Father God, I bind evil away from this family and pray Your intervention for them. May no weapon formed against them prosper. May you hear and answer their prayers and may good come from this. In Jesus Name I pray. Amen
Hey there, they do have a GoFundMe set up by friends of the family. I have it linked at the bottom of the article. Thank you for asking about this and for supporting producers!
Hi Keely. I tried donating with 2 different cards and it just spins and does not complete. Both were like that. Maybe it’s because I’m in Canada. I’ll try again later.
I’ll definitely contribute. I’m trying not to be political after reading some ignorant comments praising Trump even as he hurts farmers as we speak (and Medicare and SSN,etc,etc).
The case isn't about the fence, it's about an irrigation pivot that the author conveniently glossed over. Scroll down, there are other comments explaining why this story is bogus.
Having been a District Ranger with the Forest Service and a Field Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in SW Colorado where the land is even more rugged than the Dakotas, and the patented mining claims look like pick-up sticks on the land owership maps, I can say with authority this story is BS. First of all, I never was a faceless bureaucrat. I was and still am a member of my community. I earned the respect of ranchers, neighbors, outfitters and guides, volunteer groups, oil company representatives, Wilderness advocates and many others by working long hours, never declining a meeting or phone call, riding horseback through the mountains with ranchers, and walking fencelines with neighbors. I shared survey results, I sent certified letters when I had to, and in several cases myself and my staff removed illegal fences after appropriate warnings were issued. Land exchanges and Small Tracts Act transactions are challenging projects, requiring surveys, appraisals, and many other steps so that a District Ranger cannot become a good old boy by giving away federal lands to their friends. I have managed many lands transactions in my career, including trespass resolution, and if criminal charges have been brought against a party it is a last resort, and only after many, many opportunities were given for the trespasser to fix things.
There are a LOT of USFS District Rangers like you, Matt. In fact, one of the county Supervisors I worked for when I was the county’s natural resources policy specialist, was one before he retired. However, though admirable, that is often beside the point. The system is the problem. Though this would be a no-brainer problem relatively easily solved between private parties, the rules and regulations that handicap the USFS present often insurmountable difficulties and expense. Complicating a situation like this are burdensome procedural protocols mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the 2012 National Forest Planning Rule, Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act, and mandated public comment, appeals, and frequent litigation by third parties incentivized by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) that in themselves are enough to put the kibosh to an otherwise seemingly simple solution. Likely this is the root of the problem. Countless times I have encountered situations where federal and state employees are vilified for just following the rules and procedures despite their sincere desire to work through the BS. Their hands are tied, but that doesn’t make the situation any less abhorrent to in-holders, neighbors, lessees, or users. Public ownership of land has many upsides. This is a DEFINITE serious downside. The public is not well-served by the inability of public servants like you to exercise sufficient discretion to avoid situations like this. Additionally, there is a small minority of ideologically motivated activists determined to exploit every avenue and opportunity to remove productive commercial harvest activity, however sustainable, from public lands despite the express legislative language enabling and encouraging such activities. Political catering to this segment of our population has wreaked havoc with land managers and the public whose most basic needs are supplied by a practical, efficient, and economical balance of the multiple uses for which public lands are intended.
I am well aware of the USFS rules and regulations for land adjustments. In fact, I taught the national training for Land Tenure Adjustments, so no need to list them. I have also resolved many trespass cases within the rules using common sense, but when some neighboring land owner wants something that only benefits them, I drew the line. “Why can’t you just do a land exchange?” Or “let me buy this land” are non-starters for resolving these cases because the neighbor KNEW they were in trespass and wanted a resolution that only benefited them, and they wilfully trespassed, which reduces the discretionary latitude a District Ranger has. This case went to DOJ, as did one of my cases, and the trespassers lost. My case even went to an appeals court, and they lost there, too. These Dakota ranchers were told about the trespass, and they should have simply put the bloody fence on the property line. It is that simple. To blame the federal bureaucracy is not appropriate. To say the terrain was too difficult is weak. The fact the fence was there for 50 years doesn’t give the rancher any rights to the federal lands they may have fenced off. If someone lost in criminal court in a trespass case, it is entirely on them, as I am 100% certain they were given notice many times to move the fence.
