I agree with most of what you say. However, Nevada has some very unique grazing laws - that actually create an easement or right-of-way for grazing. To charge for an easement, any easement, the charge must be part of the original granting of that easement. This is not the case for Bundy - his easement was well established long before the feds moved in - therefor, they have no right to charge a grazing fee for a grazing easement the Bundys already owned. This is why, in these cases, the BLM refers to grazing management fees. They ostensibly charge for managing the grazing land. However, it is a difficult stretch to charge a man for managing his grazing easement while you are continually trying to remove his cattle and illegally obstruct his easement - which is why Bundy quit paying the management fee...they weren’t managing the grazing. By law, the BLM is supposed to manage the land to improve/increase the grazing and the carrying capacity. They weren’t doing the job for which they were charging - so Bundy quit paying for the job they weren’t doing.
This should be his defense. “I owned the easement before the feds took possession, so I don’t owe grazing fees for forage I already owned. They were not managing the range to improve the grazing, which is what I was paying for, so I quit paying for a job they didn’t do.”
Amen, Giles! Thank you for making it so clear!
Finally, a much stronger legal “premise” (not that it’s not true) than what Cliven has been expounding.