The Smokey Wire original reporting
Perhaps you have heard of the story of Charles and Heather Maude, a ranching family in western South Dakota, who were charged in June of 2024 with theft of government property. The Maude family owns land on three sides adjacent to a parcel of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, along the Cheyenne River in Custer County.
Sometime in March of 2024, a hunter reported to the US Forest Service that it appeared that there was a boundary issue between private land and the Forest Service. An investigation followed that led to Charles and Heather Maude being indicted by a federal grand jury for government theft. The indictment stated that they “did knowingly steal, purloin, and convert to their own use” land managed by the US Forest Service. Punishment could have been up to 10 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.
There has been significant press coverage of this case, but it has largely been one-sided. This is because the case was pending, and the Forest Service was not allowed to speak about it. What was presented in the press was that the Maudes had made an innocent mistake, and the Forest Service was unreasonable and took a very heavy-handed approach. Often, it was blamed on the Biden Administration, and that it was a purposeful attack on the Maudes.
All of this led to a lot of politicians and federal officials getting involved, and eventually, the charges being dismissed prior to the trial. This, in turn, led to a press conference held by the Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, with a variety of politicians and the Maude family in attendance.
When you hear one side of a story, it is really hard to get to the truth. So far, the Forest Service is not talking about the case and presenting its side, even though the case has been dismissed. I live in Custer County, the same County where all of this occurred. I decided to look into things and see what I could come up with. The parcel where this occurred is along the Cheyenne River in eastern Custer County. It’s a pretty area with rugged hills along the river, but the area in question is on a flat adjacent to the river. The acreage involved is either 25 acres or 50 acres, depending on which article you read.
At some point after 2020, the Maudes put in place a center-pivot irrigation system on this flat area. This is confirmed by Google Earth imagery. A half-circle of irrigated land was established. Looking at the Custer County GIS records, it clearly shows that about a third of the half-circle was on the Forest Service parcel. The Maudes apparently claim that they did not know they were putting the irrigation system partially on Forest Service land. It does appear, however, that a simple internet search of the County’s records would have indeed shown that what they were doing was essentially trespassing onto Forest Service property.
I decided to visit the area in question, and while staying on Forest Service property, it was quite evident that something was amiss. You could see a line across the irrigation half-circle that indeed closely coincided with the legitimate Forest Service boundary. What created this line, I am not sure. It may have been an old fence line or possibly an irrigation ditch. It does show, however, that there was some recognition in the past that this was the legitimate boundary.
What really happened here? It’s hard to know because we don’t have all of the information. What we do know is that only one side has been presented, and it appears that Senator Rounds (SD), Representative Johnson (SD), Representative Hageman (WY), Governor Rhoden (SD), Secretary Noem, and Secretary Rollins have all taken the Maudes’ side. Did they pursue all of the information, or did they follow an inclination to only believe the Maudes? It’s hard to know. As a retired Forest Service employee, it does appear that Rollins threw the Forest Service under the bus.
Are there any issues with all of this? I would imagine that any similar event in the future would certainly make a Forest Service Line Officer wonder whether the Secretary of Agriculture would have their back. If the Maude family did intentionally and knowingly construct an irrigation system on Forest Service land, as apparently was charged, is that ok? What would you do if your neighbor did something similar to your personal property? Did the Forest Service overreact? We need more information. The Forest Service needs to be allowed to talk about the whole affair. Some news organizations have filed FOIA requests for more information. Let’s hope they’re successful.
I had a similar situation one time involving a “NF cultivation permit”! I was a DR, and we had a very cantankerous special uses individual in the SO that was always picking a fight over special uses. I knew it was a non-starter, but didn’t like swimming with the alligators, so to speak. Well, I talked to the Sup, who was well known for not doing much of anything, but he did give me some great advice: “you mean, with all the work you guys are doing, and working on priority projects, you would have the time to deal with this”? I may have been born at night but I wasn’t born last night!
The permit was at least 40 years old, and initiated by an old time “legend”” of a ranger, to a family that could trace its roots back to the War of Northern Aggression”. In fact, that Ranger had trained, and worked with my dad back in the 1950’s!
There are times when a Forest Officer does everything in their power to cross the “I’s”, and dot the “t’s” (🤣) to manage the people’s public lands, and then there are times you realize you don’t want to poke that snake!
