Federal overreach or public land preservation?

A young South Dakota ranching couple has been criminally charged with allegedly stealing federal government property – by maintaining a fence erected by the family some 75 years ago. Charles and Heather Maude, responding to claims from the National Forest Service that their ranch interferes with federal grasslands, requested a land survey to clarify legal boundaries. Instead, they were served with unannounced federal criminal indictments by a US Forest Special Agent in full tactical gear. Farmers and ranchers nationwide are crying foul.

A Family Farming Affair

The Maudes are not a large industrial food corporation – they sell their beef and pork directly from their ranch to consumers. Some witnesses say the family has grazed the roughly 50 acres in dispute since about 1910 with no conflict. Indeed, the family claims they have worked cooperatively with federal authorities to steward this land for many decades through leases, irrigation work, and grazing. Critics of this move – including a US senator for South Dakota, Mike Rounds – claim it is overzealous prosecution of a young ranch family.

This is far from the only instance of government meddling in small-farm production. Federal agents targeted Amish farmer Amos Miller for selling homegrown food directly to his customers. As reported here at Liberty Nation News, the Biden administration increased wildlife protections in ways that undermine farmers and ranchers. It sought to expand SEC rules that would have destroyed many small farms with burdensome reporting requirements, distributed agricultural funds based solely on skin color, opened US imports to dangerous Paraguayan beef, and implemented water clean-up rules that will impose huge costs on small meat and poultry processors.

These and other regulatory moves have led many farmers and ranchers to perceive they are engaged in an adversary relationship with the federal government. This sentiment has likely fueled the strident grassroots uprising supporting the Maude family with outspoken criticism of government actions. It vows to defend all ranchers and farmers and has a GOFundMe page that has so far raised nearly $42,000 toward legal fees for the Maude family’s defense.

Ranchers Betrayed

Growing distrust of the federal government is amplified by images of heavily-weaponed, black-garbed agents serving harmless livestock farmers (and a young mother) on a remote western ranch with threats of $250,000 fines and ten-year jail terms. Criminal prosecution for theft requires a mens rea factor – that the defendant(s) “intended” to steal. The facts, so far, suggest the Maudes could not have had such an intent, as the family has been stewarding the ranch openly for 75 years. They have worked with the government forthrightly during that period and have agreed to and asked to learn from a land survey. It is easy to understand why government critics claim the Forest Service seeks to intimidate and punish rather than simply wait for the evidence and the couple’s response. This should be a civil, not a criminal, matter.

A statement issued by The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) echoed this distrust and resentment:

“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.”

The US Forest Service has not explained or defended its actions, so Americans will likely have to wait beside the Maudes for their day in court to discern what justification (other than intimidation) might have motivated such harsh treatment of a harmless young ranch family. The concern shared by many Americans is that if the government can slam hard-working families and businesses like the Maudes with impunity, the perceived assault on the “little guy” is not confined to the beautiful grasslands of South Dakota.