You should acquaint yourself with Nevada grazing laws.
Bundy OWNS the grazing rights - why should he pay “grazing fees”. Grazing rights are similar to mineral rights.
What you call “grazing fees” are designated as “management fees” in the BLM enabling legislation. For which the BLM is supposed to maintain or improve grazing. They were not doing their job. Which of us would pay for services not received.
BTW - Oregon has the same grazing laws. The ranchers OWNED the forage that was burned. The “property” the feds claimed was destroyed by fire actually was owned by the ranchers NOT the government.
It should also be pointed that the problems that arose in both the Bundy case and the Hammond case were ruled on by judges. In fact it was a court order that gave BLM the authority of Bundy's stock.
In the article they mention the sign that Bundy's wife carried saying the land belongs to the people, and the Bundy brothers made that statement in Oregon.
That statement is in the realm of "Sovereign Citizens"
At other times you'll hear them say turn the land over to local government or county government.
That statement is in the realm of Posse Comitatus(force of the county). The problem with that is that the Clark County, NV sheriff and the Harney County, OR sheriff were not interested in backing any of the Bundys.
Historicaaly, Sovereign Citizens and Posse Comitatus never succeed and this is ultimately a conflict between two wings within the movement. So, if somehow the feds turn loose of these lands(not likely), it ain't going to the Bundys, To the People, or to Local Government. It will go to the states. That is why the states as well as the Mormon church refused to back the Bundys.
You can try to make this into a big issue but there have been only two significant cases that revolve around "reducing the herd" since congress passed FLPMA in 1976, forty years ago. Wayne Hage and Cliven Bundy.
There has been only a handful of significant cases dealing with the RS 2477 roads. You may remember Jarbidge Road.