Have you considered that the East Coast should not be seen as an example of good environmental practices or urban development that doesn't fuck most of the local ecosystem? Have you considered the national parks and lands out west are so big because the East Coast has barely any wild spaces left, and destroyed most of the natural predators that are protected in national parks?
Have you considered that maybe we need those parks to be so big so some species and critical habitats aren't easily fucked over by people just out for another mountain lodge or timber operation in old growth forests? Or because the land is an economic engine itself to the surrounding communities, that would disappear if it could be bought out enmasse by someone like Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg?
Have you considered that much of the Federal land isn't park or even open to the public, but are military bases and installations vital for national security (supposedly), and even Indian reservations (reservations count as Federal land for those numbers)?
Your viewpoint is a farce to people who actually understand why so much land out west is Federally owned, and why it is better that way.
...well, congrats on convincing me those who say you are just a troll pretending to be a strawman of the Right by staking out ridiculous positions are actually right.
I'm sorry I defended you as an honest debater instead of strawman troll.
In no case should more then 50% of a state be federal land. That is just too much. Its entirely unreasonble and its not sustainable in the long term.