| OCR Text |
Show 165 ranchers" made up the majority of the witnesses, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. 507 "At one point Sen. Alan Bible, 0-Nev., subcommittee chairman, had to gavel down an outburst of applause on behalf of a witness who opposed the enlarged park status ... 'You can rest assured,' Sen. Bible said, 'that the boundaries will be at least cut back as far as Sen. Moss' bill goes and maybe even further than that."' 508 Although both newspapers carried witnesses' arguments for and against the park, most were grounded in economics rather than environmental considcrations. 509 At the close of the third day of hearings in Moab, Moss expressed optimism that he could craft boundaries that avoided contested lands and that multiple uses could be acconunodated in the new parks. I le characterized the hearings as "very helpful and relieved some of the emotional tension by allowing Utahns to express themselves on the monuments' boundaries enraged [sic] by presidential proclamation.'.sio Moss compared the Arches and Capitol Reef hearings to those held seven years earlier for the Canyonlands proposal. The Salt lake Tribune quoted Moss: "Overall I found the opposition to the Arches proposal or less intensity than that to the Canyonlands National Park when that proposal was being heard here in committee hearings ... and today there is wide acceptance or the Canyonlands."s 11 so 7 Douglas L. Parker, "Irate Ranchers Open Fire on 'Reef Park Boundaries," Salt lake Tribune, May 17, 1969, Bl. SOl! lbid ~ Reed L. Madsen, '"Favor Park Hut Not Enlargement," Deseret News, May 17, 1969, 134; Sult lake Tribune, "'U.S. Dates 2-Day Utah 'Reefs' Meet," May 20, 1969, A\3. sio Douglas L. Parker, "Pro, Con Factions Argue Arches Plans at Moab," Salt lake Tribune, May 18, 1969, Bl. Sl! ]bid. |
