All these things combine and we know that the number of grazing leases and acres grazed has been reduced thru the years, but Congress has a right and duty to do this.
OTOH, there are a lot more recreational sites on the public lands. Lots more coal and natural gas being produced. More Scenic rivers, more endangered species, higher levels of protection to the lands, more wilderness, to name a few.
As for the Hammonds, their issue is/was relatively minor in that it revolved around recreational rights. Grazing lease holders are not granted recreational rights and in the case of the Hammonds, they had no recreation rights on the federal lands adjoining the land they actually owned and the reason they set the fires was to cover up that they had been poaching on these federal lands.
BTW, here is an interesting factoid: In the recent Paul Ryan Budget that Congress passed and Obama signed, Congress extended the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 5 years. It is the money in this fund that the land agencies use when they buy land from a private owner, such as the Hammonds.
These very things threaten traditional uses of land, often land that has been in the same hands for centuries. We're talking deeded property, not lease land. You didn't mention the buffer zone concept, which has expanded the rules for federal land well beyond the land itself onto private property. As for 'endangered species', those, too are a tool used to strip property owners of their rights and use unnecessarily (Do you think for a second those species would still exist had it not been for good stewardship and often the protection by property owners while they used the land?)
"Scenic River" designation is just that: pretty to look at. The river (tidewater estuary, actually) I grew up on was killed by the one-two punch of eliminating the aquatic vegetation and declaring it "Scenic". Once the aquatic vegetation was eliminated, the nearshore spawning areas, the places where crabs could shed, small fry could take refuge were gone. Schools of Cow-nosed ray made an incursion, and in two subsequent years eliminated a brackish water clam species from the estuary, along with devastating fisheries.
Increased wave energy delivered to the shores of the estuary (because that energy was no longer dampened by aquatic vegetation) changed beach profiles and increased bank erosion. Without the nearshore aquatic vegetation to act as a filter, sedimentation rates offshore increased, and oyster bars were silted in. Landowners were prohibited from putting up traditional seawalls to mitigate erosion, and instead were told their only option was to install riprap as laid out in a Corps of Engineers specifications--something which had NEVER been done in the area, and was cost-prohibitive because the rock to do so would have to be trucked in from hundreds of miles away. Fish species which had been present in the estuary disappeared, many of which were popular for sport fishing and were of commercial value as well.
A thriving fisheries industry was destroyed.
People's land was literally washing away.
Buffer zones established areas where permits were required for so much as cutting down trees, including 20 acres of second growth Red Oak planted in the 1850-s by one of my relatives, now worth millions of dollars but doomed to rot in place.
You roll off that list like those are good things, but they commonly are anything but. You have someone who just got a degree in wildlife biology trying to tell people who have lived it for their entire lives, whose ancestors lived on and ranched that land, fished that river, farmed continuously for 300+ years how to run the show and what to do and not to do without knowing their collective ass from a hole in the ground.
TO many people who did not grow up in a rural environment a parcel of land is just a square on a map, shoehorned into one of however many climate and terrain and drainage and fauna and flora types. None of those statistics are a substitute for KNOWING that land with the sort of knowledge that can have you walk to a certain spot without GPS or a map, because you know every tree, rock and swale in its surface. You can see when a tree is sick or infested and cut it down to protect the rest, you can see when there are new weeds taking hold and eliminate them. You know if the deer are healthy or starving, and often take action to keep those animals and the vegetation healthy by adjusting your activities to compensate for natural variation in weather, including leaving a little of a crop out for browse. Nor can that college degree substitute for the sort of supervision someone who has skin in the game will give an ecosystem when their continued well being is tied to that land and how healthy it is.
That is why the wild animals leave BLM land for private land, because it is more productive in terms of food and water sources have been conserved to provide for the dry months.
But typical of the 'more knowledgeable than thou' attitude found in academia, and spread to the Halls of Government, rather than admit that those who are doing things right just might know what they are doing after a hundred or more years, the answer is to eliminate those who are doing it better and making the Government look bad.
Most of those laws you list are just the tools for eliminating those private property owners, and they are used as such.