The Federal government decides whether it wants to sell the property or not. It already sells property to private individuals. I would rather have the states make that decision rather than the BLM, which has all kinds of restrictions on land use.
Just because the Feds are $17 trillion in debt (meaning us) doesn't mean that the money must flow back into their coffers to waste on social welfare programs as well as fraud and abuse.
The State Government don’t need to own the land, as long as its not owed by the Federal Government the State can get tax revenue from it meaning anyone who does own the land won’t be able to horde it, or if they do they will at least pay the locals in taxes for the privilege.
Someone has to own the land, much of it not able to be sold to individuals or corporations. Again, the states can own the land and then sell it to whomever they want free from the federal government's edicts and restrictions.
That is the point, they can’t or rather they wont generally sell or lease the land, as they had prior to the 1970’s. Yes there are exceptions such as the acts you specified, often corrupt exceptions as Senator Harry Reid demonstrated.
Which is why it must be removed from federal control. Alaskans would like to pump oil out of ANWR. The Feds control 61% of the state's land. Why should environmentalists from New York control what Alaskans want to do? The closer we can move these assets to local control the better. Congress and the WH can change this if there is the political will. Why should we accept the status quo as a given? Is it because it is the law of the land? That doesn't seem to stop Obama.
I'd like to see a 30 year history of all BLM land sales and purchases in Clark County.