Given the current politics of South Dakota, this was probably the best the government could do! Now I know, some out there would stomp their boots, spit and foam at the mouth over this turn of events, but until it’s your keister on the line, and senior leaders run the other way, that snake ain’t worth poking!!!
I understand that line of thinking and I am just not sure what I would have done in this situation. There is a lot we don’t know yet. The US Attorney obviously felt there was sufficient evidence to say there was intent to knowingly commit a crime and a grand jury agreed. It was just about to go to trial and then political pressure caused the US Attorney to request the case be dismissed. I don’t think that’s how things are supposed to work but I realize our system isn’t always perfect. I think there is now a precedence for anything similar in the future to just get a slap on the wrist. Timber theft? Illegal grazing (Bundy)? Not worth pursuing, let it go.
I don’t care. Most of us have treated so poorly by federal land managers that even if the Maudes were in the wrong we would still take their side. We have watched the FS set back fires and destroy communities and forests and suffer no consequences, so if the Trump administration is only looking at one side, it is about time. Spare me your sanctimonious search for the truth. Where were you when they burnt down Greenville and Coffee Creek.
With all due respect, it seems to me that you are conflating two entirely different situations. I know nothing about “Greenville and Coffee Creek” and therefore have no opinion on that. For all you know, if I were educated on the situation, I may agree with you. I am often a critic of the Forest Service on The Smokey Wire. I do not think they are a perfect organization. I think they do a lot of good things and I agree with their mission, but that does not mean they don’t have areas to improve. I was an Acting Ranger twice and served as a Staff Officer in two different positions. I did my best to work with adjacent landowners and treat them fairly. I do realize that they get treated badly sometimes.
Carved from the Great Sioux Nation, the Buffalo Gap and Fort Pierre National Grasslands in South Dakota are managed from a US Forest Service office in Nebraska.
So, back in 2010 then-Democratic Senator Tim Johnson tried to make a portion of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland adjacent to Badlands National Park part of the Tony Dean Wilderness Area. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) tried to revive it in 2011. Led by The Nature Conservancy, a non-profit that began buying land there in 2007, sold some land in 2012 to Badlands National Park. Conata Basin is on the top ten ecotourism sites chosen by the University of Nebraska’s Great Plains Center.
The World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy teamed up with the National Park Foundation, Badlands Natural History Association, Badlands National Park Conservancy and the National Park Service Centennial Challenge fund to expand the bison range at Badlands National Park by nearly 35 square miles. These days only about 500,000 bison inhabit North America and less than 1 percent of their historic range. Just 3 percent of the Earth’s land surface remains untouched by human development and a sixth mass extinction is underway.
Habitat destruction, watershed ruination, native species extirpation, rampant ecocide, statewide corruption: this is today’s South Dakota. But, in a South Dakota county named for a war criminal thousands of acres of land between Custer State Park and Buffalo Gap National Grasslands are owned by The Nature Conservancy and a principal linked to outfitter, Patagonia. Since 2015 Dan O’Brien and Cheyenne River Buffalo Ranch, both part of Wild Idea Buffalo Company, partner with Patagonia, a strong advocate of wildlife corridors and ecosystem restoration.
The State of South Dakota, Pennington County and the lawyers who built the Maude family trust are negligent at the very least for not compelling a survey decades ago. Maude Hog and Cattle has been providing product to Wall Meats which is heavily subsidized by the USDA and Charles Maude has received nearly $300,000 in ag subsidies since 1995. The Maudes allegedly stole access to public land by claiming it as their own then after being advised of their crime blew off a civil remedy because a Democrat sat in the White House.
Custer County, not Pennington, my error.
Some thoughts..
1. I think the Forest Service treats different people who trespass differently. This is to be expected from a decentralized organization. For example, some trespass cases lead to land exchanges.. some to doing leases (thought perhaps this is not easy for the FS, it is in FLPMA, they could just issue a lease.)
2. I wrote Hageman’s office to see if Vilsack had ever answered her request for information and to get a copy. This is not unusual for Congressional Offices (and federals) to not see TSW as legitimate media nor worth answering.
3. Given all the above, were there civil alternatives to arresting people..??? Certainly if my neighbor built something on my property, the police would not arrest them.
