You say that like there is some inherent reason that it’s bad. Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans. This land belongs our children. We’re selling it off to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
I'm strongly against this change, but saying that federal land belongs to us is also wrong. The vast majority of it is closed off to public access, and what they do allow us to use is almost always full months in advance and packed with people. Some of my favorite spots are now closed for various reasons and they will jack you up for trespassing worse than a private owner could. I'm a huge advocate of zero impact (or leave no trace) use, and it's very true that many people will trash stuff, but it's definitely not my land whatsoever.
We should be expanding public access, not selling it off
.8% is a bit misleading. Public Land is 37% (as of 1991) [1] of the state. The ADK park is state owned/managed and huge. Catskill region also has lots of public land. They're both amazing places I'm happy don't look like the US side of Niagara falls [2]
> Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans.
So if it belongs to me, can I build a house there? Plant crops? Go hiking or camping? Can I do these things whenever I please without asking anyone? Because I wouldn't say "that land belongs to me" in any meaningful sense. National parks aside, I don't see how citizens benefit from the government owning large tracts of land.
Planting and harvesting are managed activities to protect the local ecosystem but there are permits available for both activities. You are also free to go hiking and camping within the rules (distance requirements from roads and trails, wildfire management restrictions, stay limits to prevent lasting damage, etc) across the _vast_ majority of publicly owned lands. Even building structures can be done in specific circumstances with permits or leases.
This is all such easily accessed information direct from NFS, NPS, and BLM government websites, it's impossible to not view your comment as written in bad faith. Public lands are broadly your lands to enjoy and use as they exist in their natural state, so long as you're not depriving others of the same access.
Most national lands, you can in fact go hiking or camping there without asking anyone for permission. Some are permitted but only high-traffic areas. In the national forests for the most part you can literally pull over on the side of the road anywhere and camp.
In general you can do anything on the land that doesn't impede other people's ability to also do anything on general on the land. Permanent houses or crops would impede other members of the public who also own the land.
I'm curious why you exempted national parks and not national forest when the latter allows for even more use.
Personally, I use my public lands all the time, visiting several times a week and camping frequently. There's a 30K-acre chunk of national forest nearby we sold to a private corporation over a decade ago and now that's all cut off. They're just sitting on it. Used to be hunters and foragers and mountain bikers and motorcyclists and horses... Now all off limits. And what did we get in exchange?
I'm a big fan of camping in federal lands. No permits like stupid state parks, just a 2 week limit on location. I like to 4x4 on old trails, pick a wild spot that looks good for camp, then break out the axe to find firewood.
If you are not constrained by a vault toilet and pack your own water, it is a playground.
We should be expanding public access, not selling it off