There are so many elements at play here that do not relate to the Maude’s case- regardless of your self-promoting job history has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Besides, there are too many unknowns. Why is the identity of the supposed “hunter” that turned them in being withheld? Why were the results of the survey not disclosed to the family? Why didn’t the USFS ranger conveniently not meet with the family when requested to arrange an agreement? Many SM sites have reported the identity of this ranger and there are multiple reports of his, to put it mildly, questionable behavior with others. Why the gag order (super fishy) AND between two married people?Federally inditing them separately when they are married seems very suspicious.
To put a young family through persecution when they have publicly stated they were trying to do everything possible to remedy the situation peacefully, is wicked.
If you have actual documents and facts to support any of your theories about the Maude’s situation, bring them forward. Recreating your history from your vantage point and pasting on to this situation does little to bring any justice forward.
Actually my job history allows me to speak from experience so readers can judge for themselves. I don’t use terms like fishy, or suspicious, or self-promoting because I can let readers know what is most likely the real back story. It isn’t self promotion when one is trying to let readers know why I am writing things. When DOJ takes a case they do not allow the District Ranger to have any settlement discussions - all settlement discussions are through DOJ and the judge. So if the family asked the Ranger to discuss settlement when DOJ filed, the Ranger had no discretion and had to decline the request. They probably didn’t conveniently “not meet with family”. Another point is that DOJ will not take a case from the Forest Service unless the Forest Service has attempted to resolve the case administratively - and every attempt is documented so it can be presented in court. In fact, the DOJ hates to lose, so if the Forest Service has made one misstep in the case DOJ likely won’t take it. DOJ understands that the federal government is an easy target in any legal proceeding, so they need to make sure the case is airtight and a judge/jury can see that the Forest Service did everything the law would allow to rectify the situation, and the family didn’t accept the proposed resolutions until the Forest Service exhausted all of them and the turned the case over to DOJ. Finally, on the identity of the hunter - why is that even an issue here? If someone walked into my office (and this really happened) and pointed on a map where there was illegal fence with a No Trespassing sign barring the public from entering public lands, the trespasser doesn’t need to know who the reporting party is. What if the reporting anonymously reported it over a text message? It doesn’t make the trespass case go away. Justice is likely being served.
I'd be interested to see the supposed "gag order" limiting the Maude's ability to talk about the case. If this was done in Federal court, it should be part of the public record.
I sympathized with the ranchers in this story, but something felt off. The black and white characterization of the evil government and the honest hardworking ranchers. The wholesome family photos. Something. Then I read the news story linked to in the comments sharing “the other side”. A very different story. The good news is that the facts will be reviewed in a court of law and a jury of citizens will render their judgement. I trust that outcome.
This is not uncommon USFS or BLM activity. It happened to the Hammond family in eastern Oregon that made national news when the Bundy’s took over a National Wildlife Refuge to bring attention to this sort of federal abuse. Unfortunately, that action went sideways, and caused the Hammonds far more grief than they otherwise would have suffered. I hope this particular case gets nipped in the bud by the Trump administration, and for at least the remainder of his term this kind of bs can be brought to a screeching halt!!!
A number of elected officials have spoken out about this and even introduced legislation to curb this type of action in the future. I think Americans want more sunlight on these agencies and an open debate about their roles and limitations.
Keely: see my comment to Matt Janowiak. I think this is the root of the problem. It could also be complicated by a District Ranger at the opposite end of the quality scale from Matt. 😁
Reminds me of the Oregon range war with BLM a few years ago. It's a terrible thing. The government works for us. Why are they so hard to communicate with? Where is the break in communication? Where is the fear coming from (on both sides? How do we narrow this gap? Why such a militant response? It's insanity. Who is this "hunter"? So many questions...
They were told FOUR years ago that they were trespassing on public land. FOUR YEARS they had to clear this up and they chose not to. They broke the law.
“originally notified the couple nearly four years ago that their plan to install an irrigation system would require trespassing onto the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands.
Subsequently, the Forest Service observed crops had been planted and an irrigation system installed on National Forest System land without authorization, despite the Maudes having been informed that they were trespassing,” the agency said. Contrary to allegations the indictments disrupted civil proceedings, the agency claims that it’d only referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice after it was “unable to resolve the matter through administrative means.” The referral was “normal protocol” under such circumstances and it was ultimately the DOJ that decided to bring criminal indictments against the Maudes, according to the Forest Service. “At no point during this contact was anyone placed under arrest or taken into custody, nor did any officer utilize any tactical uniform, gear or assault weapons,” the agency said.
