Nobody wins in Maude situation

The ranching community was stirred recently by the federal criminal indictment of ranchers Charles and Heather Maude following a complaint March 29 about a 70-year-old fence allegedly blocking public lands access. From local ranchers to retired U.S. Forest Service (USFS) personnel to politicians to leaders in the ag industry, there is a nearly-unanimous outcry that the USFS – or someone representing them - overstepped in its rapid escalation of this investigation to a criminal suit.
The alleged offense and the threatened consequences are incongruous, and frankly are not in line with how the Forest Service generally treats its stewardship partners, which many public lands ranchers in the area have expressed. Clearly there was a breakdown in communication, or in the chain of command, that would cause this case to escalate so wildly. But how this was handled and the ensuing silence by the USFS has put everyone on edge who utilize grazing allotments for their livelihood.
We do not wish to make a sweeping denouncement of the United States Forest Service or its personnel. Many of these federal personnel are dyed-in-the-wool South Dakotans, individuals who desire wholeheartedly to serve the communities they live in. But our federal agencies, full of good and well-intentioned people, like it or not, are still federal agencies that ultimately answer to people in Washington, which don’t necessarily have the good of our local communities in mind. To a certain extent, this situation isn’t about individuals, but about a bureaucratic federal government with nearly infinite taxpayer-funded pockets, which has been known to use its various agencies to accomplish its own ends, or to wield the letter of the law without considering the people involved in a given situation.
So, while this case continues to unfold, while we wait to see if this goes to court and what the fallout is of that, while we wait for other emerging evidence, what do we do in the meantime? How do we preserve our community and maintain good relationships?
A few things come to mind.
South Dakotans: like it or not, upwards of 2.5 million acres of land in South Dakota is federal land, under the jurisdiction of people far removed from South Dakota interests and values. Offenses related to these lands are handled by federal law enforcement personnel and federal judges and can be prosecuted and tried outside of the State of South Dakota. This is worth acknowledging, at the very least.
Ranchers: if you utilize public lands, make sure your allotments are in good standing. Work to keep good relationships with the foresters who oversee your allotments. Know your own rights and understand the terms of your allotments.
USFS personnel: consider your motto, “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” How do your actions as federal personnel serve (or not) the people in the community in which you live and work? Consider how silence on this situation has potentially unfairly affected personnel not at all involved in this situation.
United States Forest Service: you are a governmental agency and therefore are a servant of the people. You claim “good neighbor” intentions. You claim to want to support the agricultural community. Although your chain of command goes straight back to Washington, ultimately it is the people that you serve, real flesh-and-blood individuals with livelihoods and families, who are affected by your policies and procedures. Be willing to examine how situations are handled, and be willing to hold people accountable.
And finally, this is a gross mishandling of taxpayer dollars. What is in question is the use of some 25-50 acres of land. For perspective, on these grazing allotments, 50 acres is approximately what is required for a single cow-calf pair for a 5-month lease, valued at roughly $1.50 per month, for a total cost of $7.50 maximum on this 25-50 acres in question. These aren’t exact figures, but this gives an idea of the significance of the ground in question. Do the math. It is expensive to sue, and expensive to be sued. The taxpayer is the loser, regardless of who wins this case. The USFS should consider this.
These actions by the USFS have shaken the trust of the ranching community and regardless of how this shakes out, this rift is going to take time to mend.