I think there's an opportunity in between outright revolt and passive acquiescence. Minor skirmishes like the Nevada incident are necessary to put the .gov on notice that it is over-reaching.
I think this is spot on. I personally don't think the Nevada rancher is legally right (although I wish he was), but the .gov went completely out of control on this one. Maybe it will make them back up and reconsider to other legal and responsible ways of acting. He should have paid his grazing fees, but I really doubt it had much to do with what the real desires of the BLM are. I'm not talking about the Harry Reid connection. That could be real, or not. But, the BLM had reasons it wanted grazing cattle out of the picture so it could use the land in some other way that didn't involve and didn't allow for cattle grazing allotments.