arguments, and journalists failed to analyze the economic impact of previous parks. To bring data to the debate, the Department of the Interior commissioned an economic feasibility investigation in late July 1961 . The University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research was selected to conduct the study. Clyde applauded Joseph Lundstrom...Utahns Back Clyde in Parks Battle," Deseret l'.'ews and Salt lake Telegram, July 28, 1961, Bl. ),ll l4J S"fl Luke Trib1me, "Clyde Assails Udall Plan," July 8, 1961. l4• Bob Koenig, "Clyde. Udall !foil Down South Utah Park Issue," Deseret News und Sult Luke Telegram, July ?, 1961,81 |
