Showing up after the fact a little here. I am from a place near Burns geographically, politically (not personally), and climatically, with similar land ownership. Here's my long-ass take on OP.
1. There are a lot of different agencies that people seem to confuse, and they don't generally have anything to do with each other. BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, etc. Additionally each different field office and employee has different attitudes. For example, where I am from the local BLM has a reputation for working with ranchers and seeking win-win situations. However an adjacent field office is apparently regarded as more confrontational.
2. Government agencies are generally biased towards the communities they live in, and many of them lived and worked in ranches or mines they now regulate. Far away environmentalists see this correctly as bias, however I see the bias as a good thing and generally dislike the distant whimsy of people who like to mandate outcomes on others while themselves remaining unaffected (yet at the same time I consider myself an environmentalist). Many policies regarding public lands are also biased towards aloof urban environmentalists, which rural residents are correct about. To some extent this may be good as well, as it keeps corruption in check.
3. The result of the above is a stultifying bureaucracy which is constantly growing. I don't have direct experience, however my relative works for the BLM and complained about a long list of things which now take twice as long as they did in the 90's. The crazy bureaucracy makes things worse for all sides. It places a burden on small locals who depend on the land around them when they cannot get a needed permit for months or years. It has also kept out entrepreneurs and small businesses who can't afford the wait. Big oil companies who can afford politicians are virtually unaffected, and I am astounded at the things they can get away with. Mines are generally held to stricter requirements than oil companies. Large mines tend to engage in widespread multi-decade ass kissing and are generally able to get things done, while small mines may have a hard time finding the capital to pay for the various consultants and especially time. In general I feel the current system favors larger entities with more capital and less need for entrepreneurship.
4. Ranching on public land is not something you do to get rich, but you can make a living if you enjoy that life.
5. Ranchers, miners, and loggers who use public lands are a vanishingly small fraction of the population, even though they are the majority in vast swaths of the land. It is very easy for their voices to get lost in the crowd, and it can be very hard to find a statistic that accurately represents them. As an example, in Nevada (7th largest state by area) 87% of the land is owned by the federal government. 70% of the population is highly concentrated in the Las Vegas area with no knowledge or care for the rest of the state, and 20% lives in the greater Reno area with not much more. The remaining 10% are biased towards a few towns, leaving most of the state deserted. Take Nye county as an example. Nye is the third largest county in the nation by area, and over 80% of 44,000 population lives in the strange settlement Pahrump in the extreme southern tip. Much of the rest lives in Tonopah, which is mostly known as a stop between Reno and Vegas. 90-ish % of land is owned by federal government. A rancher in northeastern Nye county is virtually disenfranchised, and by numbers would barely be able to impact the county commission, much less impact a race for state assembly, and could never hope to be heard in a race for the US House of Representatives. A handful of ranch houses are the only human occupancy for hundreds of square miles, and yet they have barely any say in how the surrounding land is managed. They can scream and yell all they want, but no one will ever hear.
6. Tired of writing... I like wilderness. There should be a constitutional mandate that every state must cede 25% of its land to the Union as a federally protected wilderness area. Ideally 25% of the area of every sitting member of the US House of Representatives should become wilderness (any supporters? come on people wilderness is important...). Until that happens it will be very hard for the whole country to have a rational discussion on this topic, seeing as how 99% have no reason to care. Many will feel entitled to have their opinions become actions though, and only a tiny portion of the population will be significantly impacted by these feelings of opinionated entitlement.