| OCR Text |
Show 136 Although his reaction was not published in the newspapers, after the film he reportedly said, "Bennett was on the wrong side of the road this timc.',4 14 The Desere1 News and Salt lake Telegram ran an editorial in advance of the film urging that it not be cancelled. Central to that editorial was another call for civil debate and a warning that the fighting could delay the park proposal. "If some way isn't found to soften the political abuse and name-calling over this issue, the park isn't going to be established very soon," it concluded.415 At the same time, The Salt Lake Tribune published an editorial opposing a national park that restricted development. The editorial referred derogatorily to those who opposed multiple use in national parks as ''purists." It then noted that "these same 'purists,' it should be remembered, blocked legislation for the construction of Echo Park Dam within the Dinosaur National Monument.'"' 16 The editorial position was clear: "The only sensible proposal for the Canyonlands is the creation of a multiple-use recreational area ... We oppose locking up the Canyonlands.',4 17 In elections that fall, both of Utah's congressional Democrats who had supported the Moss bill for Canyonlands were defeated. Thomas G. Smith, ""The Canyon!ands National Park Controversy, 1961-64," Utah Historical Q11ar1erly 59(Summcr 1991 ):235. 414 ,u Desere1 Nev.sand Sult lake Telegram, "Air the Canyonlands Issue," October 13, 1962, A 10. ' 10 Suh 417 Luke Tribune, "'C:111yonlo.nds Must Not Ue Locked Up," October 12, 1962, A22. lbid. |