4. There’s the question of intent, which could be proved in court (civil) with perhaps civil penalties.
5. It would be interesting to FOIA this, but it might be protected by some kind of exemption.
That makes sense about “not poking snakes”. The forest service needs to release its evidence. Mr. Mertz I respect you for taking the time to show us some evidence and try to understand. If the Trump admin is doing things like dropping charges it’s not for the Maude’s benefit. Trump “loves the poorly educated”, his quote and I’d be cautious to not be distracted at the keys he’s jingle jangling. He has taken some hard hits for his policies and practices which now has him at the lowest approval rating ever. If he’s willing to pardon some insurrectionists and other offenders i see no reason he wouldn’t have his people do this regardless what the evidence of Maude family shows.
If you allow theft of government property or adverse possession of federal land as a Line Officer in a federal agency (position of authority) and do not take action and stand up to those above you when necessary (Forest Supervisor, Regional Forester, Chief, Secretary of Ag. or Interior) then you are UNFIT to lead. Such cases are example of failure of leadership. Leaders have to make hard decisions and lead with integrity in protecting public interests at ALL TIMES. That’s the definition of leadership. Otherwise, you’re noting more than a gutless follower. If you’re afraid to “poke the snake” then you have no business being a district ranger.
But how best to “protect the public interest”? Reasonable people can disagree.
or the FS and the landowners working something else out? This situation is not uncommon.
K: yeah well, it shows you have never been a Line Officer, and if you were, you’d be relegated rather quickly to a quiet corner in the WO! How many houses have been built on federal lands? A bunch! How did we handle that? Small Claims act, or exchange! Illegal grazing? The whole gamut from just getting cows off to seize and sell. I did the seize and sell of over 150 head in AZ, and that didn’t feel right – never did, but I inherited that mess!
How many homes were burned in Calf Creek and Hermits? And what did we do to the official in charge? Promotion!
The Bundy’s? At first I was all “raw-raw” hang em high! Then…. More information came out, making me think it sure could have been handled differently! Shades of David Koresh play into these decisions by Line; sometimes, you just got to pick up your tools and go home!!! So, take your “Holier than thou” and keep it to yourself, you have no idea what you are talking about!!!
Line officers often have to deal in the grey; seldom are things black and white. I think that is the case you are making. If the line officer, in this case, after all the considerations, had decided to drop this, I would have supported that. I just think that since they went another direction, they should be at least given some benefit of the doubt until all of the information comes out. Seems like a lot of people, the Secretary of Agriculture included, did not do that.
I agree that the whole Bundy thing was not handled well. It seems like it could have been done much more low-key. That does not mean that they should have gotten off scot free, and they sure shouldn’t have had the Secretary of Agriculture making them out to be victims. Just my opinion.
Dave, just as you’ve alluded to, and to again present management 101: in the government anyway, keep it at the lowest level (for decisions)!
Unless it was a very continuous, or adversarial in nature, the fence could have been removed, the center pivot could have been moved, and (for closure) a survey could have been conducted.
Mr. Zornes, those of us who are still in the Agency are having a difficult time right now. Your reaction “keep it to yourself, you have no idea what you are talking about!!!” is the type of attitude that the field picks up on and feeds the belief that the RO and WO staff have lost touch with those who do the work. We need more line officers who constructively engage with those who disagree, rather than dismissing and belittling them.
Chris, I didn’t say keep it to yourself; I said keep it at the lowest level! The worst thing that can happen is to have senior leadership “fix” it….. That is a big difference, my friend!
As for having a hard time, remember what you do and who you work for!
“Chris, I didn’t say keep it to yourself;”
Mr. Zornes, don’t try to gaslight me. Your last sentence. reads ” So, take your “Holier than thou” and keep it to yourself, you have no idea what you are talking about!!!”.
Line Officers who approach a disagreement as a confrontation rather than an opportunity do a disservice to the Agency and themselves. I reiterate, we need more line officers who constructively engage with those who disagree, rather than dismissing and belittling them as you have done.
Totally agree, Chris.
Jim’s massive ego has followed him into retirement.
Also seen this morning: Fired government employees are being investigated for talking to reporters about the government. Pam Bondi has used the word “treasonous”.
To my mind, the solution to someone making uncharitable remarks is to gently point it out, not to make more uncharitable remarks.
“There’s got to be a pony in there, somewhere!”
