Property line squabbles between federal agencies and ranchers are nothing new – but the U.S. Forest Service’s aggressive pursuit of allegations against a South Dakota ranch family seems “odd,” said a Wyoming attorney who handled another high-profile property dispute case.
“In general, federal agencies are not picking a ton of fights about these property lines,” attorney Ryan Semerad told Cowboy State Daily.
South Dakota Case Sets Off National Outrage
Heather and Charles Maude have a ranch near Caputa, South Dakota. Since last year, they’ve been locked in a dispute with the Forest Service over a boundary line between their ranch and some national grassland.
The boundary in question is along a 75-year-old fence line on the property, where Charles Maude’s family has ranched for generations.
The Forest Service claims that the fence line intrudes on the national grasslands.
Last summer, an armed Forest Service agent in full tactical gear showed up at the couple’s doorstep serving them each with indictments accusing them of theft of government property.
Under the indictments, the Maudes each face up to 10 years in prison and/or $250,000 fines. A trial is set to begin April 29.
The case has drawn national attention, and widespread outrage toward the Forest Service.
Heather Maude grew up in Wyoming. Her parents, Niobrara County Ranchers Randi and Tom Hamilton, recently made a public appeal to President Donald Trump to intervene on their daughter and son-in-law’s behalf.
An Odd Case
Semerad said that in boundary line disputes, the federal government can wield a claim of eminent domain. That allows, in some cases, for agencies to take sections of private land in return for compensation to the owners.
So he’s curious as to why that power hasn’t been invoked in the Maudes’ case.
“It’s odd for there to be a dispute over “where’s the line?” Instead of the federal government just taking the line through eminent domain,” he said.
There’s also the question of why the Forest Service is rolling out guns as big as felony indictments over what seems like so small a matter, he added.
Federal agencies have limited resources, so they generally don’t take things to such a level unless there is a huge project or a significant chunk of land at stake, Semerad said.
Such high stakes don’t seem to be in play on the South Dakota ranch. And it’s also baffling why the property line has been murky for so long – and why it’s suddenly become such a major case, he said.
“They (federal land agencies) have limited resources and limited attention spans. Are they going to dump their attention on small issues?” he said.
“How has this property line not been repeatedly established over and over and over in those documents?” he added.
Distrust Of Feds
The case in South Dakota takes place against a backdrop of federal agencies frequently struggling with the way they’re perceived among rural people.
“There’s an intense suspicion of D.C.” among many rural people, Semerad said. “That’s the heartland’s politics and philosophy.”
If the Maude’s trial moves forward, it will be interesting to watch, he said.
Semerad isn’t a stranger to property disputes.
He represented four hunters in a “corner-crossing” dispute near Elk Mountain in Carbon County that also drew wide attention.
Iron Bar Holdings and its owner, Fred Eshelman of North Carolina, claimed that four hunters from Missouri trespassed on private property in 2021, when they crossed a pinpoint where the corners of two square parcels of Bureau of Land Management property met.
As is the case across the West, public and private parcels are in a checkerboard pattern in the vicinity of the Iron Bar ranch.
The case seemed to settle the hotly-disputed matter of whether “corner crossing” between public parcels is legal, or amounts to trespass.
A Carbon County jury found the hunters not guilty of criminal trespass, so Iron Bar Holdings and Eshelman took the matter to civil court.
The case dragged on for years, until Semerad and the hunters in March prevailed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
Semerad said he hasn’t ruled out the possibility that Iron Bar Holdings and Eshelman could take the next, and final step – an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mark Heinz can be reached at mark@cowboystatedaily.com.
