I think limiting the power of the federal government on almost any level is a GOOD THING. Its public land and often the feds think it belongs to them to do with as they please. ITS ALL OUR LAND, WE THE PEOPLE!
Based on my experience in SoCal and Oregon it is a good thing. The Feds can't take care of the ground they own now. Each POTUS apparently has to permanently set aside lands so they can have a legacy. Up here we se huge acreages of land succumbing to invasive weeds. Area that then need huge applications of pesticides. When you go roadless or wilderness you lose the ability to do it effectively and economically. Then you have habitat degradation by non-native plants. The ability of the land to sustain healthy populations of animals, especially large animals that we love and love to eat diminishes. When you have a large track of national forest land you canmanage it, at least in theory. You can thin out trees, harvest tres, bring in equipment to fix erosion problems, better manage controlled, re-seed, and so on. When you close off an area then you your task is nearly impossible. Over half this state ius owned by the govt. They can't cut trees, they can't manage. We have a huge tract opf national forest that feeds the weather supply of Portland. You can't even walk in there. They added thousands of acres of land to that cutting off even more access. Ask any one whoi has hunted the Whites how much of the best hunting now lies within Death Valley NP. You set up a wilderness or monument and a eminent domain crazy manager and your in deep trouble if you own property next door. Mike Dombeck ran(runed) the Siuslaw National Forest up here. He was the one that created the Forest Pass. He also ran an agency that wormed its way onto private land and tried to bully its neighbors. Case in point, I have a friend who oiwns land in the Salmon River Valley on the Central Coast. USFS bought some land, then using the Nature Conservamcy acquired most of it. They then tried to prevent him from first building a barn on his private property claiming the valley was a scenic area. They took all the levees out of the valley to recreate estuary and improve salmon habitat (a good thing actually) when they wanted him to do the same they he said no, he wnated to use his land to raise his livestock they became a pain in the backside. They had to set up a levee to keep saltwater out of his pasture. They built a half-assed one that broke every winter inundating his pasture, changing the quality of forage. Not enough for him to sue for a taking, but enough to change how he could run his operation. I am far from a fan of monument designations.
I would like it to be mandatory that ALL states have the same percentage of land in National Forest, BLm, NP, Wilderness, and monument designations. When ALL states, especially the east coast ones have to deal with what the West does, then we can talk about expanding and creating designations here.