Mark Levin and many others have made these points before. The lands belong to the states, to the citizens of the states specifically as the founding fathers saw fit, and I wonder now days why so many state politicians allow the state citizens to be over run by the very evil DC politicians who have only grow government, it as if they are selling off parts of states to the feds and thereby disenfranchising American States. I wonder why state politicians would do such a thing, much as billy Clinton sold the panama canal to China and 20% Americas radium to Russia and Obama hitlery sold mineral rights like oil and gas to American states and ... . Is there a greater evil in American statehouses as the left and the rino right have banded together and put a 4 sale sign on America.
Refresh my memory, how did Bill Clinton sell the Panama Canal to the Chinese.
Texas and Hawaii were independent republics prior to joining the Union, so their story is different.
Into the 1880's, the federal government actively sold or granted most of its lands in the eastern half of the country to the states and to individuals for purposes of yeoman farming. What happened in the 1880's, however, is that settlement was spreading into the desert and mountain west, where land was not suitable for agriculture. Congress found that the little guys had been marginalized and that it was primarily big ranchers and timber and mining barons who were purchasing huge tracts of land for commercial use. This was not in the spirit of pioneering homesteaders, and Congress reconsidered. It shifted to a leasing rather than a purchase model. That worked reasonably well for a long time, as BLM and the Forest Service worked in tandem with western residents for economic development. What has changed in recent decades, however, is that environmentalists have ruptured the historic partnership, and now seek to curtail economic use of federal lands with an eye towards turning the west into a vast theme park for vacationing easterners. Hence the current western land wars.
One can certainly argue that it would have been better had Congress conveyed most federal lands to state ownership at the point of statehood. But that's water under the bridge. That is not what Congress did.
My preference would be to sell off a substantial portion of federal western lands (protecting the National Parks and Monuments, and with appropriate modern environmental safeguards) and use the proceeds for expansion of National Parks in the east, which is relatively overcrowded and underserved in terms of major parks. This should apply to the BRAC process as well. It irritates me that the military closes a base, and we give the land to local civil jurisdiction so that local politicians can play kissy-face politics with local developers. Meanwhile, we scramble for pennies to save (for example) nationally important historic sites that ought to be parks. We should connect the dots. There is a lot of federal property than can and should be sold, with the proceeds used for appropriate park maintenance, improvement, and expansion. YMMV.