| OCR Text |
Show 118 the move: "Such a study will get the facts and that is certainly one of the best things we can do."345 The purpose, according to Udall, was "to determine the best and most profitable use of the great scenic and recreational resources of the area."346 Udall said the study would include the possibility of mineral exploration.347 The editorial page of the Deserel News and Salt Lake Telegram endorsed the idea of an economic study and predicted that the result would calm and eventually resolve the debate: "lt is not unlikely that as the facts become clearer in the light of intensive study, agreement over the kind and size of park to be created will be achieved without much difficulty.',3 4ii The four-year debate that followed proved them wrong. As the national park debate filled a growing portion of the news hole, another land-use controversy was also inten:sifying, often sharing space in the same story as Canyonlands. Congress was debating a bill to allow the govenunent to designate wilderness areas. Wilderness areas would receive more protection than any other land-use classification by restricting roads and construction. The idea was to preserve lands "untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not rcmain."349 The simultaneous debates of national parks and wilderness led opponents to conflate the two issues. This Jed to fundamental misunderstandings about land management in national parks, which, unlike wilderness areas, accommodated roads and lodges for tourists and 30 Deseret NeusandSult Lake Te!ewam, ··u. to Study Proposed Utah Park," August 1, 1961, 82 Wi Salt Lake Tribune, "Udal! Selects U. of Utah to Conduct Park Study," August I, 1961, 2 (italics added). lH Oe.~eret News and Salt L<ike Telegmm, "Udall Repons U. Will Conduct Utah Park Study," August S, 1961 ,85. 348 Deseret News and Salt Lake Telegram, ''The First Park Step," August 3, 1961, A16. 34' Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, 88... Cong., 2d sess. (September 3, !964). |
