OCR Text |
Show l-.-t 1 C .. -.t fc-'i,..-.-, .O-v-j K,.-h (-, y.. 1 u .. -,fr -i m.ijr- 1 " nmm. Editor, Times-Independent Dear Sam: I noted with dismay, but not surprise, that the Park Service is not going to build the road from Squaw Flat toward to-ward the confluence "this winter." I do not believe this announcement is just coincidental coinci-dental with the fact that Can-yonlands, Can-yonlands, Arches and Capitol Reef have just had their size legislatively created. I believe be-lieve this whole thing has been planned. We all remember the promises pro-mises of development at Can-yonlands Can-yonlands during the debate on its creation, and the projections pro-jections of millions of tourists tour-ists flocking in accompanied by economic Utopia because of a National Park. We also know the truth that National Parks, per se, do not create vast economic benefits from tourism. Our neighbor Colorado, Colo-rado, with far less Parks, etc., keeps tourists much longer by keeping multipls use of their lands and developing devel-oping man made facilities and things to do in addition to having the natural scenic values. Remember about 4 years ago when the Park Service announced they were not going go-ing to build a road from Squaw Flat to the confluence? It tookl 2 years and the combined com-bined efforts oi the people and leaders of our 2 Counties along with help from our Governor to get them to "reconsider." "re-consider." We were then told that as soon as the engineering engineer-ing could be completed the project could at last begin. As I recall, it was a year ago that it was announced il would begin "any day now." During the past 2 years the County Commissioners of the southern Utah Counties have opposed the expansion of Canyonlands, Arches and Capitol Reef. Some of the reasons tor this opposition were: 1. If there is insufficient insuffic-ient funds to develop and administer ad-minister the existing acreage, acre-age, why expand the area to add to the problem. 2. The credibility gap between what the Park Service and Congress Con-gress promised or inferred would be done and what is actually ac-tually done. 3. By expansion, we not only lose the benefits of multiple use including recreation, rec-reation, but lose the opportunity oppor-tunity of the great majority of our citizens to enjoy "their land" such as the average person with a wife and children, chil-dren, the old, the infirm, and the paraplegic. In other words it becomes more apparent that these areas will be "preserved" "pre-served" for only those who have the time, money, and physical stamina to charter airplanes, jeeps, and horses, or to do extensive hiking. In my opinion, Senator Moss, irrespective of his public pub-lic statements that "Parks are for People," and how great tourism is going to be for Utah as a viable part of our economy, has been used by the Sahara Club and their cronies to gain virtually private pri-vate ownership and control over Canyonlands. Capitol Reef and Arches, which we now call National Parks. Their next immediate step will be to do the same to Glen Canyon and the Escalante. Some Sahara club members assertions that they have our good Senator in their "hip pocket" is apparently no idle boast. The Park Service announcement announ-cement is no surprise. I fully expected and predicted it some time ago. I believe any new environmntal study is only required because of past delays which were planned so a new study can show that large bridges- as planned can be considered "no-no's" so the whole thing can be scrapped. scrap-ped. I hope I am wrong and the Park Service will speedily prove me so. Anyone want odds? ..Jiij Sincerely, Cal Black Dear Editor: On December 2, 1971, a public hearing was held in Salt Lake City by the State Air Conservation Committee and the Board of Health. The entire proceedings were recorded re-corded by a court reporter and a transcript of this public pub-lic hearing will become available av-ailable to the public. That is, if the public can afford to pay fifty cents per page for this copy. The estimated cost of the transcript of this hearing, hear-ing, including the testimony offered by mail, is one hundred hun-dred fifty dollars. I am told by the Department of Health that I may come to the office to read their copy. Now that is not very practical suggestion sugges-tion for a resident of Moab! I suggested that I duplicate their copy at my expense of five cents per page, which would reduce my cost to a reasonable fifteen dollars. I was told that this is not permissible per-missible and. that the present policy had been set by the Attorney General's office. I called the Attorney General's office and was advised that I should write a letter. This is the letter, a copy of which is being sent to the Attorney's Attorn-ey's office. I consider it absolutely unreasonable un-reasonable and a violation of the public trust when public information, generated in or as a result of a public hearing, hear-ing, at taxpayers' expense, is conducted in such a man- ner that the information priced beyond the reach ' he average interested or I tally concerned citizen In my opinion this 'J the of, "govern? the people, by the people and is clearly an unconsy tional restraint of m formation. UJ J. W. Gelo - |