Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part special series about the Maude family's fence line dispute with the U.S. Forest Service. The dispute for the South Dakota family started in March 2024 and ended more than a year later after a drawn-out legal battle. Today, we look at the background of the fence line, how the dispute began and the first steps made by the family and the U.S. Forest Service.

**

CAPUTA, S.D. (DTN) -- For Charles and Heather Maude, the situation that almost tore their family apart began with them on their ranch in western South Dakota near Caputa.

The Maudes operate a ranch and farm in its fifth generation in Pennington County, South Dakota, not far from Mount Rushmore. They have about 400 acres, where they raise cattle and hogs. Their property is adjacent to the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

The ranch had been in the Maude family since 1910, and Charles' great-grandfather built a fence on the ranch more than 75 years ago to keep his cattle in.

But that fence with its aged posts and barbed wire -- and a sign added later to keep people out -- would open the gate to a drawn-out legal nightmare for the family that challenged and changed their lives.

The legal controversy about the fence and a nonperfect property line would attract national attention and support for the family from neighbors as well as powerful ag leaders and politicians.

But for the Maude family, it began with unexpected visitors to their ranch: U.S. Forest Service Special Agent Travis Lunders and Patrol Captain Jeff Summers, on the morning of Good Friday, March 29, 2024.

"Charles was down in our hay corral mixing feed and I received a call from him after a neighbor drove through the farm and alerted Charles that two Forest Service guys were at the house," said Heather. She was at the house, but didn't hear them drive in. Charles then joined Heather at the house.

VISIT FROM THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE

"We invited them in and they said that a hunter had turned in a complaint on a "No Trespassing" sign on a section of fence between our private property and our forest service allotment that wasn't on the line," Heather explained in an interview with DTN at the ranch in fall 2025.

The sign had been there for decades since the property line was halfway down where the Cheyenne River breaks. As Charles drove down bumpy roads to show DTN this hilly area with its mix of trees, hay and grass, he pointed to where the sign was placed near the river bottom land. Charles explained this was to prevent people from driving down the trail and not have a way to turn around or if they got stuck when the roads became slick when wet.

The Maudes were told to take down the sign, so they did. At that time, Lunders questioned where the boundary line was between the Maudes and the Forest Service land. Heather said the forest service staff had to have crossed the Maudes' private property without permission to get to that fenceline.

Lunders told the Maudes the forest service staff didn't know where the property line was and he wanted to know if they knew. Since Charles' great-grandfather had built the fence more than 75 years ago, several generations -- including Heather and Charles -- had used it as the boundary.

"We have always used the fence as the boundary line and the fence is not in a straight line," she added. "He (Lunders) thought it might be a little off and we were willing to figure it out and fix it."

The agent and officer asked the Maudes more questions about how they could use the land that was potentially owned by the U.S. Forest Service. In all the years the Maude family had leased the ground from the agency, no one had ever questioned how they were managing it, Heather noted.

But this seemed to become the turning point when questions about an old fence and boundary line would prompt a formal investigation and eventual indictment against the ranch owners.

FARM AND LAW RESEARCH STARTED

Following the initial meeting with Lunders and Summers, the Maudes became proactive and started to research the agreement the family had with the U.S. Forest Service. Through their research, it was determined about 25 acres of the Maude's privately owned land was on the U.S. Forest Service side of the fence and about 20 acres of Forest Service land was on their side of the fence. They also contacted a consultant who was recommended to them for cases such as this so the issue with the fence line could be resolved in a timely manner.

"We were still confused about why there was a problem. We signed our grazing permit for the year with no issues and no notes that there was a potential problem," Heather explained. "They also signed it. Then, we had this meeting on May 1 with the District Ranger Julie Wheeler and agent Lunders to discuss this potential issue."

Both the Farm Service Agency and Forest Service had the Maudes as the owners of the acres, so this being an issue now was a surprise to the Maudes.

At that point Charles and Heather proposed a solution of trading the ground so the Maudes would own all the ground on the west side of the fence and the U.S. Forest Service ground would be on the east side.

"Knowing that it wouldn't be an equal-acre trade after the survey was done, we proposed whomever needed to, would write a check for the difference," Heather added. At that point (May 1), Ranger Wheeler was very clear that a survey of the land would take several months to a year to get done. They then set up a time in mid-June to meet on the land in question and look at it to see what could be done.

CROP PLANTED, SURVEY DONE

At the May 1, 2024, meeting, the Maude family had not been told anything they were doing was wrong, so they had gone ahead and planted a crop on the ground. This field is right next to the Cheyenne River, and a pivot is used to ensure proper moisture for the crop through the growing season.

On May 6, just before 5 p.m., the Maudes received an email from Lunders that stated the U.S. Forest Service staff would be surveying the property the next day. And, the next day, Lunders and his crew came to conduct their survey.

On May 7, stakes were placed on the land to mark off the area Lunders and his crew believed was property of the U.S. Forest Service. Those stakes were labeled as USDA stakes, not Department of Interior stakes. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is under the Department of Interior and is responsible for surveying public lands, according to Heather, but she said a BLM survey crew was never involved in the survey, to her knowledge.

