Free advertising is benefit of upgrade, 
backers of park status say

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*

Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

What guarantee do the proponents of elevating the status of our Monument to National Park have that this advertising would happen and how often? Once in ten years? monthly? The Feds own or manage enough of our land. Feds have done a bang up job in the national forests haven’t they? The victims of last years forest blazes and subsequent flood in the Thompson canyon may be able to tell them about how well they think the Fed has done in that job. Further it would allow limited access as we have seen in the BLM lands and has the prospect of infringing on water rights and adjacent property rights. There is always a price to pay for so called free stuff and it is usually more costly than it is worth. Sandy Price

A friend and I drove across the Monument yesterday.  It was a very busy day up there with lots of cars, hikers, bikers and bicyclists everywhere!  As I drove the narrow winding road on the edge of the cliffs, I cringed at the thought of tour buses making their way along that narrow road.  I tried to imagine them getting around the bicyclists, and trying to find parking in the small pullouts available (which were all full).  For all of you so intent on bringing this probable disaster to reality?  I suggest you take a drive up there try to visualize this yourselves.  This should not be about generating revenue, but about safety, AND the costs to taxpayers to make this possible (and safe). Because it will, in the end cost the taxpayer.  Our Monument is a beautiful, unique area but I don’t think it qualifies status as a National Park… to compare it with Rocky Mountain National Park or Utah’s National Parks is really a bit of a stretch.

The park boosters use the term advertising when they mean free listing. In advertising, you control the message and, to some extent, its timing and delivery. Placing a message you don’t control in the same context as all your competitors, especially when you are among the smallest in a crowd of 60, is not an advertising strategy. It’s a Hail Mary.

Perhaps the supporters hope the new park will garner some favorable coverage, and it might at first. But with earned media (i.e., coverage you don’t pay for), you have to keep coming up with a fresh story. That’s not the case here in Happy Valley, where the Sentinel seems willing to provide “free advertising” for the same story over and over.

The Rand McNally argument has been forwarded before. Increasingly, travelers refer to the web and mobile devices, not paper maps. I checked the Rand McNally site and found that national parks/monuments are displayed according to size, not prominence or prestige.

For example, labels for Dinosaur National Monument, Curecanti National Rec Area and Canyons of the Ancients National Monument all appear on the Colorado portion of the map before any of the national parks. The name of CNM, because of its small area, appears only at the higher magnifications, something that park status would not change.

P.S. How will Grand Junction get free promotion in a Sunset Magazine story about the nation’s most popular parks. Seems to me that will take more investment than hanging out a new sign.

Will raising the status of this public structure also empower special interests to use it to control the Grand Valley? In the Clean Air Act, the viewshed of something such as a Nat’l Park or Wilderness area, is it’s right, not ours. It can control or be used to control all in IT’S view.

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Subscribe to print edition
Sign in to your account

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy