“No. The BLM went to court in 1998 and sought a judgment that the contract was terminated because Bundy had failed to pay grazing fees for five years.”
So there is a good chance Bundys wouldn’t be where they are now if they had continued to pay the grazing fees?
Are there other ranchers in this area?
The short answer is not exactly.
The long answer: First, in 1993 the BLM made changes to the grazing contract for the Bunkerville allotment that limited the amount of cattle Cliven Bundy could run on the allotment on the grounds that the cattle would affect a species the Fish & Wildlife Service declared an Endangered Species, the desert tortoise. I still do not know definitely whether than change was made at the end of a grazing contract's ten-year term, or during the middle of a term. I should know, but I haven't seen that fact anywhere.
The Bundys wouldn't be where they are now because of the cattle limitation in the new contract, and that had nothing to do with non-payment of grazing fees.
Second, in 1998, the BLM declared the Bunkerville allotment "no-graze" because of the desert tortoises. That had nothing to do with non-payment of grazing fees, but would affect where the Bundys are now, because Bundy continue to graze his cattle on the Bunkerville allotment.
Bundy does not have a grazing contract for the additional BLM and National Park Service property where he is now grazing cattle, nor does he pay grazing fees. However, by grazing his cattle on that additional land, he may have decreased his cattle run on the Bunkerville allotment to the post-1993, pre-1998 limitation on the amount of grazing cattle.
It's true that Cliven Bundy is not paying grazing fees on any of the federal property where he is grazing cattle, but it's also true that, even if he paid grazing fees, he wouldn't be allowed to graze any cattle on the Bunkerville allotment.
Clear as mud, eh?
I was wrong. The short answer is “no.”