Jonathan Cook wrote

The public is _entitled_ to the land simply _because_ it is public
land. The federal government aquired the land either through
purchasing or through ceding of land from defeats in war. It was
never _owned_ by private citizens of the US and so it is owned by
"the public". The government is allowed to put policy in place as
to how to use that land, and if it wants to allow "the public" to
use it for recreation, then "the public" is _entitled_ to such
use.

It is unfortunate (although I confess to great grudging admiration of the
skill involved) that the terms of public discourse have so effectively been
twisted by ultra-conservatives over the past two decades that otherwise very
intelligent people take this distinction, ("federal government" vs. "the
public"), as some inherently, necessarily adversarial dichotomy. Private
citizens have always owned the public lands of the U.S., just collectively
rather than separately, individually.

The People of the United States own the Public Domain. All of us. Equally.
This is a simple concept. It is, however, literally, historically
revolutionary, which is why many people, even citizens who in fact are
themselves the owners of the land, have a hard time getting their heads
around the whole notion. In the U.S., "the State" does not own public
lands; the People do, as a commonwealth. We have merely chosen to confer
management and care--as we do various for other public functions--to various
levels governments ("of the people," remember?): federal, state, local.

From 1791 to 1867, the People of the United States acquired, through the
means Jon mentioned, a Public Domain of around 1.84 billion acres
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-1_01.pdf, and between 1871 and the
present, the People have disposed of around 1.27 billion of those.
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-2_01.pdf.

Now, it's valid, I think, for the People to debate policies of management of
our common lands, including I suppose whether we want to dispose of more of
them, but I think the debate is wrongly skewed if we, the Owners, allow
ourselves to begin to be convinced that the State owns our land, or that
only a small minority ("users") have some separate, unfair claim on the land
that is somehow being "subsidized" by an abused majority ("taxpayers").

JR