Hi Ryan. My sources say the family never received any type of notification and had no issues with the FS until this hunter's complaint. You can see the map for yourself. Their grazing agreement has been consistently renewed every single year, acknowledging all fence lines and boundaries as accurate, since the start of the National Grasslands program in 1960.
Anyone with experience on public lands knows that these types of small acreage land disputes or fence line issues are extremely common. The Small Tract Act was written to address exactly such issues.
But if you want to believe unelected bureaucrats with a history of harassing this community over a family of law-abiding American citizens, you go right ahead. That's your prerogative.
Which of your sources are NOT directly connected to the Maude family?
The fact that the indictment centers on an irrigation system and plantings that the Maudes allegedly made AFTER being informed that they would be trespassing on Federal land is a rather significant thing to leave out of the article.
Yeah something stinks here - like that Bundy debacle odor - using public landS for your own private enterprise. I’d bet if the USFS started encroaching on their ranch land , they’d be pretty pissed - but if it’s the govt/public they can just piss off . Dead give away their appeal to DJT
there seems to be a lot missing from this story. I don't believe their claim that the forest service never provided a copy of the survey. That's the only way the Forest Service could've asserted their claim or filed a charge. I'm guessing there is a lot of interaction between the family and the forest service that the family is not now willing to acknowledge. They have been at this PR campaign for a long time and there is a reason nobody is helping them.
and by the way, the penalty that they list is the maximum possible penalty for the charges that have been filed against them. That does not mean they would get any or all of that sentence. And they've clearly raised enough money for an attorney in this case could be easily settled out of court if the family's case is as pure as they make it sound. I'm guessing they are in the wrong and can't get the settlement that they want so they are hoping for political pressure to get what they want. remember these are taxpayer lands. These are your lands and mine.
I would like to hear the USFS side of this story because what this piece describes is not very believable. Many of these ranchers have a deep sense of entitlement and believe that because their family grazed cattle on land for a long time it means they own the land. The Bundy clan is a prime example of how entitled these ranchers can be.
If they originally notified the couple of trespassing on Federal property, it would have been with a registered letter and requesting an acknowledgment of receipt.
Less than that “proof “ means that they may have shouted it out of an open window while driving by.
An individual who was being trespassed on would file a cease and desist order about the pivot. A quick check at the courthouse would show that. Please put me on their jury.
"In an emailed response to questions about the case, however, the agency claims it originally notified the couple nearly four years ago that their plan to install an irrigation system would require trespassing onto the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. “Subsequently, the Forest Service observed crops had been planted and an irrigation system installed on National Forest System land without authorization, despite the Maudes having been informed that they were trespassing,” the agency said."
I ASSUME that the “ Hard working RANCHERS “ don’t want this OPTION, they want the land “ GRANDFATHERED “ well maybe someone will believe them, I as of now do NOT, sooooooo, hopefully they find people who don’t get irritated like me and end up o. Jail..damn NONSENSE, it’s NOT THEIRS, I’d like a part of YOSEMITE, hey camp there every couple of years WHY CAN’T I have IT?
This is what happens when you’re dealing with republicans and especially trump government. If the previous administration’s Vilsack didn’t even receive your letters I’d say someone lower on the chain is doing this and they are still there.
Maybe their best hope is to wait for the Trump administration to destroy the Forest Service. It’s coming, sooner rather than later. They want the resources for private industry.
Father God, I bind evil away from this family and pray Your intervention for them. May no weapon formed against them prosper. May you hear and answer their prayers and may good come from this. In Jesus Name I pray. Amen
And this is why people hate the government....
I will contact Cliff Bentz our representative here in E. Oregon at the Federal level. All rural Reps need to be informed of this abomination
Rural reps absolutely need to be asked about this case. And their constituents deserve to know their stance.
Make sure you tell them the whole story and not just the part you wrote down.
This is just crap! They need a go fund me page. We need our farmers.
Hey there, they do have a GoFundMe set up by friends of the family. I have it linked at the bottom of the article. Thank you for asking about this and for supporting producers!
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-the-maude-family-preserve-their-legacy
Hi Keely. I tried donating with 2 different cards and it just spins and does not complete. Both were like that. Maybe it’s because I’m in Canada. I’ll try again later.
I’m sure they appreciate the support!!
