The Meeker herald. [volume] (Meeker, Colo.) 1885-current, 1889-03-02
That s.s,.s.i r.rh "seA-s,s."
MKKKEM, CoLO., Feb. 10, lss

11ot NatuoSob 6eS4 eaeSs~s
MxEKEm, Colo, Feb. 10, 1859.
To the Editor Of TMG iisHALpi
Upon my return from u trip In the
lower country ! WAS confronted with
the startling intelligence that l had
been most thoroughly dissected, and
had been present would have more
than likely suffered bodily harm ut the
hands Of some Of the Upper White river
people. for the simple reason That they
HEARD that l favored u National
Park"
will say that signed petition ask
leg that preliminary steps IL taken
favuring the setting aside Of . portion
II an -' slih iqa'li favor u al a;!eaa!, r.r.:
National Park SCHEME, and most
heartily In favor Of II. But in order 10
set myself Alright before the people Of
Upper White river, 10 whom l have
been mis,uotei and ruErosEi.Y Mis-
REPRESENTED. will give brief state
ment Of What I know OF the National
Park business:
II originated about two years ago. II
| | am correctly Informed. by parties liy-
ing outside Of Garfield county and who
have been in the habit of spending a
portion Of the summer In the vicinity 81
TrapJrrs' Lake, and no definite action
Was taken until las, fall when II petit
ton va, prepared. asking ,liat the land
10 withheld from market pending the
| - ~
was for the preservation Of game and
fish. and the conservation Of the water
supply by the preservation Of the vas;
forests nj the head, Of nearly all the
streams having their origin In the Hat
tops near Trappris' Lake. Tho Wis
dom 81 the above canno, L. questioned.
was approached last fall and asked
II would Sign Petition favo'ing the
Park. and receiving Nh affirmative AN
swer I was asEci concerning tho west
ern boundary Of the proposed Park. and
clearly defined my position To the gen
iicmrn having the matter In charge. !
stated then. ~ do now. that the IVES,
line should cross the North Fork Of
White river above Ia. upper end o!
POT hole" valley and on ,ouih 10 the
western rim II the na'-,op lp'ainl, Wis.
iblr from si-.scrl between tie North
and South Forks. thence south follow.
Ing said rim and crossing the South
Fork Of White river nj the mouth of The
canon al-pyr &. y. Grimes ranch.
Ihc.c boundaries I don't consider
Il
interest Of n s;ngl. individual living on
White river. - far "a, my favorIng the
limits Of the proposed Park takin. In
any ranch land now taken. OF land that
Is valuable for ranch purposes. do not
approve. and furthermore WIS very
particular In mentioning tia, there WAS
valuable ranch land already located on
the south Fork a. White river and that
II would not do 10 como far enough
west 10 interfere with suoli acquired
rights.
Should ,iic location 81 the Park In
any way hamper ,lr range interests Of
Whit. river. would opI-isS II iust rs
much n !, IL affected ranch interests,
but don, arprchcni that the rang. In
,ercs;s woul.i b. In any was affected.
am In favor oI the location OF either
n National or State Park II the locn'
lion OF tho same will have tendency 10
max. Trapr.Fs' and Marvin. Lakes and
the head u. white river tho most nj
tfac,iyc summer rcsot; in the State, rs
would uiost surely he the cas-. should
the Park 'schcmc" ~ through. i, is
not necessary for me :" point out the
benefits that would accrue la tho White
River yallry-,hcy are too apparent
". II. CLARK.