Hi Sharon: As you know, I have been generally against public discussions with anonymous or pseudonymous Commenters for many years, and generally do not engage. Some exceptions are folks with a good reason to remain unknown, are respectful, add to a discussion, and/or pose good questions.
Anonymous trolls are the worst. Others aren’t much better, but if they use their real name, at least they are accountable. The problem with your “solution” is that it doesn’t work with most trolls making “uncharitable remarks,” gently pointed out or otherwise. This blog, and many others, clearly document that reality.
I’m in the Jim Z. (we know who he is) camp on this — fight fire with fire. Get punched and punch back. Despite Jon’s assertions, there is a huge difference between being called a name and otherwise being belittled in a public forum, than there is in responding in kind. And when the initial name-caller is also hiding behind an anonymous responsibility, then that’s the very definition of a coward. And a definition is not a pejorative.
I continue to believe that by allowing anonymous trolls to Comment on this blog, good discussions are compromised and potential contributors are likely discouraged. Opinion (of an actual person), based on (documented) experience.
Hi Bob, that’s interesting with your ties to South Dakota and also center pivot irrigation! Regarding the discussion between people, anonymous, and so forth, I believe people can have good discussions and disagree with each other. You and I don’t agree on everything, but I think we have tried to understand each other, even doing so off-line from The Smokey Wire. There are numerous people on here that I don’t agree with from time to time, and that’s ok. I find that I don’t learn nearly as much from someone who agrees with me (not that it happens that often😊), but I learn a lot more from people who disagree with me and can articulate their point of view. My real hope is that people in positions of power are reading The Smokey Wire and getting a sense of what knowledgeable people think on the issues.
Hi Dave: We are in complete agreement. Discussions between people with differing opinions is how we learn. Science used to operate that way with “challenges” before it somehow changed to “consensus.”
Chris and Jonas: I was responding to K Macdonald when I said to keep it to yourself! If someone comes at me, directly or indirectly, I’m going to blast them for it! My “keep it to yourself” was such a reply; K (whoever that is) had a Holier than Thou attitude that just does not have a place in Line Officers decisions. Nice to be that abstract, but it’s not real world!
As for “lowest level”, that’s what I thought you two were hitting me over. It’s apparent the lack of experience in these replies, but I guess that the new FS! I actually saw where I thought you two were talking about but figured you’d smart off again…🤣.
All this talk and discussion is just noise really. How about this, here is a list of principles that Gifford Pinchot laid out for District Rangers. These were generally found on the walls in Ranger offices, but still quite relevant today. I think you’ll find these pretty much line up with how old “GP” would have handled the situation of trespass. As Dave mentioned, I also know some of the folks quite well that mishandled the infraction, and also not that surprised in how they mishandled it!
Pinchot Principles:
* A public official is there to serve the public and not to run them.
* Public support of acts affecting public rights is absolutely required.
* It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you are hired for.
* Find out in advance what the public will stand for; if it is right and they won’t stand for it, postpone action and educate them.
* Use the press first, last and all the time if you want to reach the public.
* Get rid of the attitude of personal arrogance or pride of attainment of superior knowledge.
* Don’t try any sly or foxy politics because a forester is not a politician.
* Learn tact simply by being honest and sincere, and by learning to recognize the point of view of the other man and meet him with arguments he will understand.
* Don’t be afraid to give credit to someone else even when it belongs to you; not to do so is the sure mark of a weak man, but to do so is the hardest lesson to learn; encourage others to do things; you may accomplish many things through others that you can’t get done on your single initiative.
* Don’t be a knocker; use persuasion rather than force, when possible; plenty of knockers are to be had; your job is to promote unity.
* Don’t make enemies unnecessarily and for trivial reasons; if you are any good you will make plenty of them on matters of straight honesty and public policy, and you need all the support you can get.
You two could probably get some use out of keeping these in mind as your career moves forward!
Your absolute superiority belief automatically assumes that many of us are “low-level paper pushers”. That is an insult, right there. Now you are claiming we have a “lack of experience”. I think the truth is that you are out of touch with ‘this month’s Forest Service’, as well as recent history.
