> 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.
replyThese 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.
> You couldn't integrate it into theirs, so you'd be looking at having to fence in the entire space
replyOh no. Tbe preposterous idea of putting a fence around your own property.
If you're planning on posting snark it's generally a good idea to make sure you read the rest of the post first.
replyI 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."
replyA sibling comment pointed this out, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50105376
Will the state pay when their trees fall onto a private property and break the fence?
replyIn 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?
replyPretty 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