There has been a great amount of discussion regarding federal land and National Parks this year, with many politicians attempting to make a name for themselves by taking up the position that federal land should not belong to the federal government, and instead should be seized by the individual states that the land is bounded by. This political posturing may be a difference of opinion between the parties, but the potential future of our National Parks may hang in the balance. By the theory of federal land being transferred to the individual states, the outcome could be current National Parks being sold off to the highest bidders for a variety of activities including development, drilling, exploration, logging, fracking and pipelines. While this may seem like something worth considering as it could raise money for cash-strapped states, the consideration must be made to recognize the fact that our unspoiled National Parks cannot be recovered if any of these activities were to take place. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. A prime example of this fight is happening in Colorado, where Republican nominee Bob Beauprez recently stated during a debate that he supported the seizure of Colorado’s national parks, forests and public lands by the state government, saying “this is fight we have to wage.” He went on to say that if the land were being leased from the state by the federal government, "we would cancel their lease." His opponent Gov. Hickenlooper retorted by asking where Beauprez planned of acquiring the additional funding that would be necessary to maintain the additional land in question on a state level, pointing out that the additional burden to the taxpayers would be around $200 million annually. If the costs of battling forest fires is to be addressed, the costs to taxpayers could be in the
There has been a great amount of discussion regarding federal land and National Parks this year, with many politicians attempting to make a name for