When I first became aware of this situation, my reaction was that the potential punishment sounded very severe. Truthfully, it still does. I am no lawyer, but I highly doubt that if they were convicted, they would have gotten anywhere near that kind of sentence, maybe just a fine, but I could be wrong. The problem here is that people are making judgments without all of the information. I have heard a number of things second or third hand that, if they are true, would change the situation. What if the FS was unable to resolve the matter through administrative means? What if there was strong evidence that the Maude’s knew they were trespassing on federal land? This is like Monday morning quarterbacking when we only saw a portion of the game.
When I worked for BLM in north Idaho, I was hired as a Recreation Forester, but was told to first “fix” the timber trespass problem before I focused on recreation. I went to the Idaho Department of Public Lands and asked for all the timber harvest permits bordering BLM managed lands. I believe there were in the neighborhood of 70 plus harvest permits.
I then started walking the property lines and lo and behold there were plenty of “trespassers”. One individual “stole” public timber NINE times in those ten years. The DOJ went after that person for criminal trespass, but the judge reduced it to a simple trespass case and he just paid stumpage for the trees he stole.
The good news is that when news hit the logging community I got lots of calls from loggers asking me to check property lines in case they might have trespassed. I even got calls from “miners” about timber trespass on mining claims.
It didn’t take long for the trespass issue to become a minor problem and I could focus on recreation. It just took a commitment by the leadership on unit to follow through on the problem.
As for the case in South Dakota, I find it hard to believe that a rancher would not have at least walked their property lines. Particularly, if they were putting in a circle irrigation system.
Private posting and trespass of public land is a huge problem in Washington state, particularly in the more remote Department of Natural Resources parcels. I run into a posting situation almost every hunting season.
With Onyx and other GPS handheld programs this issue will continue to come up again and again. The agencies need to focus on this issue, before it blows up between the public and adjacent private land owners.
BTW…the resource area had occupancy trespasses that numbered almost a hundred. That did take exchanges and a Congressional law to fix that one.
I was watching this case develop, and then stopped when it got quashed – thanks, Dave for digging into it. I think you quite likely nailed it with: “I would imagine that any similar event in the future would certainly make a Forest Service Line Officer wonder whether the Secretary of Agriculture would have their back.” You have the more traditional “don’t mess with anyone politically connected to the administration, with the addition of an administration that likes to make examples of people as a tool for intimidation. And they especially seem to like to promote stories that make government agencies look bad.
Hmm..”having their back’.. would that mean “can’t disagree with what employees have done?” Because I’ve been on both sides of that.. disagreed with RO employees and agreed with the Forest (and was accused of not having my RO employees’ back). And my bosses have disagreed with things that I’ve done (for political reasons of various kinds). But I never framed it as “not having my back.”
Certainly they can and do disagree with what employees have done but that should involve internal conversations and seeking the facts, not by doing a press conference where they talk bad about their employees.
Boy, that would be super, but I’ve found that when someone above you disagrees with you and there are political overtones, they don’t talk to you and hear your side. Also when I read the press release she didn’t say anything about the employees, mostly about the Biden Admin. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/30/secretary-rollins-hosts-maude-family-washington-after-us-government-dropped-lawfare-case
When something gets political, the rocks from the titans clashing tends to fall on underlings below. That’s actually a useful thing for having higher levels for people to complain to.. those levels can help ameliorate problems before the issue “escapes containment” as they say.
” I’m so disgusted by the Biden administration that they would do this and persecute a family and threat to take their children away from them just because they wanted to be political. ”
She did say this..
“The case against the Maudes is a glaring example of the dangers of unelected bureaucrats with far too much power weaponizing the full force of the federal government in an unconstitutional effort to make felons out of farmers.”
It seemed that what happened could be classified as potential overreach (a criminal prosecution); no one disputes that. What we don’t know is what led the FS (and DOJ?) to take that action.
Correct. Knowing the FS people involved, I want to understand what all went into the decision to press charges. I am confident it was a decision that they did not take lightly. I watched the video of news conference. Yes, Rollins blamed the Biden Administration numerous times. That’s a very popular thing to do in her circles, but let’s be serious, it was a FS District and Forest, and US Attorney decision. There was probably some discussion with the Region. So even though she was blaming the Biden Administration repeatedly, anyone with any knowledge of the situation would know she’s blaming the FS, even if she didn’t know it. I have no idea how much she actually knows about the FS and how it’s organized. I would bet not much. Here’s my question, why did she have to do that press conference? Other than to be a jerk to FS employees and pronounce that there’s a new sheriff in town that treats ranchers right, unlike Biden. What a bunch of baloney.
