> The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from t

> The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ The BLM doesn't make a profit. Actually they (rather, the Dept. of the Interior) don't charge enough for things like mineral extraction. Think of it this way. You and I and everyone else owns those minerals. The US should make sure that we as taxpayers are getting our fair share of their value. It is the same thought process behind the FCC and spectrum auctions. When there is a public good involved, the government needs to make sure it is being put to the best use for all of the citizens. Not just the first people in the door or the well connected. >Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time. This is an erroneous statement. Where did you read this? More people are using BLM land, especially in the Bears Ears area than ever before. This is because of population growth and increased awareness of BLM land. In the past, it was just ranchers and hunters using the land. Now people go hiking, ride ATVs, ride horses (for fun, not work like in the past), etc.