| OCR Text |
Show 163 overstated by those opposed to the parks. The Salt Lake Tribune reported this challenge for the first time since Johnson left office - to COWltcr the claim that national monument and park status would "lock up" the land: "Including the monument sites, as expanded by presidential proclamation, into national parks will not 'lock up' mineral deposits, [de Nevers] said. Congress, ifit finds it in the national interest to exploit minerals there, can open up the area to such commercial interest by law.',4 98 This same article marked the first time anyone contested the "land grab" characterization used in news and opinion pages of both Utah newspapers to describe Johnson's executive order. The Salt Lake Tribune quoted Senator Moss, who said it was erroneous to refer to the enlargement of the monuments as a "land grab" because nearly all the land involved was already public land. 499 The hearings marked the first time in this debate that a state newspaper cited representatives from environmental advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club, Wasatch Mountain Club, and the Audubon Society. These groups gave testimony that national park status based on the enlarged boundaries would protect the "unique desert ccology."'00 From the testimony of Superintendent Wilson to environmental groups, state news coverage revealed that some park advocates saw the national park designation as more than protection of scenery. They saw the land designation as a way to protect geology, flora, fauna, and ecosystems. Still, judging from local news accounts, these were not widely held views, and those who espoused the ideas were often pejoratively labeled ·~ Parker, ··Diverse Park Interests," Salt lake Tribune, May 16, 1969. 4 ~ 1bid. ~ Ibid. |
