The Future Enjoyment of National Parks

The climb to Balcony House, Mesa Verde
National Parks are the needed peace in a busy world.  The National Parks System brings education and family togetherness as well as providing recreation for all.  I know my family and I would be lost without them.    

I recently read a blog entry entitled WhoShould Be Allowed to Purchase Privately Owned Lands in National Parks? about private individuals living inside National Park boundaries wishing to sell their properties.  This is an issue worth talking about. 

Of course, any private property does belong to those individuals and they have rights here in the United States of America.  They have a right to receive an accurate offer of the land’s value from the government.  They have a right to sell their home/land to another private individual.  However, I believe commercialization of the land should be avoided at all costs.  Perhaps a clause could be introduced to prohibit further commercialization of land within the National Park boundaries. 

The reason why these lands are so precious is because in their beauty they provide an escape from the rush-rush of life.  What do you think?      

7 thoughts on “The Future Enjoyment of National Parks”

  1. Hi Victoria Marie

    We have 15 National parks in the UK, the first and my local one, the Peak District was designated in 1951. There are many farms, villages and even small towns in our Parks.

    We have nowhere near as many National Parks as you do in the USA and ours came into being a lot later than yours. So there is commercialisation in ours and although not being ideal there are certain areas where restrictions take place.

    In an ideal world Theresa's comments make sense but in our case the Parks arrived long after the areas were inhabited. Was it the case in your country of people inhabiting the Parks after they were formed?


  2. Thank you both for visiting my blog.

    You are correct, Bill. If only we had that "ideal world" where Theresa's and my dream that no further land in National Parks could be exploited. But this is reality where some private citizens own homes on the land that had subsequently become a National Park. As far as I know, once the land had been set aside for a National Park, private purchase for homesteads was prohibited.

    The present dilemma is about private individuals who still live on land that is NOW a National Park. Should they be permitted to sell their land to developers? I agree with Theresa. The answer is a resounding NO!

    Thank you, Theresa and Bill, for visiting my blog. Please stop by again.

  3. Thank you so much, Lynda, for visiting my blog. We are in total agreement. National Parks need to be protected for future generations to enjoy and bring the peace that only nature can bring.

    Thanks for your input. Please stop by again.

  4. I think what happened, Marie, is that National Park land was drawn up to incorporate the private homesteads of these families.

    And now, since the government doesn't have any money to buy up the private homesteads because the money that was set aside for this purpose has been used for other things [that's politics for you!], the private individuals want to sell to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, companies would love to commercialize beautiful park lands.

    My readers seem to think this is a bad idea, and I totally agree.

    Thanks so much, Marie, for reading my blog post. Please stop by again.


Leave a Comment