The Federal government purchased the land for the nation prior to these states even existing. Following the purchase there was the Westward expansion when the Federal government removed the Native Americans from most of the land by force or threat of force and through the use of treaties.
I generally support turning over most of these lands to be managed locally for the benefit of everyone. That fits my 10th Amendment smaller government desires nicely. However, any ranchers who believe they would be happier/wealthier with state management vs federal management might end up regretting it. Ranchers would likely pay far more for grazing and possibly have fewer rights than they enjoy now. On top of that there are big agricultural and timber interests that might end up owning what theoretically belongs to everyone.
BLM is about as popular as diaper rash in some communities, but there are some rural areas where they are the largest employer (large enough to control local politics) and BLM and the public lands are pretty popular with the liberal cities that control the politics in most Western states.
The issues with Western lands are not as cut and dried as some around would have you believe.
but there are some rural areas where they are the largest employer (large enough to control local politics)
Can you give an example, please. My local BLM is 15 employees (down from 45) for a town of about 25,000. Not rural really, but they don’t control local politics.