Utah Senator Mike Lee announced that he will not pursue a controversial change to federal legislation that has faced significant backlash from conservation groups. His office confirmed on Friday that selling national parks was never a consideration. Initially, Lee proposed to remove a section of a spending bill that mandated national park lands remain federal properties. This proposal was met with strong opposition from organizations like the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, which argued that such a change could facilitate the selling off of national parks. Earlier this summer, Lee attempted to add a mandate concerning the sale of some public lands, excluding national parks and monuments, to a Republican megabill. This move was abandoned after considerable pushback from advocates for hunting and recreation. On Thursday, Lee's spokesperson indicated that a revised amendment had been filed to retain the section he initially sought to eliminate. Senator Lee, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a statement clarifying his stance: "I categorically oppose selling national parks." He mentioned that the U.S. Department of the Interior had expressed concerns regarding the proposed changes, noting that they could restrict routine land exchanges that Congress has historically approved. Lee emphasized that the intent behind the changes was never to remove protections for national parks. Some advocates, however, expressed skepticism about his motives, highlighting the need for vigilance as the appropriations bill has yet to be signed. Additionally, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska publicly defended Lee, stating that he sought to amend a provision that could have unintended consequences for the Park Service's routine actions. The conversation around national parks has intensified amid concerns over budget cuts and staffing shortages within the National Park Service. Linda Mazzu, a retired superintendent at Bryce Canyon National Park, pointed out the challenges faced by the Park Service, which is dealing with staffing reductions and proposed budget cuts. The future of smaller national park sites, which might not receive the same attention as larger parks, remains uncertain, raising questions about their management and preservation.