| OCR Text |
Show 172 Although it extended a lukewann reception to the new parks, The Salt Lake Tribune predicted economic benefits: "Any increase in this largely non-exploitive, nonconsumptive industry is a major contribution to the state's economy. We cannot turn our back on such positive economic gains."129 However, the economic enticement of national park tourism was impeded by environmental groups, according to a Deseret News editorial. Unlike the first na1ional parks in Utah, where the unanimous cry was "more roads," some voices in the debate over Arches and Capitol Reef decried roads as detrimental to the landscape. The Deseret News reported: "Utah Sen. Frank E. Moss fired a fresh shot in the continuing struggle over development in national tourist and recreation lands in the state .... he mentioned the need to move ahead with road improvcmcnts.'..s 3o One of the final amendments made to the Arches and Capitol Reef bi lls was to require federal and state officials to study and propose new roads within the parks and connecting them. The mandate carried a two-year dead line motivated by pressure from President Nixon and members of Congress to create wilderness areas in national parks. Proposing roads would exclude wilderness designations, which were designed to preserve land from any development. After the parks bills passed the Senate, Moss stressed the importance of national parks and roads: "Parks are for people, and people need to have access to them and ability to get in and sec the beauties that are set a,;ide as part of their national hcritage."531 n 9 1bid. no Salt lake Tribrme, .. Road Systems in New Park Lands Nci,:t Phase for Long Struggle,'' June 23, 1971, Al 4. rn Fmnk llcwlctt, ··senate Votes Approval to Bills on Status of four Utah Parks," Salt lake Tribune, June 22,1971,15. |