Let’s see, a member of an R Admin criticized the actions of the previous Admin- this seems perfectly ordinary. Let’s do a thought experiment, if a new Admin criticized the Rock Springs RMP, would we assume that they were going after the BLM employees involved?
Well……yeah 😃
Hi Sharon,
I usually stay out of these type of website confabs that I have no factual information about but having found myself accused of a predicament on federal lands years ago, figured to stay tuned in.
The main difference back then (this was when USFS initially employed LEOs rather than DR’s taking the initial helm) all boiled down to personalities and viewing people as people, not the enemy.
The LEO was reasonable in that before writing a summons requiring facing a federal magistrate, I requested that he check with the local DR and county clerk (and at the time after 50+ years living in the post-1867 40-mile checkerboard area I wasn’t going anywhere), giving him the specific dates to look for of an official “takings” and resultant easement/use agreement(s) through private owned lands 3 decades previous to allow access for logging higher up on public domain lands (Pre-FLPMA/NFMA). He did so and all was swell.
But cordial and reasonable communication was the rule of that day. Sadly, those days seem long gone. Even the days of Colorado’s U.S. Senators Allred and Nighthorse Campbell during the CO Ditch Act (irrigation) did not warrant so much contempt, one for another.
Here are a couple links, and not to get this post into turmoil, just tho’t it might be of interest.
The following is not meant to create any more contempt between sides one way or the other. I have been a “researcher” in several federal owned lands v private lands disputes over about 4 decades and have found that when communication breaks down, hard feelings die harder, attorneys get involved, and mediation outside of lawsuits or federal charges is near impossible.
I would certainly like to see a full dissertation of the history and details from USFS’s side of the fence on this particular issue that actually led up to federal criminal charges.
“Charles Maude and Heather Maude appreciate dismissal of criminal charges”: https://www.tsln.com/news/government-drops-maude-criminal-charges-following-ranchers-elected-representatives-plea-to-secretary-brooke-rollins/
Maude Case: Frequently Asked Questions: 09MAY2025 – https://www.tsln.com/news/maude-case-frequently-asked-questions/
The following might work some folks up, but it shouldn’t. It just seems to be the sign of the times…kind of like Pres. Buchanan, Kansas statehood, and Pres. Lincoln in hindsight, but on a lesser scale: USDA Lawfare Complaint Form
https://www.usda.gov/lawfare
Best regards,
Hi Randy, I appreciate your perspectives. I had not seen either of the two articles you shared, and I watched both of the videos included in the one article. I found them to be informative and instructive. They spent a considerable amount of time on a discussion about the west fence line, which is not even pertinent to this whole issue. The problem is the east fence line. Of course, these articles are only presenting one side.
I finished my career on the Black Hills NF and we have a lot of landlines adjacent to private land here. It is almost rare to find old survey lines that are entirely accurate. Almost always, these are addressed administratively because there is hardly ever any ill intent. That is why I was a little shocked when I first learned of this incident. I had not heard of something similar to this. Then I started to find out more.
It did, in fact, involve up to 50 acres, which is not just a little issue of an acre or two, and there is evidence that with just a modicum of due diligence, they should have known better. They also constructed a center-pivot irrigation system on federal property. That part is only minimally covered in all of these articles, if at all.
It seems that a lot of people are willing to side with the Maude family, even though a U.S. attorney and a grand jury thought there was enough evidence to charge them with criminal intent.
Here is a big problem as far as I see it. Secretary Rollins chose to get involved and get the charges dismissed. Then she holds a totally one-sided press conference in DC with the Maude family and involved politicians. To date, the FS side of the story has never been made public. I figure there are probably two explanations for this. The FS employees are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution, or they are not allowed to speak out. Rollins certainly has the ability to control that. Is everyone ok with that?
Will the whole truth ever come out? It’s hard to say. Some news organizations have filed FOIA’s but sometimes those never see the light of day. We shall see.
I certainly believe in cordial and reasonable communication, and knowing the FS employees involved, I am sure they do as well. I am positive there is more to this story. For now, those employees are being judged and they are between a rock and a hard spot. They deserve to have their side told.
