The forest service budget is a few billion dollars or something like that. You'd have to be an idiot to attack federal public lands to minimize federal reach.
If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.
THIS. For goodness sakes. There's plenty to gripe about regarding federal over-reach and big-government, but federal land management is not one of them.
The core issue, as has already been pointed out, is that most states are under a legal requirement to SELL state-owned land unless that land can be managed for a profit. That is the antithesis of preserving land for recreation and conservation. How the hell are you supposed to secure and protect enough habitat to support an elk or mountain goat herd AND manage that land for profit at the same time? If the states didn't have the requirement to sell, this would become an interesting question about who is better than who at land management. As it stands, it's not even a question. The Federal government is legally allowed to preserve our lands. The states are not.
Steven Rinella said something on his podcast that hit me hard, and should motivate each and every one of us to fiercely protect our federal public lands.
"I own the title to 640 million acres of land, and so do each and every one of you."
It's also worth noting that the outdoor industry is 887 BILLION dollars a year in the US. Public lands in the West play a huge role in the outdoor industry.
Even if only a conservative estimate of half that revenue was related public land use, that's still over 400 BILLION dollars. I think the operating budgets that are roughly 1-2% of these revenues, and I consider that a pretty good return. Honestly, the amount of grazing and timber revenue folks get all spun up over really pales in comparison.