SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Disputes over land boundaries between producers and the U.S. Forest Service have become a growing issue.
The U.S. Forest Service owns a lot of grazing land in many states, including South Dakota, and a lot of that land borders private land. A number of the private landowners will lease that grazing land from the Forest Service.
“The problem arises if there are any inconsistencies or any questions or concerns about the accuracy of those borders between the private land and the U.S. government land,” said U.S. Senator Mike Rounds, R-S.D. “What’s happened recently is that there have been some aggressive moves made by the department to actually go in and challenge and to bring criminal charges against individuals that have these lands.”
“Some of these boundaries have been in place for a hundred years, and producers have been operating as if the existing boundaries were correct, but we have experienced some overzealous (Department of Justice) actions in which they indict producers for violating boundary lines, trespassing, even when the producer has been operating in the same manner for decades,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA.
One of these cases was against a South Dakota family, Charles and Heather Maude, in June 2024.
On June 20, 2024, a grand jury indicted the Maudes for theft of government property. The indictment alleges the crime is that they "did knowingly steal, purloin, and covert to their own use National Grasslands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture, approximately 50 acres." A letter Rounds wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in July 2024 said the Maude family has held the permit agreements with the U.S. Forest Service for nearly 60 years, during which time the USFS "has repeatedly acknowledged the fence placement every single time the lease was renewed."
“We’ve heard reports from members over the past few years and the case that you just mentioned [the Maude case], is one, clearly, that is front and center right now,” Bullard said.
“I won’t get into the specifics of that particular case, but I can tell you that other producers are also concerned about the possibility of facing the same type of aggression as the family in South Dakota already,” Rounds said. “We just want to get ahead of this.”
Rounds introduced the Fence Line Fairness Act to try to mediate land disputes. This legislation would create a formal mediation process for land boundary disputes by forming a committee consisting of appointed producers from the state, two of whom would be appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and three of whom would be appointed by the state’s department of agriculture or natural resources.
“Rather than going directly into an aggressive move by the U.S. government, we think it’s more appropriate that we have the opportunity for the two sides to sit down and to reconcile their differences,” Rounds said.
“This provides a more realistic, more respectful means of resolving some of these age-old discrepancies, some of which the producer might not even be aware of,” Bullard said. “We think this is a commonsense approach to a very real problem that will provide far more harmony between the producers who are actually managing and caring for that land and the forest service system that’s responsible for its management as well.”
The U.S. Forest Service declined comment on the bill in an emailed statement: "While we appreciate the opportunity, it would be inappropriate for us to comment on proposed legislation."
Carl Sanders, federal lands policy chairman for the South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, is a producer who has a Forest Service grasslands permit. A lot of his ranch also borders Forest Service land. He is in favor of the Fence Line Fairness Act.
“I think it’s a good idea,” he said. “Often when you get the federal government involved, commonsense and the federal government don’t go in the same sentence. I think this will be a way to kind of streamline some of these problem areas.”
“Some of these leases have been going on for years and years and literally generations,” Rounds said. “Everybody trying to do the right thing may very well be in a position too, where there might be mistakes made. If there are, we don’t think that there should be criminal activity involved, and most certainly, we want to make sure that there’s a reasonable way in which to resolve these without having the forest service have to take an aggressive stance.”
Having producers on the committee is important to building trust and maintaining relationships between producers and the Forest Service.
“This really adds a local element to disputes that have been exclusively in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I think that’s very important in order to restore relationships between producers and the federal agencies that are managing these lands,” Bullard said.
“I think if you have more local control and land people that are actually doing the work and they know the area and they know the customs, I just think it would be a lot easier,” Sanders said.
Along with producers, the committee would also have a third party.
“There would be a third party who could also help to basically determine the facts, perhaps go out and do the actual surveying and so forth so that everybody, rather than simply going after each other and bringing up charges or charging people with trespass, that we actually go in, take our time and work through the issues in a reasonable and responsible fashion so we can maintain those relationships,” Rounds said.
Rounds goal is to repair and maintain relationships between the U.S. Forest Service and producers.
“What we want is a good working relationship,” Rounds said. “And sometimes, as they say, good fences make for good neighbors. Well, a good reconciliation process or a good amenable way in which you can settle differences, when you have that put in place, you can resolve differences and you can remain on good terms. We want that to happen in South Dakota and unfortunately, right now, it does not appear that the U.S. Forest Service has been in a position or has displayed that type of an approach most recently.”
The Trust Project
