| OCR Text |
Show 144 when it is considered that a Republican can do this in the light of the two-to-one Democratic majority in the committee.',442 Representative Burton, who had fought to keep multiple-use provisions in the bill, said he expected "to get some flack [sic)" from his constituents and colleagues because of the amendments. Regardless, he voted to move the bill to the House floor and told The Salt lake Tribune: ;,I am convinced that 30 years from now I will be proud of the vote I am casting for a pure park and the next generation will thank mc.'"' 43 On August 19, 1964, the House voted unanimously to create the Canyonlands park. Senator Moss, who had pushed the legislation for so long, had mixed reactions: "Even though it is not exactly what I wanted ... at least we have a national park and I will reluctantly compromise on crippling amendments in order to salvage the main concepts of Canyonlands.',444 Moss reluctantly asked for a conference committee to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. His trepidation stemmed from fears that a continued push for multiple use would jeopardize the park. The Salt lake Tribune observed that Moss "would accept the House 's no-mining edict rather than lose the park. This is also the position of Sen. Wallace F. Bcnnett.'"'45 In the end, Moss secured two minor concessions from the conference committee. Those who held grazing permits in the Canyonlands could renew them once, which would phase out grazing over twenty years, not ten. Also, the committee agreed to a 12044 1 Hewlett, ··Group Okchs Canyonland [sic] Bill," Salt Lake Tribune, August l l , 1964. 443 Frank Hewlett, "Panel Okchs Moss Canyonlands Bill," Salt Lake Trib11ne, August 14, 1964, A2. Frank Hewlett, " House Passes Canyonlands - Approval in Senate Likely," Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, 1964, AI. 444 44 l Frank Hewlett, "Economic Benefits Roll Into S. Utah," Salt lake Tribune, August 23, 1964, A4. |
