I don't know this full story but in general, do not buy land adjacent to any government owned land. Unless a survey has been completed recently and the shared boundary hasn't changed.

The issue with federal land is many surveys are incredibly old and inaccurate. When they're updated the control points will most likely have to be re-establised and that has the opportunity to wildly alter "known" boundary lines. And the federal government will always win those disputes.

If there is a recent survey done By the feds, then you can use their document to argue. You can get your own survey done, but surveys are only professional opinions. Best to have one you agree with done by the federal government.

Established use of property is also meaningless, unless your neighbor happens to be a senator or something.

My main takeaway was "fence lines =/= property lines". It would seem that somebody would have done a survey of some sort during the land swap he mentioned and fixed some lines.

More articles

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/08/13/outrage-at-feds-for-indicting-s-d-ranchers-over-75-year-old-fenceline/

https://www.beefmagazine.com/farm-business-management/cattle-industry-leaders-disgusted-with-targeted-indictment-of-ranchers

https://www.rfdtv.com/south-dakota-ranching-couple-is-facing-charges-for-theft-of-federal-land

Doesn't seem like there was any intent by the rancher. Move the fence(s), replant what got plowed up, shake hands and walk away. It will cost the gub'ment more to do the nonsensical prosecution than the property would have ever brought in from grazing.

So the fence was in the wrong place for its entire existence? Then a survey was done and showed it was wrong? Why is this any different from two property owners doing the same thing and one then calling the cops to finally get them to move it. I would have just "torn down that Fence"

cslifer said:

---

Reading the linked articles the ranchers don't exactly make very good victims. They put up no hunting signs on federal property, and then were upset when the federal government actually did something in a timely manner for once and got a survey crew out within 5 days but didn't give them advance notice. They also seem upset that they were served papers "without notice". Get the survey done (which it appears the government is paying for) move fences appropriately, and carry on with your life.

---

Yep. Maybe don't try to deny access to the public to public land.

On the surface, this is completely preposterous with all the makings of another Bundy standoff. Still, I'm curious why the government suddenly changed course on what seems to be a simple civil matter.

I'm no attorney, but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn once or twice, and a quick glance at a Google search seems to indicate that Adverse Possession laws in South Dakota support the farmer's position:

https://www.findlaw.com/state/south-dakota-law/south-dakota-adverse-possession-laws.html#:~:text=South%20Dakota%20permits%20adverse%20possession,a%20period%20of%20twenty%20years.



https://www.steadily.com/blog/south-dakota-squatters-rights-laws#:~:text=To%20lay%20claim%20to%20property,hostile%20to%20the%20owner's%20interests.



Wonder what the Government's legal standing is besides, "try to stop us".

If the fence was in that location for 75 years, they would seem to have a very good case for squatter's rights if that is a thing in their state. Occupying a property for that long, thinking you owned it, and the actual owner knowing that you are there seems to meet most of the definitions. Finally going out and getting a new survey doesn't really change what has happened for the last 75 years.

Opinion, or is there standing to support this position?

Good read:

https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/14_49UCLALRev447October2001.pdf

SouthTex99 said:

---

Was the survey wrong? I'd expect they can hire an independent surveyor to validate it. You don't get to claim property you don't own without a military to keep it.

---

The federal government did a survey, but so far does not seem to have shared the results. I might fault the couple for not immediately hiring their own surveyor when this first came up, but that does not justify the apparent overreaction by the government. It makes me wonder what we're not being told.

Rule number 1 of adverse possession: you cannot adversely possess against the state.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Opinion, or is there standing to support this position?

---

I'm an attorney- Its a basic rule of adverse possession.

"A person may not acquire through adverse possession any right or title to real property dedicated to public use" (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.030(b)).

well_endowed_ag said:

---

Rule number 1 of adverse possession: you cannot adversely possess against the state.

---

"Might makes right" is bad enough as it is, but it's especially concerning in times like the current when our Government has become all too comfortable encroaching on American's rights.

