| OCR Text |
Show 162 considerable opposition from others," The Salt lake Tribune obscrvcd.493 I lowever, from the time Johnson made his executive order until hearings four months later, both state papers provided only one source who "lauded" Johnson's move - Bates Wilson, superintendent of Canyonlands National Park.494 However, in the days following the presidential order, The New York Times cited sources outside the government in both support and opposition.495 Wilson also testified, presenting a view that was reflected among the first times in coverage. 11 is argument for larger national parks was based on economics and geology. The national park designation, he asserted, would bring more tourists. The enlarged boundaries would encompass a more complete geological story in these parks. I le argued that the addition of Salt Valley to Arches was essential because it represented a geological formation that would "form the arches of the future.',496 The extended boundaries in Capitol Reef included all of the Waterpocket Fold, a one•hundred-mile long warp in the Earth's crust. On the firs t day of hearings, the Deseret News gave space to one voice of support for enlarging the boundaries beyond the Moss bill;497 The Salt lake Tribune included a number of sources from this under-reported perspective. Noel de Nevers, a University of Utah professor of chemical engineering, 1estified that the value of mineral deposits was 493 Dick Wilson, '"Park Hopes Rise in Actions on Arches," Sah Lake Tribune, January 30, 1969, Bl. Dorothy O. Rea, '·'Land Grab' Hearing in Moab," Deseret News, February 11 , 1969, Bl ;Salt lake Tribune, ··Moab Meeting Mulls Arches, Reef Edict," February 12, 1969, 86. 494 495 Jack Goodman, "Protecting the Colorado's Banks," New York Times, February 2, 1969, 15. 496 Rea, "Hearing in Moab," Deseret News, February 11 , 1969. 497 Paul Swenson, "Reef Arca Rich in Oil, Uranium, Smvcy Reports," Deseret News, May IS, 1969, 8 1. |
