1) Even if what you state is true, it really is irrelevant. He appears to have not raised that issue (use of the land for 140 years without fees) in the lower court, or at appeal. He waived that argument.His family's use of that land (140+ years) predates the beginning of such fees. Next we'll have to pay for picking berries in the national forest.
2)That's a red herring. A more appropriate analogy would be paying fees to grow marijuana for profit on federal land without paying fees.
Bottom line, he owes hundreds of thousands of dollars, is refusing to pay, and playing the victim.