This is a common issue, when something’s in litigation, there is a cone of silence and the FS is not allowed to tell its side of the story. That’s why I have had to spend time looking through not-exactly-exciting NEPA docs and objection responses to get their side. This being a criminal prosecution, I suppose the same thing applies. Hopefully anyone FOIAing will have better luck than we’ve had.. in terms of how long it takes and what comes through in the searches.
True, I don’t know how long after a case is dismissed that the FS is allowed to discuss it. I guess I assumed that there would be no reason that the FS couldn’t after it was dismissed, but that may not be correct. However, the Secretary of Agriculture discussed it. Sadly, as we know, the FS does not have a good record on responding to FOIA’s when it seems they don’t want the information out there. This case may be different, though; they may want to get it out there and might respond quickly. I hope they do. If indeed the FS employees involved overreacted, then that is good to know. It should be a lesson learned to be shared. If the information presents a different side, however, then that should also be known. It would be nice to get a politician pushing for the release of all the information, but I don’t know who that would be.
I did write to Hageman’s office to see if Vilsack had answered her letter for more info, but received no reply or acknowledgement (I would have been disappointed except my own elected officials do the same thing). Perhaps one of our readers is a constituent and might get a response?
Thank you Sharon and Dave.
Sharon,
When mentioning Representative Hageman’s no response to your question, did you mean a letter to Secretary Vilsack or Secretary Rollins?
I might be able to get an answer for you but would need to know for sure which Secretary as this issue began under a different administration.
Regards,
Thanks, Randy! I can’t lay my hands on it right now, but my memory was that Rep. Hageman had written a letter to Sec. Vilsack asking for the FS side of the issue. If she heard back, then we would have their story! Did she hear back or not? If so what was the FS story?
If the answer was never sent, then FOIAing wouldn’t do any good. And I called Hageman’s office and never heard back. On Jan 22, 2025, Hageman and other House folks asked for a briefing by DOJ. That was covered in Cowboy State Daily. Material from that briefing would also be helpful. The letter is at the bottom of this story. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/01/22/hageman-blasts-feds-for-weaponized-intimidation-of-ranch-family-over-fence/
Here’s some more background from Wyoming attorney Semerad: https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/03/31/federal-fence-line-fight-with-ranchers-is-odd-wyoming-attorney-says/
Here is the other letter from Hageman and Johnson where I thought they asked some decent questions at the end.
https://hageman.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/hageman.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/9.5.24%20Letter%20to%20USDA%20re%20Maudes%20and%20USFS.pdf
Yes, this is the one I was thinking of and could not find. I think the answers, if Vilsack sent them, will be very helpful. If not, that’s also of interest.
Here is the January 22, 2025 Letter to the South Dakota U.S. District Attorney you might have mentioned.
https://hageman.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/hageman.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-01-22-hh-jdj-dj-bw-to-ramsdell-re-maude-family.pdf
Awaiting further response if a briefing was ever held, ignored, or whatever and for Sec Vilsack’s response if any.
As to the September 5, 2024 letter to Secretary Vilsack from U.S. Representatives Dusty Johnson and Harriet Hageman.
“No response”
As to the January 22, 2025, request letter for briefing to the U.S. District Attorney South Dakota, signed by the Chairman House Committee on the Judiciary and Chairman Committee on Natural Resources:
In progress –
I didn’t think it was OK to just not answer Congress.. at least that’s what they told me when I had to write answers!
What can Congressfolk do when they don’t get answers (and yes, I know they don’t get many answers on more important stuff)?
PS I think the answers to all non-security related, with personal information redacted, letters from Congress should be available to the public in an archive somewhere.
Here is the response from Representative Hageman’s office as pertains to the DOJ and request for a briefing Letter of January 22, 2025 –
“The DOJ did not respond to the letter beyond stating they do not comment on ongoing litigation. Following conversations with the Maudes and their counsel, our office is not taking further action while they pursue their own legal recourse. However, we are still actively monitoring this case and similar situations across the US and the USDA’s response.”
Cheers,
Interesting. It’s impressive that you got a response pretty quickly. So, it would appear that at this point, they have only heard the Maude’s side of the story as well.
Dave’s words, but maybe more to the point in this case as “not interested in the facts.” Or as Nadine put it the “sanctimonious search for the truth.” (I have to question whether search for the truth can ever be sanctimonious.)
