Were it as you have recounted, I too would be critical of the Bundys. But the problem goes a bit further back than just that simple explanation.
Why (and how) does the federal government claim ownership of the vast areas they claim? According to the 17th paragraph of Section 8, Article 1 of the “supreme law of the land,” the federal government cannot own all that land.
I have not studied this case so there’s lots of room for me to be wrong but aside from the habitual disregard of the Constitution there has been no “legal” amendment of the parts that supposedly limit the feds from claiming everything that isn’t nailed down - except responsibility for their actions.
If the Constitution is still in force then all that land the Bundy cattle were gazing actually belongs to the State of Nevada or to the various counties (if that is what the State decreed.) I understand that Cliven Bundy tried to pay his grazing fees to the county or state but was turned away.
Scroll down to the section entitled “is Bundy Constitutionally correct?”
and it discusses exactly what you are referencing regarding Fed ownership.
http://www.factandmyth.com/conspiracy-theory/cliven-bundys-cattle-and-the-federal-land-grab
Is Bundy Constitutionally correct?
Nothing in the Constitution says the government cannot own land. They bought it in the first place. And thief Bundy is a very poor standard bearer to protest that ownership.