It's tricky. The original agreement on national forests was that the local community would lose out on having a property tax base but that the forests would create jobs/income in other ways. Then slowly the feds cut out all those income streams leaving communities hurting. We used to get money from a federal fund to pay for schools to make up for the lost property tax revenue but we no longer do.
I don't want the forests sold, hate Project 2025 and think the current admin is doing horrible, but there has been a lot bad faith on both side to get everyone so divided, with lots of promises/commitments/agreements just flat out broken by the left without a care to the impact on actual lives. My town had three mills, today it has none. Our lake management has been switched to actively destructive to the local community (changing lake levels in ways that destroy docks/marinas/prevent boat access and impact local fish spawning) in order to send water downstream for federal pet projects even though the Feds promised it would be managed like a natural lake when they put the dam in. Our lake use to be crystal clean and you could see down 20-30 feet. Now because it's more stagnant from the damn and has time to warm up you can't see down 3.
The states mentioned already have state land for state benefit, and they are managed as a resource and don't provide the type of nature that the national forests do with hunting, wheeling, camping recreation. They are heavily logged. They used to lease the land but now just sell it off and get one payday.
Again I hate project 2025 but the left tore up Federal agreements with local communities like Trump is doing now and no one cared because it only ruined loggers/miners/logging truckers/mill workers' lives and 'was for a good reason' (created a logging ban for all practical purposes) or destroyed lakes they were willing to sacrifice for their pet projects lower down the watershed.