When the Forest Service crew came on May 7, they drove across the planted ground, even on the ground that wasn't in question and was owned by the Maudes. Wheeler was the only agency official to note the crop, as she indicated there would likely be a resolution figured out by the time the crop needed to come out.

CONCERN SET IN

Following what happened on May 7, Heather decided it was time to contact the sheriff and let him know what was going on at their farm. She also called their congressional representatives to explain what had been happening. Senator Mike Rounds' office in Rapid City thought it was odd, and his staff said they wanted to attend any meetings moving forward. When Heather sent that message to Wheeler regarding the additional people who wanted to attend, there was no further communication from Wheeler.

On June 24, 2024, Lunders called to say he had some paperwork for the Maudes. Charles was home alone but wanted to have a second person present -- he called a neighbor to come over and be there when the Forest Service staff showed. "Thank God he did. That was when he (Lunders) served us with criminal felony indictments," Heather said.

"So, it all happened within 90 days. There was no intent on our part to commit a crime. We were willingly engaged in resolution when it was determined this fence was not on the line," Heather continued to tell DTN.

"The FSA has always shown us as the owners of these acres and that's the USDA. They've always said we were the owners of the acres, and the Forest Service has always said we were the owners of the acres. So, they skipped all due process. We were never offered a resolution."

INDICTMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS

The Maudes said they never received anything in writing or a verbal statement that they were doing something wrong, just that there may be an issue and they may need to fix it. They believed the indictment was strategic, because they had only one week from when they were served until their court date.

Even more challenging: They had only one week to find two attorneys -- because Charles and Heather had been served separate criminal indictments and the Fourth of July was within that week.

"We gathered up all our cash from the farm and the meat business. We had just a few fall calving cows, so we sold them, and we got a retainer for an attorney for me. Charles kept his court-appointed attorney through our indictment hearing," Heather explained.

She added that they believe separate criminal indictments were given to the couple to test that each of them had the same story.

The case began to draw more attention from neighbors, the agricultural sector and even national media and high-ranking politicians who cared about the family as well as what precedent this would set.

The felony charges were for theft of government property, for about 50 acres of land -- 25 acres cultivated, 25 acres grazed -- on the boundary of the ranch and Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation's media noted later in a report. (https://www.wyfb.org/…)

Rona Johnson, in an online opinion piece for The Fence Post, shared some of the actual language in the indictment: "Beginning at a time unknown, but no later than December 2020 ... did knowingly steal, purloin and convert to their own use National Grasslands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture ... namely, approximately 25 acres of National Grasslands for cultivation and approximately 25 acres of National Grasslands for grazing cattle, having a value in excess of $1,000, and did aid and abet each other, all in violation of (U.S. law)." (https://www.thefencepost.com/…)

"I think going criminal, for the first time ever (for a land case), is part of why this blew up so much in the media. Fences in the west are not always on property lines. They are in practical locations where they can be built and maintained. And ours is a classic example of that," Heather said.

SUPPORT FOR THE MAUDES

National livestock organizations showed strong support for the Maudes.

Indicted separately, Heather and Charles faced up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 if convicted, noted R-CALF USA, in a press release on April 4, 2025, as the organization urged all charges be dropped. "In a letter sent on April 1, the organization argues that the disputed boundary issue stems from an imperfect survey conducted over a century ago, not intentional theft," stated R-CALF USA. "It states that the Maudes had cooperated with USFS's efforts to resolve the matter but, instead of communication, they faced individual indictments and unexpected visits from armed agents. The letter also criticizes the USFS's handling of the case, citing a lack of transparency, disregard for historical survey imperfections and heavy-handed enforcement."

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association expressed its disgust at what was happening to the Maudes.

"I am deeply disgusted by the Forest Service's persecution of family ranchers Charles and Heather Maude," said NCBA President and rancher Mark Eisele in a press release. "The Maude family has been ranching in South Dakota for five generations and Charles and Heather have spent their lives protecting natural resources, investing in their land, and raising their children. The U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Attorney's Office have maliciously targeted and prosecuted these family ranchers, and it's clear that if this can happen in South Dakota, government overreach can happen anywhere."

SUPPORT CLOSER TO HOME

South Dakota cattle rancher J.T. Rickenbach, of Oelrichs, is a neighbor to the Maudes. His family has known them for many years. "These people are the heart of their community. Charles has always done things by the book, which is why everyone was shocked by the indictment," he told DTN.

Rickenbach, whose family has been in South Dakota nearly the same amount of time as the Maudes, said news of what was going on got the attention of cattle producers, especially those who have government permitted land or land near government-owned land. Rickenbach, who is very involved with cattle and grassland organizations, said many of those groups were also paying attention and figuring out how they could assist.

While neighbors and national organizations tried to figure out how to help the Maudes, the close-knit ranch family struggled with increasing pressure.

Following the indictment, the couple had to do a conservatorship agreement for their young children, (now aged 8 and 10), in case Charles and Heather would go to jail from the trial.

"We had to explain to them (the children) what might happen. That was probably the roughest week because we didn't really know what was going to happen," she added.

**

Next in the series: How the family survived the indictment, what happened next, how it's going with them now and the lessons they learned.

Jennifer Carrico can be reached at jennifer.carrico@dtn.com

Follow her on social platform X @JennCattleGal

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.