I admit, I dislike arguments of convenience. Why is it inappropriate for the federal government to own property, exactly? How is it that a State government is more qualified to administer public lands? That certainly has not been the case... well, ever. Of course, logic has no application to this situation, since it has to be a "political" decision. If there were a Republican in charge, the "quality" of the decision-making would be entirely different.

Consider for a moment: the BLM offsets the cost of administration of government by leasing public lands, relieving the burden from the taxpayer, and reducing the deficit. That would seem to be a plus for a "conservative." Yet, it isn't when inconvenient for another "conservative" argument - that government is always bad and not to be trusted. Instead, a spurious argumet is made that "civilians with guns" are more trustworthy than trained law enforcement personnel. I can provide significant evidence to the contrary - but I don't need to. We can look at their behavior in this situation. When armed thugs threatened them, they did not rise to the provocation. Ah, but yet a different spurious argument is made: that they created the confrontation.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich