When Heather Maude spoke to Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation members, she opened with a simple truth: nothing in her background prepared her for the legal fight her family would face — except the skills she gained through agriculture and the organizations that shaped her early life – notably her time in the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation Young Farmer and Rancher Program. 

Those skills became essential when a long-standing fence line on her family’s ranch in western South Dakota led the U.S. Forest Service to pursue criminal felony charges against her and her husband, Charles — charges that carried a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fines each. 

The Maudes ranch on land Charles’ family began purchasing along the Cheyenne River in 1910 and 1912. The fences across that landscape were built generations ago, long before modern surveys, and sit where the terrain allowed. “There’s a weight that comes with being the fifth generation on a place,” Heather told the crowd. “This is our feed base, our only irrigated ground, and it’s the center of the operation.” 

On March 29, 2024 — Good Friday — a U.S. Forest Service special agent and a patrol officer arrived at the Maude home unannounced. They said a “No Trespassing” sign near a gate above the Cheyenne River breaks sat on a fence that did not match the surveyed line. Heather and Charles explained that the boundary line lay halfway down a steep hill and the fence was placed where equipment could be used safely. They removed the sign the next day. 

Heather said the agent also admitted he had walked across multiple parts of their private property while examining the fence. When he reached another stretch of fence farther down the drainage, he told them he believed that section also might not fall on the official line and asked if the family could prove they were entitled to use the land behind it. 

“We told him, ‘We’ve been here long before the agency existed, and no one has ever questioned this fence,’” she said. 

The agent instructed them to meet with their district ranger. That meeting took place May 1. The Maudes had already signed their 2024 grazing permit with no issues noted. In the ranger’s office, they were told the Forest Service believed about 25 acres of federal land lay on the Maudes’ side of the fence. 

Heather and Charles had consulted a land professional and suggested a possible land trade, noting they had roughly 20 acres of deeded ground on the Forest Service side of the same fence. They also mentioned the Small Tracts Act — a mechanism that allows the government to sell small, isolated parcels that do not fit agency needs. 

The ranger said any solution would require a survey, which could take months or more than a year. She agreed to visit the site for the next meeting. The Maudes left believing they were headed into a typical civil land-boundary discussion. 

But Heather said the tone of the May 1 meeting shifted when the special agent began posing what felt like accusatory hypotheticals. He repeatedly asked what they would do if a neighbor entered their property without permission. 

“We kept telling him, ‘This isn’t that. We have a permit. We pay to use this land,’” she said. When the agent named a specific neighbor, Heather asked him directly: “Do you mean, what would I do if my neighbor did what you have done to this point?” 

The exchange, she said, “did not land well.” The agent also insisted he had told them not to plant the field in question — something Heather said never occurred — and, on the spot, forbade planting. 

Five days later, on May 6 at 4:45 p.m., the agent emailed the Maudes stating he would be out the next morning to “survey” the land and “go where I want, do what I want.” The Maudes had already told him that, to use their private property for access, he would need permission. He declined and cited federal authority. 

The next day, he and a Forest Service crew drove across the Maudes’ planted field, staked a proposed boundary and told Charles, “I found your line for you.” 

Concerned about the escalation, Heather contacted the sheriff and reached out to elected officials in South Dakota. Two offices did not respond. A staff member from Sen. Mike Rounds’ office agreed to monitor the case and asked to attend the next meeting with the Forest Service. 

When Heather tried to reschedule so the senator’s staff could attend, the district ranger stopped responding. Then, on June 24, the special agent called to say he was on his way to the ranch with paperwork. A neighbor came to the house so Charles would not meet the agent alone. 

“He served us with separate federal felony indictments for theft of government property,” Heather said. “They had never brought criminal charges over a fence-line dispute.” 

Heather’s name was included even though she is not on the deed to the land or the grazing permit. “There was no explanation except that I had made him mad,” she told members. 

With only days until their July 7 indictment hearing, the family scrambled to find legal representation. They sold fall-calving cows to cover attorney retainers. They put a conservatorship agreement in place for their children. At the hearing, the court revoked their right to possess firearms and barred them from discussing the case with others. 

“This is our only irrigated ground,” Heather said. “Losing access to it would cost six figures in feed. And we couldn’t talk about it with anyone.” 

Heather took on the research herself, digging through decades of family records, including Forest Service documents from the 1950s labeling the fence in question as the “cornfield boundary fence.” The history, she said, contradicted any notion that the fence’s placement had been unknown. 

The case quickly gained attention from attorneys, media outlets and policy leaders. Rounds’ office remained engaged. Rep. Harriet Hageman pushed information to USDA leadership. A former U.S. attorney from Utah called Heather after examining preliminary details and told her he believed the criminal charges could be dismissed. 

“He told me, ‘Between 95 and 99 percent of felony cases end in conviction. What you’re trying to do is almost impossible,’” she recalled. 

Within days, he contacted USDA and the Department of Justice. The criminal charges were dropped. 

The Maudes were then invited to Washington, D.C., for a USDA press event. While meaningful, Heather emphasized that the underlying land issue was not resolved. 

“You cannot resolve a land dispute with an agency while criminal charges are pending,” she said. “A picture on the steps doesn’t fix it.” 

When the family returned home, USDA leaders directed the Forest Service to issue a temporary use agreement allowing the Maudes to continue their existing practices. The first version, however, would have required them to convert their hay field to native vegetation — a permanent change to their permit. 

“Had we signed it, we would’ve been in violation immediately,” she said. 

The document was rewritten, using language Heather drafted, allowing continued use until a permanent resolution was reached. 

In July, Heather spoke with the chief of the Forest Service, who asked how they would like to resolve the boundary once and for all. 

“I told him, ‘I’ll buy it,’” she said. “I shouldn’t have to — but I will.” 

They agreed on the Small Tracts Act. Because the disputed parcels totaled 54 acres, exceeding the 40-acre cap, the land was split into two lots and sold separately to Heather and Charles. The appraisal was completed, and the Maudes went through a title company and lender like any other buyers. 

On Sept. 3, as the process moved forward, Charles replanted the field under the temporary agreement. Shortly before Heather addressed Wyoming Farm Bureau members, the sale officially closed. 

“I now own my first little piece of South Dakota,” she said. “It’s hard-won, but it has my name on it.” 

Heather told members that while her family’s fight is resolved, the implications extend far beyond their ranch. 

“If they had set this precedent, they could have come after any landowner with a fence over the line,” she said. “Instead, we pushed back — and for once, agriculture has a win. Now we need to use it to strengthen private property rights so government is encouraged to do what is right.”