Opponents claim the land could be made more economically productive. They say wildlands are a detriment to society and do not help the average citizen. And they argue—somewhat bizarrely—that our children will one day thank us for not making parks. President Theodore Roosevelt in Yellowstone National Park in 1903.

Opposition to national parks typically stems from concerns regarding land rights, economic restrictions, and local sovereignty. Many critics argue that the federal designation of a national park can result in the "locking up" of valuable natural resources, preventing local communities from engaging in traditional industries like logging, mining, or commercial grazing. In 2026, a major point of contention involves "Indigenous Sovereignty"; many national parks were created on ancestral lands where native populations were displaced, leading to ongoing legal battles for land "return" or co-management. Additionally, local residents near popular parks often oppose them because of "overtourism"—the influx of millions of visitors causes massive traffic congestion, drives up the cost of housing for locals, and puts a strain on local emergency services without a corresponding increase in local tax revenue. While the environmental benefits are clear, the "social and economic" cost to the immediate neighbors of the park is often the primary driver of organized opposition to new park designations or expansions.