The federal government doesn't 'take control of lands' unless it is given to them by donation or trade. It then charges user fees to use it rather than just having ALL taxpayers foot the bill. Yes, it would be nice if it was free, but someone has to pay for the ranger, police, roads, etc. that exist on the federal land in use. Wanting it free and wanting lower taxes just isn't feasible.
Yes, the Fed controls the land it owns. However, the alternative for all those beautiful lakes is that they are in private hands - you can bet your butt you would either loose access altogether or have to pay exorbitant fees to use it. At least then you might see capital improvements but would you be willing to pay the fees for them?
The feds are "we the people" and chances are, if they shrink any recreation areas, it is because the people who used them abused them. If people took care of their natural resource areas like they do their own homes (wait, maybe they do), more money wouldn't be needed to repair and maintain those places and higher fees wouldn't be imposed to discourage people from visiting.
I think public demand and expectation is out of control. Many seem to want what they want when and how they want it. They want to be catered to but 'no way' do they want to pay for it. I find it amusing that someone could, in the same breath, complain both about fees and lack of amenities that suit them.
What do I think will happen? Well, I know that things in government move slowly so I am spending this year touring much of the west - it many not be available to me the year after. I am concentrating on Forest Service and BLM sites in particular - those are the most vulnerable.