Muy said:

---

I'm still amazed at how good people were at mapping land 100's of years ago.

---

You know how it is. Small town, not much to do…

Gator_2 said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Opinion, or is there standing to support this position?

---

I'm an attorney- Its a basic rule of adverse possession.

"A person may not acquire through adverse possession any right or title to real property dedicated to public use" (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.030(b)).

---

Okay, great. Does that justify the Feds taking criminal action against this couple? If there's any justification here, a reasonable person is going to think the matter should be settled in civil action. I'm not an attorney, but criminal action in this case seems like BIG TIME government bullying and over reach.

In the end, even if it's determined that these folks don't need to back off this land they've been grazing responsibly for 8 decades, this federal agent and the US Attorney will just go on along their merry way after bullying these folks in a brazen power grab.

Pres. Bush 41 left the NRA over their characterizing federal agents as 'jack booted thugs'. It sure seems like that's an accurate descripition right now--and, they seem to be taking these bullying actions more and more often.

I'm curious what prompted the government to decide they need to do a survey. Is there an effort to survey all federal lands? Why this one.

"I'm curious what prompted the government to decide they need to do a survey. Is there an effort to survey all federal lands? Why this one."

Rare earth metal deposits or precious metals ro be had?

Trajan88 said:

---

"I'm curious what prompted the government to decide they need to do a survey. Is there an effort to survey all federal lands? Why this one."

Rare earth metal deposits or precious metals ro be had?

---

That would make a lot of sense.

Trajan88 said:

---

"I'm curious what prompted the government to decide they need to do a survey. Is there an effort to survey all federal lands? Why this one."

Rare earth metal deposits or precious metals ro be had?

---

Complaint was lodged by "a hunter". Maybe a hunter that owns a mining company?

Work of marxist democrat party

I thought the govt loves them some squatters rights

AggieMD95 said:

---

I thought the govt loves them some squatters rights

---

Depends upon the squatter.

I'm confused as to how it got escalated so fast. I understand that a hunter may have complained that the ranchers placed "no hunting" signs on their fence posts. Because of this complaint, the feds came out and surveyed the land and found that the fence was in the wrong place.

Shouldn't there then be correspondence back and forth between the feds and the rancher identifying that the fence is on federal lands and must be relocated? Maybe some disagreements back and forth and then maybe some sort of threat of arrest after that. How would they go straight to arrest from survey of property. Something doesn't smell right. I think we are missing "the rest of the story".

GAC06 said:

---

cslifer said:

---

Reading the linked articles the ranchers don't exactly make very good victims. They put up no hunting signs on federal property, and then were upset when the federal government actually did something in a timely manner for once and got a survey crew out within 5 days but didn't give them advance notice. They also seem upset that they were served papers "without notice". Get the survey done (which it appears the government is paying for) move fences appropriately, and carry on with your life.

---

Yep. Maybe don't try to deny access to the public to public land.

---

Sounds like there's a dispute as to whether or not it is public land based on old surveys and a 100-year old fence. And they took down the signs when notified by the feds.

I'm a big proponent of public lands and being able to hunt and fish on them but this ain't a good look for the feds unlike the dispute over the corner crossing case where the feds and public land hunters are in the right (ethically and practically) and the private property owner is wrong.

Regardless, don't you think the whole service by feds in tactical gear and handing down separate indictments with gag orders is more than excessive?

I have a feeling there is quite a bit more to the story and a fair it of exaggeration from the ranchers. My guess is the "tactical gear" was an officer wearing an external carrier and a side arm. I do know that you don't see an AUSA take a case without insane amounts of documentation and evidence, and they darn sure don't take cases they won't win, which brings us back to what other have posted we need "the rest of the story".

torrid said:

---

AggieMD95 said:

---

I thought the govt loves them some squatters rights

---

Depends upon the race and likely voting bloc of the squatter.

---

FIFY