In most cases out west they federal acquired the land by beating up on Mexico in the 1840's. And you're right, the government doesn't have to lease out the land for grazing or drilling or mining. But if they did that then wouldn't people like the Bundy's have even more to complain about?
Number 1- 90% of what the federal government does is extra-Constitutional, so it actually needs much less money, not more.
Sure it isn't higher than that?
And besides, the amount of money it raises leasing so-called federal lands is tiny compared to the total budget.
BLM takes in about $5 billion a year from federal land usage. Tiny, compared to other sources as you said. But it's still $5 billion from land that belongs to all the people of the U.S. and not just those in Wyoming or Oregon or Utah. Why should the land be turned over to them so they can reap that money without compensation to all the rest of the country for the lost income? If the Bundys want to buy the grazing land then I'm not opposed to selling it to them. But you and they want it for free.
I sometimes feel like the people on FR are only here to limit their guilt for inaction. Why would the Feds KEEP the land in the first place? What great national need is served here? Why not cede the land to the States and let THEM decide how to use the land? Isn’t that PRECISELY the theory of the Republic? MORE power to smaller units- people, family, church, county, state, etc. LESS power to the central power? Why is this hard to understand?