The U.S. Forest Service is denying it overreacted by pursuing criminal charges against a South Dakota ranching couple rather than resolve a land dispute civilly.

“The Forest Service values its relationship with our neighbors and where possible we try to resolve any issues through administrative actions prior to taking any legal actions,” the agency said in an email.

In June, Charles and Heather Maude of Caputa, S.D., were indicted for theft of U.S. government property for allegedly converting about 50 acres of national grasslands for grazing cattle and cultivating crops.

The indictments are raising alarms about government overreach among livestock groups, who’ve demanded the criminal charges be dropped.

However, the Forest Service argues it’s following “normal operating procedures for lands trespass situations” after the administrative process was exhausted.

Experts say the situation harkens back to the Sagebrush Rebellion and similar conflicts between ranchers and the government over public lands grazing across the West.

“By definition, because you’re leasing land, there’s going to be tension,” said Char Miller, a professor who studies the West’s environmental history at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif.

Various online accounts of the South Dakota land dispute characterize the Forest Service as suddenly and unexpectedly sending armed agents in tactical gear to charge the Maudes as they tried to resolve the dispute administratively for several months.

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.

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.

A representative of the Maudes referred Capital Press to online accounts about the dispute but said the couple was unable to speak about the case.

The indictments prompted U.S. Sen. Michael Rounds, R-S.D., to request additional information about the case from the USDA, which oversees the Forest Service.

His letter to USDA says the Maudes were “abruptly” indicted after they’d “cooperated in good faith with USDA to resolve a recently identified boundary discrepancy” after decades of working with the agency.

“The criminal indictment appears unnecessary and conflicts with USDA’s stated good neighbor practices,” Rounds said in the letter.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Rancher-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, which often strongly disagree on federal policy, have both condemned the indictments.

The NCBA has said it’s “disgusted” with the agency’s actions, which it claims are part of a “long shameful history of creating confrontation with ranchers in South Dakota.”

R-CALF alleges the indictments represent an “abuse of power” by the Forest Service that’s “not only erroneous but retaliatory in nature.”

Property surveys across the West were often conducted over a century ago with antiquated equipment, so conflicts over boundaries are not uncommon between ranchers and the federal government, said Karen Budd-Falen, a Wyoming attorney who commonly represents ranchers.

What’s unusual is the federal government bringing criminal charges against the couple, as it has long-standing legal mechanisms at its disposal to resolve such land disputes, said Budd-Falen, who served as an Interior Department official during the Trump administration.

“There’s no way they should have jumped to some criminal indictment,” Budd-Falen said. “The statutes are really clear about how to deal with such situations.”

The federal government’s escalation of the conflict could indicate it has other objectives, such as stricter environmental controls over national grasslands in the area, said Dave Duquette, founder of the Western Justice nonprofit, which advocates for ranchers.

“My guess is there’s something the federal government wants that’s there,” he said. “Something is awry there that we don’t know.”

It’s also possible the Maudes are suffering because they ruffled the feathers of a local government official, Duquette said.

“If you piss them off, they’ll come after you any way they can,” he said. “There are a lot of people like that in the federal bureaucracy.”

Char Miller, the professor from Pomona College, said he doesn’t believe “the agency is vindictive as an organization,” though it’s tough to know why criminal charges were brought with scant information about the specifics.

The DOJ’s decision to file criminal indictments against the couple indicates the federal government believes the evidence is firmly on its side about ownership of the disputed property, Miller said.

“I would not bet on the Maudes’ chances,” he said.

To the extent the couple has challenged the Forest Service’s authority, similar attempts haven’t proven successful in over a century, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed federal powers over public land, Miller said.

“To date, nobody has broken the capacity of any federal agency to manage any federal lands over which it has stewardship,” he said.

Conflicts over grazing allotments may in some cases be caused by ranchers’ long history of using the property, which can lead to an imagined sense of ownership, Miller said.

“The length of the process may be exacerbating some of these tensions,” he said.