I’ll definitely contribute. I’m trying not to be political after reading some ignorant comments praising Trump even as he hurts farmers as we speak (and Medicare and SSN,etc,etc).
The case isn't about the fence, it's about an irrigation pivot that the author conveniently glossed over. Scroll down, there are other comments explaining why this story is bogus.
Having been a District Ranger with the Forest Service and a Field Manager for the Bureau of Land Management in SW Colorado where the land is even more rugged than the Dakotas, and the patented mining claims look like pick-up sticks on the land owership maps, I can say with authority this story is BS. First of all, I never was a faceless bureaucrat. I was and still am a member of my community. I earned the respect of ranchers, neighbors, outfitters and guides, volunteer groups, oil company representatives, Wilderness advocates and many others by working long hours, never declining a meeting or phone call, riding horseback through the mountains with ranchers, and walking fencelines with neighbors. I shared survey results, I sent certified letters when I had to, and in several cases myself and my staff removed illegal fences after appropriate warnings were issued. Land exchanges and Small Tracts Act transactions are challenging projects, requiring surveys, appraisals, and many other steps so that a District Ranger cannot become a good old boy by giving away federal lands to their friends. I have managed many lands transactions in my career, including trespass resolution, and if criminal charges have been brought against a party it is a last resort, and only after many, many opportunities were given for the trespasser to fix things.
There are a LOT of USFS District Rangers like you, Matt. In fact, one of the county Supervisors I worked for when I was the county’s natural resources policy specialist, was one before he retired. However, though admirable, that is often beside the point. The system is the problem. Though this would be a no-brainer problem relatively easily solved between private parties, the rules and regulations that handicap the USFS present often insurmountable difficulties and expense. Complicating a situation like this are burdensome procedural protocols mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the 2012 National Forest Planning Rule, Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act, and mandated public comment, appeals, and frequent litigation by third parties incentivized by the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) that in themselves are enough to put the kibosh to an otherwise seemingly simple solution. Likely this is the root of the problem. Countless times I have encountered situations where federal and state employees are vilified for just following the rules and procedures despite their sincere desire to work through the BS. Their hands are tied, but that doesn’t make the situation any less abhorrent to in-holders, neighbors, lessees, or users. Public ownership of land has many upsides. This is a DEFINITE serious downside. The public is not well-served by the inability of public servants like you to exercise sufficient discretion to avoid situations like this. Additionally, there is a small minority of ideologically motivated activists determined to exploit every avenue and opportunity to remove productive commercial harvest activity, however sustainable, from public lands despite the express legislative language enabling and encouraging such activities. Political catering to this segment of our population has wreaked havoc with land managers and the public whose most basic needs are supplied by a practical, efficient, and economical balance of the multiple uses for which public lands are intended.
I am well aware of the USFS rules and regulations for land adjustments. In fact, I taught the national training for Land Tenure Adjustments, so no need to list them. I have also resolved many trespass cases within the rules using common sense, but when some neighboring land owner wants something that only benefits them, I drew the line. “Why can’t you just do a land exchange?” Or “let me buy this land” are non-starters for resolving these cases because the neighbor KNEW they were in trespass and wanted a resolution that only benefited them, and they wilfully trespassed, which reduces the discretionary latitude a District Ranger has. This case went to DOJ, as did one of my cases, and the trespassers lost. My case even went to an appeals court, and they lost there, too. These Dakota ranchers were told about the trespass, and they should have simply put the bloody fence on the property line. It is that simple. To blame the federal bureaucracy is not appropriate. To say the terrain was too difficult is weak. The fact the fence was there for 50 years doesn’t give the rancher any rights to the federal lands they may have fenced off. If someone lost in criminal court in a trespass case, it is entirely on them, as I am 100% certain they were given notice many times to move the fence.
There are so many elements at play here that do not relate to the Maude’s case- regardless of your self-promoting job history has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Besides, there are too many unknowns. Why is the identity of the supposed “hunter” that turned them in being withheld? Why were the results of the survey not disclosed to the family? Why didn’t the USFS ranger conveniently not meet with the family when requested to arrange an agreement? Many SM sites have reported the identity of this ranger and there are multiple reports of his, to put it mildly, questionable behavior with others. Why the gag order (super fishy) AND between two married people?Federally inditing them separately when they are married seems very suspicious.
To put a young family through persecution when they have publicly stated they were trying to do everything possible to remedy the situation peacefully, is wicked.
