| OCR Text |
Show 139 The negotiations prompted an editorial from The New York Times: "If the proposed Canyonlands National Park in Utah is worth preserving - and we are convinced it is - then its great scenic beauty should be left unscarred .... This is one of the Western national parks from which mining activity should certainly be excludcd.',422 As the debate ensued once again, The New York Times published an overview of the debate. Unlike the local newspapers that presented diverse perspectives from Utahns who both favored and opposed the park, The New York Times article presented Utahns as having a unanimous voice on the Canyonlands: Utahans look upon Canyonlands as being caught in a political fight between mining interests and the 'pure park' advocates who want no mineral or oil development, no grazing and no hunting within a national park. At the same time, Utahans want an agreement that will enable the state to benefit by the mineral potential of Canyon lands. They also will not agree to taking 1,000,000 acres for a national park. They want something around the 254,000 acres provided in bills presented to Congress.423 During the entire debate - from the time Udall introduced the idea of a Canyonlands National Park until the legislation passed - the San Francisco Examiner was silent on the issue. Oddly, the newspaper covered a substantial number of stories from Utah that would seem to be of similar or lesser news value as the park controversy and eventual creation. For example, during the Canyonlands debate the San Francisco Examiner ran wire stories about the illness and recovery ofLDS church President McKay. 424 It ran stories on progress in m Ne w Yor k Times, "Canyonlands and Mining," July 13, 1963, 16. m William M. Blair, ··west in Dispute on Canyonlan<ls;· New York Times, July 27, 1963, 20. • 1• Associated Press, ··McKily Better," San Francisco Examiner, August 28, 1964. 28. |
