OCR Text |
Show we think it's justified Atpproval this week ,by the National Parks Advisory Advis-ory Board, of addition of some 102,000 acres to Canyonlands Can-yonlands National Park, removes one last roadblock prior to official action on the increase by Congress. Remaining now is approval by the Secretary of Interior, and then consideration of the proposal by Congress itself, of a bill introduced late last year by Senator Frank E. Moss, the original sponsor of the Canyonlands National Park Bill. Four major portions of scenic and historically-rich historically-rich land are involved in the proposal. With the exception excep-tion of .one (the small acreage extension which would take over Dead Horse Point from the State Park Commission Com-mission f n objection we have fully explained in the past) we favor the proposed addition. Primary area sought for Canyonlands, and the one involving the most acreage, is the Maze area, west of the confluence of the Green and Colorado rivers. riv-ers. The Maze, while similar in; nature to the Needles section of Canyonlands, is unique in that it can be viewed all along its length by a parallel promentory, which would be easily accessible to passenger car travel tra-vel with minimal road building. Now accessible by jeeip, horseback or hiking (unless you happen to be a Washington official with access to a helicopter), it will provide limited jeeping and hiking opportunities and a chance to see some very unique Indian picto-graphs. picto-graphs. In addition, it is all wrapped up in. the early livestock and outlaw history of Southeastern Utah, being immediately adjacent to the famed Robbers Roost country. The second largest recommended addition, is the Indian ruin-rich canyon country between Squaw Flat .and Indian Creek, including Lavendar and Cottonwood Canyons. This area should definitely have been added to Canyonlands when the bill was first considered, because be-cause it contains some of the best Indian ruins in the park, and is in need of the close protection the National Nation-al Park Service can provide. A small extension on the northwest corner of the park would include all of Taylor Canyon, west of the Neck. This boundary change makes sense, because presently the line runs down the bottom of the Canyon, Can-yon, and makes supervision difficult. The final section recommended for addition is in question. That is the Dead Horse Point property, first offered to the Federal government by the State Park Commission, which later withdrew the offer when local lo-cal opposition developed. We are opposed to this portion por-tion of the expansion plan, because the State of Utah has invested considerable money in development; is nearly through with the job ; and is managing the park in an excellent manner. The State Park laws also provide pro-vide for multiple use which could be- important in the Dead Horse area. Although mineral possibilities in the Canyonlands areas can never be discounted, due to lack of exploration, explora-tion, efforts have been made (at least in the west side extension) to steer clear of mineral potential. The French Seep tar sands areas would not be effected by the enlargement. Despite the fact that the requested enlargements would amount -to about a 50 per cent increase in the size of Canyonlands, for the most part, they make good sense to us. After a long winter of taking issue with plans of Utah's junior U. S. Senator, we commend his plan for Canyonlands as being in. the best interests of good park management, and wish him success in passage. |