For ranchers who rely on public lands grazing for their cattle, a recent indictment of a South Dakota couple brings up concerns.
Kaitlynn Glover, Public Lands Council (PLC) Executive Director, recently shared about a land dispute between Charles and Heather Maude and the U.S. Forest Service with AgriTalk’s Chip Flory.
“This situation is almost unfathomable,” Glover says. “You have a husband and wife, mother and father to two young children. They have been grazing permittees, not only demonstrating the value of grazing, but being really good partners with the Forest Service for quite some time. They have grazing allotments. They have a small hay operation to put up some forage for the winter. Earlier this year, that really productive relationship with the Forest Service took a hard left turn when they were sort of the victim of an overzealous law enforcement pursuit and federal criminal charges for theft of federal land.”
Glover says the details of the case defy reality.
“These charges are the result of a boundary dispute between private ground and the Forest Service grasslands,” she explains. “This poor family is really trying to defend not only themselves, but their right to graze adjacent to federal lands, and that’s really, really troubling.”
This situation is normally resolved through administrative means, she adds, but the agency moved outside of the normal process, Glover says. The Maudes have each been indicted on separate criminal charges.
What Triggered the Dispute?
“Law enforcement typically deal with things like human trafficking and drugs on federal land,” Glover says. “They don’t deal with fence line disputes. Those fence line boundary survey issues go through an administrative process. But the law enforcement team in South Dakota decided this was going to be their issue of the day, took it out of the administrative process, targeted this family and set about a course of events that has made a lot of federal grazing permittees, those cattle and sheep producers, questioning their own relationships with the Forest Service across the West.”
This sort of dispute might make other ranchers hesitant to work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), another federal agency with federal lands
“BLM and Forest Service are sort of painted with the same brush because they’re both federal agencies,” Glover says. “They’re both supposed to be federal partners. These federal grounds mean the forage on these acres is incredibly valuable for Western ag production.”
Nearly 40% of the western cattle herd and about 50% of the nation’s sheep herd spend time on public lands, Glover says.
“If you compromise those relationships, it has rippling consequences that are felt, not just by the families who have stewarded these grounds forever, but also by rural communities, and then ultimately by people, even here in Washington, D.C., who look up at the sky in the fall and wonder why there’s smoke in the air,” she adds.
At this time, the Maudes have each had to hire separate counsel and are going through the legal process.
“We here in Washington, the Public Lands Council, our national affiliates, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, the Association of National Grasslands have been working with the congressional delegation from South Dakota and other partners in Congress to bring attention to this situation, making it clear this absolutely should not be a criminal case,” Glover says. “These parents, this husband and wife team, should not be facing 10 years in prison over a fence line. Finding a resolution that’s suitable for this family is a huge priority.”
Additionally, PLC and other organizations want to make sure this case doesn’t set a precedent.
“We’re making sure the agency doesn’t make this a policy where you go to law enforcement before using all of the other tools at your disposal,” Glover says. “There is a two pronged approach here. That’s why our national associations are here. We have the avenues to have these conversations and to get some things done. We’re using all the tools at our disposal to make sure we’re not going to see a whole-scale change in how federal lands are managed and how disputes are resolved.”
Listen to the entire AgriTalk episode.
Statement from U.S. Forest Service
Wade Muehlhof, spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service, shared this following statement with Drovers: “The Forest Service values its relationship with our neighbors and where possible we try to resolve any issues through administrative actions prior to taking any legal actions. It is important for us to work together to steward these lands and that work depends on strong relationships between the Forest Service and permittees. If permittees have concerns or issues with the terms and conditions or other aspects of their permit that need to be resolved, they are encouraged to work with their local District Ranger.”
Additional background on timeline of events:
- The USDA Forest Service handled this situation according to normal operating procedures for lands trespass situations.
- The Maudes were first informed in December 2020 that their plan to install a pivot sprinkler would trespass on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service provided notice of trespass to the Maudes in March 2024 after they installed an unauthorized fence and pivot sprinkler impacting the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. Subsequently, the Forest Service observed crops had been planted and an irrigation system installed on National Forest System land without authorization, despite the Maudes having been informed that they were trespassing.
- The agency was unable to resolve this matter through administrative means and therefore referred it to the US Attorney’s office, which as is normal protocol.
- The Department of Justice is the agency responsible for determining whether to bring criminal charges.
- In June 2024, a Grand Jury issued a True Bill of Indictment on Charles and Heather Maude for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2, Theft of Government Property.
- In June 2024, Forest Service Law Enforcement served Charles Maude and his wife, Heather Maude, a summons in the criminal case at their residence. At no point during this contact was anyone placed under arrest or taken into custody, nor did any officer utilize any tactical uniform, gear or assault weapons.
Your Next Read: Dealing With Wildfires One Day At a Time
