| OCR Text |
Show 182 to avoid lands that held economic potential other than scenery 10 attract tourists. His approach was only slightly less constricted than the argument from Utah's Republican delegation that national parks should be tightly drawn to include only "truly unique and spectacular arcas." 555 The debate over what types of lands should be included in parks brought up Runtc's "useless lands" thesis in a different light. Because attracting tourists was considered a value, landscapes were evaluated on that criterion. A 1969 Salt Lake Tribune editorial illustrated the argument over what land should qualify for national park status: "There also is some question as to whether either of the proposed areas are sufficiently endowed with natural wonder to merit national park status." Setting aside too large a park, the editorial contended, "means locking up many acres of land of dubious scenic or geologic interest in order to include enough significant features to 'offer a complete [geological] story.' We wonder if the 'story' in Arches and Capitol Reef is that important."556 This opinion illustrates the complexity in editorializing about the national parks. Editorial positions associated with Canyonlands, Arches, and Capitol Reef vacillated among seemingly contradictory statements of support, opposition, reluctant welcoming, and pride that the state shared with California the distinction of claiming five parks. Although reflected in an editorial, this provides insight into the divergent storylines that competed for space in news stories. m Salt LC/ke Tribune, ·Bennett Asks 3 Parks- Instead of I." September 17, 1961, A9. 116 Salt LC/ke Tribune, ·Park Status Premature," May 22, 1969. |
