Have the ranchers made such a claim of adverse possession? As far as I know, Mr. Bundy is the only rancher who stopped paying the grazing fee. it seems to me that if all of the ranchers make such a claim, and the claims are upheld, the ranchers would at the very least be entitled to share in the proceeds from the sale.
However, I just don't think they can make that claim. The BLM has indeed been "using" the land, charging grazing fees and/or supposedly "protecting" some dumb tortoise, and taking the Bundy's to court. Mismanagement is not the same thing as abandonment, and I just don't think a claim of adverse possession is going to go far.
The ranchers may well have some claim or rights to the land that were granted long ago. But if it's not in writing, I think the ranchers are going to have a tough time proving it.