Thanks Dave:
It is great to get such “original reporting” in this forum, and particularly on a story that is in the national news and close to your home! Of personal interest is that my in-laws are multi-generational South Dakota residents — I spent the summer working with them in the hills above the Rapid City Flood while neighbor McGovern was running for President — but the circular irrigation system that documents the trespass was invented in Nebraska by my likely cousin, Frank Zybach, during our lifetimes. USDA or someone claimed it was one of the most important agricultural inventions of the 20th century — and now it’s being used in the possible commission of a crime.
Did you know that there is a song about center pivot irrigation? https://youtu.be/fUOYG22tFSU?si=MEF6qPRktPZmSKqa
Thanks Sharon: Frank would be proud!
So Doc Zybach, do we now see you as a descendent of an inventor, of a “weapon of mass irrigation”? 🤣🤣🤣
Dam right! One more example of the danger of circular reasoning. The inventor is probably a distant cousin rather than a direct ancestor, though. There is John Zybach the licensed photographer at Niagara Falls in the 1990s, John Zybach who founded Zybach, Texas around WW I, and John (Hans) Zybach, my Swiss immigrant grandfather, who named his son John. And we are likely all related, with common ancestry in the Swiss Alps, south of Interlaken. Just not sure how.
These are Trump’s people with zero remorse. From Heather Maude’s Facebook page.
That’s interesting. I had not thought to check her Facebook page. Clearly, this is a sad event all around. If indeed the Maude family did not know that what they were doing was wrong, I think there was enough ambiguity on where the property line was and before making a big investment in an irrigation system, it seems like the wise thing would have been to go talk with the FS and discuss what they were planning to do. Wouldn’t that have been the prudent thing to do? It could have prevented the whole mess. I just hope that there are some lessons learned on this from all sides. I still don’t really know the FS side, but there are almost always lessons to be learned. I hope one of them isn’t that if you do something wrong, maybe even break the law, you get politicians on your side and you get off.
The Forest Service supervisor who managed the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, Jack Isaacs has since retired no doubt because of pressure from Republicans and because of death threats.
https://chadronradio.com/isaacs-retires-as-forest-supervisor/
I wonder whether the stove-piping of law enforcement within the Forest Service contributed to this debacle?
As a result of changes made in the 1990s, Forest Service law enforcement officers (LEO) and special agents report up through the Law Enforcement & Investigations branch, headquartered in D.C., not through the National Forest System’s line officer structure. This means that the local Forest Supervisor and District Ranger do not supervise or evaluate law enforcement personnel assigned to their forest.
The intent of this stove-piping was to guard against FS employee complicity in timber theft or other illegal behavior. The notion was that local FS line officers might get too cozy with their contractors, permittees, timber purchasers, and local power brokers. Line officers so “captured” might pressure LEOs to look the other way when influential local interests break the law.
Perhaps this incident evinces that unsupervised cops can be as big a problem as captured line officers.
When I think about coziness, I also wonder about why there isn’t equivalent worry about grantees.. sure we assume that their intentions are great compared to contractors and permittees, and even local power brokers. But should certain entities be shielded from those concerns (via no FOIA, unclear deliverables and accountability?) After all, awhile back we found that sometimes force account planting crews did not do as well as contractors, and it wasn’t because their intentions were poor.
“No FOIA” is not quite right. “FOIA also does not apply to private recipients of federal grants that are not subject to “extensive, detailed, and virtually day-to-day supervision” by a covered agency.49 Data produced as a result of a federal grant or award, however, is subject to FOIA.50″ I would assume that all written communication between the agency and a grantee would also be subject to FOIA because it is a government record (unless exempt for the usual reasons). What does that miss that you would like to see?
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46238#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20courts,however%2C%20is%20subject%20to%20FOIA.&text=Just%20as%20only%20%22agencies%22%20are,conduct%20of%20its%20official%20duties.%22&text=4.,agency’s%20record%20system%20or%20files.
Here’s an example:
FS person communicating with timber sale contractor= FOIAble
NGO person communicating with timber sale contractor= not FOIAble
Thanks – a good point. It would be interesting to hear what NGO objections would be to having this covered by FOIA (increased costs I suppose). Or what they would tell you if you asked them for this info.
I did ask some organizations and people within them, and never received a reply. Some I would call and email and I never received a return call.