| OCR Text |
Show 130 subcommittee platform to promote his own Canyonlands bill, which was not scheduled for a hearing. Udall "lashed back in an off.thc•cuff broadside against the Utah Republican" and said Bennett's plan for 1hrcc parks was "comp letely at odds with national park standards."394 When Bennett spoke of the economic catastrophe that he said would follow if the park eliminated grazing, Udall noted that the area covered in the Moss bill brought in only $2,700 from grazing the previous year. Udall was clearly referring to Bennett when he criticized "people who say they arc in favor of a national park and then describe someth ing that is 001 a national park."395 After the hearings moved to U1ah, the Deserer News and Sa/r lake Telegram observed that the subcommittee reserved its most critical questions for the park bill's opponents, who wanted allowances for continued dcvelopmcnt. 396 The overwhelming majority of witnesses - who included local and national politicians, business leaders, conservation representatives, and scientists - supported the park bill. Still, the majority of local news coverage focused on the opposition from the multiple-use side of the debate. Those who opposed the park because they believed it was not big enough and did not provide adequate protection found little room in the news for their voices. One theme that emerged during the hearings was that allowing development and "multiple use" in Canyonlands would be a move away from traditional national parks. The Salt Lake Tribune reported: "Both the Moab and Monticello sections drew reactions from the senators, indicating a growing conviction that the historic concept of national m l bid. m lbid. 396 Gordon Eliot White, ·rark II earing Moving to Utah Scene," Deseret News and Salt Lake Telegram, March 31, 1962,Hl. |
