| OCR Text |
Show 141 proposed park would face serious opposition from conservation supporters, many doubted any lcgisiation would make it through Congress. The New York Times reported the uncertainty surrounding the bill: "House passage of the bill in its present form [is) doubtful ... It is expected that conservationists would insist that any park created in the area measure up to National Park [sic] standards - that is, single use for recreation only with no mineral, oil or gas exploration or production pcrmittcd.'"' 29 Similarly, The Salt lake Tribune reported: "The outlook isn't favorable for passage by the House of Representatives this year of the Senate-approved bill to create the Canyonlands National Park in Southern Utah." The article noted that even Secretary Udall, the park's strongest supporter, "seems to be losing some of his enthusiasm for the project."430 The prospect of ending another session of Congress without a national park prompted some conservation groups to campaign for a presidential proclamation to create a national monument of the original one-million-acre park proposal. The logic was that national monument designation would provide an opening for legislation to simply elevate the monument's staru.s to national park. 431 Almost everyone had written off the possibility of the park making it through Congress when, in June 1964, the chairman of the House National Parks Subcommittee William M. Blair, "A Canyonlands National Park in U1ah Backed by Senate Group," New York Times , August 1, 1963, 27. 429 ° Frank Hewlett, "'Hopes Fade for Utah Park Okeh," Saft lake Tribune, January 12, 1964, 3. "Okch'" was common headline parlance for '"OK." 43 rn Blair, "Canyonlands Backed by Senate," New York Times, August I, 1963 . |
