I know what you mean. I am a bit conflicted about this issue.
States are there for a reason—and I am more prone to having the federal government stay out of a state unless it is for a specific Constitutional purpose.
There may have been a time for the feds to control large portions of Nevada, Utah, California, etc. The nation was expanding and citizens moving out there needed protection.... but why should DC get to tell the people of Alaska, etc. what can be done on their land now?
Generally speaking, I agree with you. But the policy of federal land ownership, for better or worse, is longstanding. The left overwhelmingly supports that policy. I am not above using it against them. “Politics is war by other means.”
I would be open to revising federal land ownership policies, but now it is what it is.