The underlying problem is that federal policy or congressional policy regarding disbursement of the federal lands to settlers didn't vary from state to state. What worked along the 96th or 98th meridian didn't work along the 120th meridian.
The original policy of 360 or 180 acres worked very well to the east in the wetter zone. I didn't work in the west dry zone. Congress was aware of this all along but they stuck with it. Solutions such as grazing commons didn't work and the lease system was the least bad.
Some people will say that Congress stuck with a bad system for egalitarian reasons. Others say Congress stuck with a bad system because they wanted to limit the political power of the western US(relative to the north and south).
As for the dramatic shift in federal policy and behavior regarding the public lands, that would date to 1976 when congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA)
Well said. A glance at an election map serves as a predictor. When the Democrats control things, policy will favor those little blue urban dots. When Republicans control things, the policy act in favor of those big red areas. Except, of course, when our Republican representatives cave to the Democrats.
This is all very interesting to me in the abstract. I believed that the BLM policy was uniform. It seems that is not the case.
In my mind the western land grants were 160 acres, one fourth of a 640 acre section or one square mile. The Bundy’s claim ownership from way way back. It would seem reasonable that the original actual ownership occurred as a homestead grant of 160 acres or the purchase of the land from a previous homesteader.
And yet, the few words dedicated to the land they apparently have a deed, their ranch, is said to be only 150 acres. It would seem that somewhere along the way 10 acres was some how sold off or otherwise lost.
Of course that really doesn’t matter except as a loose end.