Hacker News Reader

Comment by timcobb | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like trees would fall onto it every year :/

That’s what happens when you have lots of trees on or adjacent to your property.

If that bothers you, don’t buy property adjacent to 200ft tall trees. They will fall. That’s what trees do. They grow, then die and fall over.

or better! exercise and support the freedom to roam [0] by not having fences and have no dogs which probably disrupt wildlife too

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Right? Why have walls? Why have humans when we have wildlife? And dogs? Humans have only been sharing their company for more than twenty thousand years. Get over it, stop destroying the environment.

which is your next argumentative step? say your not disrupting an ecosystem that probably outlives the early human specie by hundreds of thousands of years? average North American that thinks just because you have money the planet and species living within are after your narcissistic ideals

> that probably outlives the early human specie by hundreds of thousands of years?

Well, that might come true with that kind of attitude, but it doesn't seem to be a given certainly.

And humans, I hear they say these days, go back a million years...

And when they fall, they need to be dealt with. Responsible land management would assess whether the deadwood should be mulched and resoiled, left untouched, moved, etc. If a tree needs to be moved or broken down, you can't just bring heavy equipment or controlled burning to federal land.

It feels like the top commenter is simply sharing personal insight, not recriminating and pleading woe, so Idk why these responses act like they're being egregious. The situation simply requires cooperation with a government that apparently is loathe to go through the process with.

I trim and clean up my trees before they become high risk for falling over. If my neighbor fails to maintain their trees, then I may have legal grounds to remediate property damage caused by their negligence.

My presumption is the state does not regularly audit and trim high risk limbs or branches near the property line. Since the fence is owned by the state, they will not sue themselves in civil court for their own negligence.

So move your fence 50 feet away from the property line. Obviously, this means you need to find a big property if it's adjacent to state land with large trees.

At that point he may be able to sue the state to fix it (or have insurance do it).

And if it’s your fence you can build one of the ones that’s cheap and easy to replace. I wouldn’t be shocked if you could put chain link back up after some straightening. You could use the downed tree to fix the fence if it was split log (not so good at keeping dogs in though)

Just to mention something people might not have ever considered, but basic home owner's insurance does not cover fences as they are not part of the house. I'm sure someone would be more than happy to provide additional coverage for additional fees that would cover a fence, but it's something to keep in mind. I know multiple people that were oblivious to this until their fence was damaged from trees falling on them during a storm.

Yes it’s because fences break constantly. So it would be less “insurance” and more like a forced savings plan.

The amount of people on here who have never lived out in the country is surprisingly obvious. It costs a tremendous amount of money and time to bring the right equipment to cut down trees, move them, put up fences, mend broken sections, etc.

I knew a couple that bought a house out at the edge of town, to be closer to nature, then complained that their kid couldn't play outside alone because of mountain lions!

Most people don't actually want to be at the edge of raw nature.

I assume this kind of property is large enough that OP can afford to build the second fence one tree height away from the property line.

At least they'd have control and can fix it as they see fit, instead of waiting for the government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com