If you have actual documents and facts to support any of your theories about the Maude’s situation, bring them forward. Recreating your history from your vantage point and pasting on to this situation does little to bring any justice forward.
Actually my job history allows me to speak from experience so readers can judge for themselves. I don’t use terms like fishy, or suspicious, or self-promoting because I can let readers know what is most likely the real back story. It isn’t self promotion when one is trying to let readers know why I am writing things. When DOJ takes a case they do not allow the District Ranger to have any settlement discussions - all settlement discussions are through DOJ and the judge. So if the family asked the Ranger to discuss settlement when DOJ filed, the Ranger had no discretion and had to decline the request. They probably didn’t conveniently “not meet with family”. Another point is that DOJ will not take a case from the Forest Service unless the Forest Service has attempted to resolve the case administratively - and every attempt is documented so it can be presented in court. In fact, the DOJ hates to lose, so if the Forest Service has made one misstep in the case DOJ likely won’t take it. DOJ understands that the federal government is an easy target in any legal proceeding, so they need to make sure the case is airtight and a judge/jury can see that the Forest Service did everything the law would allow to rectify the situation, and the family didn’t accept the proposed resolutions until the Forest Service exhausted all of them and the turned the case over to DOJ. Finally, on the identity of the hunter - why is that even an issue here? If someone walked into my office (and this really happened) and pointed on a map where there was illegal fence with a No Trespassing sign barring the public from entering public lands, the trespasser doesn’t need to know who the reporting party is. What if the reporting anonymously reported it over a text message? It doesn’t make the trespass case go away. Justice is likely being served.
Thank YOU for THIS!!
Yeah, something is missing here. Either the USFS is lying or the rancher is.
I'd be interested to see the supposed "gag order" limiting the Maude's ability to talk about the case. If this was done in Federal court, it should be part of the public record.
Where is #Michael Shellenbeeger or #Matt Taibbi?
Would love to see more big/mainstream media cover this.
They won't cover it without exposing the misdirection you included. You really don't want them to fact check you, I promise.
I meant #Shellenberger or #Taibbi
I sympathized with the ranchers in this story, but something felt off. The black and white characterization of the evil government and the honest hardworking ranchers. The wholesome family photos. Something. Then I read the news story linked to in the comments sharing “the other side”. A very different story. The good news is that the facts will be reviewed in a court of law and a jury of citizens will render their judgement. I trust that outcome.
If they’d just fix what they’ve done it’d go away
This is not uncommon USFS or BLM activity. It happened to the Hammond family in eastern Oregon that made national news when the Bundy’s took over a National Wildlife Refuge to bring attention to this sort of federal abuse. Unfortunately, that action went sideways, and caused the Hammonds far more grief than they otherwise would have suffered. I hope this particular case gets nipped in the bud by the Trump administration, and for at least the remainder of his term this kind of bs can be brought to a screeching halt!!!
A number of elected officials have spoken out about this and even introduced legislation to curb this type of action in the future. I think Americans want more sunlight on these agencies and an open debate about their roles and limitations.
Keely: see my comment to Matt Janowiak. I think this is the root of the problem. It could also be complicated by a District Ranger at the opposite end of the quality scale from Matt. 😁
The Hammond family broke the law repeatedly.
Why do rural folks hold themselves to a different standard
Reminds me of the Oregon range war with BLM a few years ago. It's a terrible thing. The government works for us. Why are they so hard to communicate with? Where is the break in communication? Where is the fear coming from (on both sides? How do we narrow this gap? Why such a militant response? It's insanity. Who is this "hunter"? So many questions...
For anyone looking for the REAL story: https://capitalpress.com/2024/08/28/feds-deny-jumping-gun-with-criminal-charges-against-ranch-couple-in-land-dispute/
They were told FOUR years ago that they were trespassing on public land. FOUR YEARS they had to clear this up and they chose not to. They broke the law.
“originally notified the couple nearly four years ago that their plan to install an irrigation system would require trespassing onto the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands.
Subsequently, the Forest Service observed crops had been planted and an irrigation system installed on National Forest System land without authorization, despite the Maudes having been informed that they were trespassing,” the agency said. Contrary to allegations the indictments disrupted civil proceedings, the agency claims that it’d only referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice after it was “unable to resolve the matter through administrative means.” The referral was “normal protocol” under such circumstances and it was ultimately the DOJ that decided to bring criminal indictments against the Maudes, according to the Forest Service. “At no point during this contact was anyone placed under arrest or taken into custody, nor did any officer utilize any tactical uniform, gear or assault weapons,” the agency said.
