upvote
You couldn't integrate it into theirs, so you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space you want the dogs in because the gap you'd leave would have to be big enough for a dog.

Which is hardly the end of the world, but it can definitely grind the gears to be spending thousands when you could fix the problem for several hundreds, if not perhaps several tens, of dollars if they wouldn't be assholes about it. But I would absolutely advise anyone in that situation to spend the thousands and not bank on the state not being assholes about it.

I can also add that you can't even be sure that if you got away with it for years that you will continue to get away with it. The particular issue that my father got into a bit of hassle with the state about is that he accidentally put a pole barn across the state line. Didn't mean to, but he misread the survey markers. Fortunately, they let him remediate it at his expense without pursuing the matter any further legally... but it means they did, after several years of it being there, come through a with a survey team and verify that nobody on the border was crossing into their land, and anything they found they made the residents fix no matter how many years the deviation had been there. All the laws about such thing between two citizens mean nothing to the state.

reply
> You couldn't integrate it into theirs, so you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space you want the dogs in because the gap you'd leave would have to be big enough for a dog.

These properties only border public land on one side.

If someone is trying to fence their dogs into their property, it’s implied that they’re already fencing every other part of the property. They would be completing it with a back section.

reply
> You couldn't integrate it into theirs, so you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space

Oh no. Tbe preposterous idea of putting a fence around your own property.

reply
If you're planning on posting snark it's generally a good idea to make sure you read the rest of the post first.
reply
I read the rest if the post and it makes no sense. The father story is non-sequitur, and this can only be interpreted as the poster not knowing how fences work: "you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space you want the dogs in because the gap you'd leave would have to be big enough for a dog."

A sibling comment pointed this out, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50105376

reply
Will the state pay when their trees fall onto a private property and break the fence?
reply
In the US, if a neighbor's tree falls on your house, they are likely only liable if it was due to negligence. I don't see how the state could possibly be liable for a tree on public land falling on someone's fence. Why would tax payers want to foot that bill?
reply
Pretty much my exact thoughts as well. Heaven forbid a property owning pet owner be responsible for protecting their pets on their property. WTF has this world come to?
reply