People joke that BLM land is the leftover land that nobody wanted. But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. Th

People joke that BLM land is the leftover land that nobody wanted. But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. BLM is, in general, less restrictive than all other types of public land (e.g., National Parks & National Forest). Nearly all public land in Colorado (my state) is not a National Park [1]. This includes most of our outdoor recreation opportunities (e.g., ski areas, hiking areas, most 14ers, rivers for rafting, etc). What's wrong with another class of public land that can be grazed, hunted, and fished (unlike most National Parks)? Dispersed camping is nearly always allowed, without permit, in BLM land. This leads to fun weekend outings along the lines of "this canyon looks cool, let's take the 4WD road to get close and camp by it for a couple nights" without needing a developed camping area. If anything, I could see an argument for moving BLM from the Department of the Interior (NPS land) to the Department Agriculture (USFS land). But western people who enjoy the outdoors would be really pissed of all public land was suddenly a National Park with an entrance fee, the usual restrictions, and vastly more limited recreation opportunities. And what makes you say BLM land is over grazed compared to similar private land? BLM land is, in general, scrubby & dry. You are given Animal Unit Month allocations on BLM land. The ranch base of operations and perpetual renewal policy do seem unfair to newcomers. But then again, the number of farmers & ranchers has been declining heavily for the last 100 years. [1] http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-ownership/ http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-own...