Read more at: https://capitalpress.com/2024/08/28/feds-deny-jumping-gun-with-criminal-charges-against-ranch-couple-in-land-dispute/
Hi Ryan. My sources say the family never received any type of notification and had no issues with the FS until this hunter's complaint. You can see the map for yourself. Their grazing agreement has been consistently renewed every single year, acknowledging all fence lines and boundaries as accurate, since the start of the National Grasslands program in 1960.
Anyone with experience on public lands knows that these types of small acreage land disputes or fence line issues are extremely common. The Small Tract Act was written to address exactly such issues.
But if you want to believe unelected bureaucrats with a history of harassing this community over a family of law-abiding American citizens, you go right ahead. That's your prerogative.
You used biased sources, you're biased yourself, you're ignoring the actual facts of the matter.
You really have no business calling yourself a journalist at this point.
Did you make an anonymous account just to comment on this story? Lol interesting
Which of your sources are NOT directly connected to the Maude family?
The fact that the indictment centers on an irrigation system and plantings that the Maudes allegedly made AFTER being informed that they would be trespassing on Federal land is a rather significant thing to leave out of the article.
Glad I read the comments for this... Theres always more to the story...
Yeah something stinks here - like that Bundy debacle odor - using public landS for your own private enterprise. I’d bet if the USFS started encroaching on their ranch land , they’d be pretty pissed - but if it’s the govt/public they can just piss off . Dead give away their appeal to DJT
The article cited here repeats the USFS claims. It doesn't prove them to be true.
I decide which laws I wish to obey also!
there seems to be a lot missing from this story. I don't believe their claim that the forest service never provided a copy of the survey. That's the only way the Forest Service could've asserted their claim or filed a charge. I'm guessing there is a lot of interaction between the family and the forest service that the family is not now willing to acknowledge. They have been at this PR campaign for a long time and there is a reason nobody is helping them.
and by the way, the penalty that they list is the maximum possible penalty for the charges that have been filed against them. That does not mean they would get any or all of that sentence. And they've clearly raised enough money for an attorney in this case could be easily settled out of court if the family's case is as pure as they make it sound. I'm guessing they are in the wrong and can't get the settlement that they want so they are hoping for political pressure to get what they want. remember these are taxpayer lands. These are your lands and mine.
I would like to hear the USFS side of this story because what this piece describes is not very believable. Many of these ranchers have a deep sense of entitlement and believe that because their family grazed cattle on land for a long time it means they own the land. The Bundy clan is a prime example of how entitled these ranchers can be.
If they originally notified the couple of trespassing on Federal property, it would have been with a registered letter and requesting an acknowledgment of receipt.
Less than that “proof “ means that they may have shouted it out of an open window while driving by.
An individual who was being trespassed on would file a cease and desist order about the pivot. A quick check at the courthouse would show that. Please put me on their jury.
"In an emailed response to questions about the case, however, the agency claims it originally notified the couple nearly four years ago that their plan to install an irrigation system would require trespassing onto the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. “Subsequently, the Forest Service observed crops had been planted and an irrigation system installed on National Forest System land without authorization, despite the Maudes having been informed that they were trespassing,” the agency said."
Read more at: https://capitalpress.com/2024/08/28/feds-deny-jumping-gun-with-criminal-charges-against-ranch-couple-in-land-dispute/
A simple solution would be to do a survey and move the fence if needed. What’s the problem?
I ASSUME that the “ Hard working RANCHERS “ don’t want this OPTION, they want the land “ GRANDFATHERED “ well maybe someone will believe them, I as of now do NOT, sooooooo, hopefully they find people who don’t get irritated like me and end up o. Jail..damn NONSENSE, it’s NOT THEIRS, I’d like a part of YOSEMITE, hey camp there every couple of years WHY CAN’T I have IT?
This is what happens when you’re dealing with republicans and especially trump government. If the previous administration’s Vilsack didn’t even receive your letters I’d say someone lower on the chain is doing this and they are still there.
Maybe their best hope is to wait for the Trump administration to destroy the Forest Service. It’s coming, sooner rather than later. They want the resources for private industry.