snide
4 days ago
First, this is cool! Well done.
I live next to a State Park. It sounded really cool when I bought the house. No neighbors! Privacy! There is a trail accessible from my properly that goes into some woods, which you only want to be in during the Fall / Spring because the ticks and chiggers are intense.
The biggest issue with sharing a border with the state is the fence line. Technically it's on them to maintain. The woods are filled with mostly 200 foot trees. They exist right up to my property and fall every year during big storms. There goes the fence line. I have dogs so the fence is important. Otherwise they run out into the woods that have licensed bow-hunting during the Winter.
In practice its impossible to get the fence fixed. You are working through layers of bureaucracy and mismanagement. There is no vested interest from a parks service to work well with hundreds of neighbors individually. I'd build fence lines myself, and could easily pay for it, but it's the upkeep of those fences that would be difficult because so many trees (really, it's every year) fall down from their side.
My main point is that sharing a properly line with the government is more like sharing a properly line with nobody. You may as well own that land. Don't expect any upkeep and go in with eyes open.
weitendorf
4 days ago
Hey, I mean this in as kind a way as possible, but I actually don’t think the government should pay for the fence line!
If you wouldn’t even pay for it yourself, as pretty much the sole beneficiary and someone who could afford it but would rather the money go elsewhere, why would it make sense for other taxpayers to pay for it?
Isn’t the premise of “you may as well own that land” the entire appeal of living next to public land anyway?
jerf
4 days ago
My family used to live next to state land. The state can be very pissy about its land. If the fence line is on the state land, which it almost certainly is barring a surveying error when it was put up, it is entirely possible that if he fixed it, he would actually get in trouble with the state. Hopefully not actual legal trouble... but only hopefully, certainly not a "oh they would never bother". Oh they most certainly do sometimes decide to bother about the most random things.
My default presumption, without checking with them directly, is not only that it would not be allowed, but that this is also very much not a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" situation either. Even just asking the question can draw attention from them you may not want.
The ready accessibility of the land is advantageous in some ways, but as neighbors the state can be quite nasty. Your other neighbors don't tend to have anywhere near the regulatory firepower to make sure you comply with what they want.
estearum
4 days ago
I think they’re suggesting building their own fence on their own property and eating the cost (as the sole beneficiary) of maintaining it through tree falls.
newsclues
4 days ago
When a 200 ft tree at the fence line falls into your property that can take away much of your usable land.
Aurornis
4 days ago
Cleaning up fallen trees is part of owning a property in these areas. Doesn’t matter where the fence is.
Teever
4 days ago
But isn't that typically the responsibility of the person who owns the land that the tree was sitting on before it fell?
SkyPuncher
4 days ago
Nope (though it does depend). I’ve been through several trees falling from storms.
Unless negligence is involve (like an arborist being hired to condemn a tree), they’re generally considered and act of god. They’re the responsibility of the property they fall onto.
So, in the case of OP, the situation is unfortunate, but it’s on him to maintain his properties and his fence lines within his properties. It’s convenient the state has a fence along part of his property, but it’s not their responsibility to fix it for adjacent lots.
lazide
4 days ago
It Depends(tm).
Practically you’re right of course, but they are probably technically responsible given the circumstances the poster laid out.
estearum
4 days ago
A landowner is definitely not "technically responsible" for cleaning up trees that fall along or across the border of their property.
lazide
4 days ago
If they are aware of a dangerous situation (diseased trees), and don’t do something about it, they are definitely on the hook for property damage caused by that negligence.
It would boil down to their degree of plausible deniability, ‘state priviledge’, and the specifics of the law and precedent in their state of course.
Good luck
estearum
4 days ago
The situation described says nothing about diseased trees. It says "I live next to a forest and trees fall."
lazide
3 days ago
I bet you the tree would show signs of disease if examined, unless this was during some exceptional event.
I maintain timberland, a percent of dead and diseased trees are normal. It is highly unlikely, at least in the species I’m familiar with, that a tree will just fall over.
Evolution tends to select against that kind of thing.
Notably, parks get sued pretty frequently when trees drop limbs on people or trees fall on folks stuff, under exactly this principle. It works too.
SkyPuncher
3 days ago
Yes, but there is generally not a requirement to inspect trees. Even a tree being dead is not sufficient to prove negligence. Dead trees don’t fall over immediately.
lazide
3 days ago
Liability for property damage also doesn’t require strict negligence in most cases either.
See my comments above regarding some other factors that make it unlikely they could actually get damages (or it would be worthwhile even trying) in this case.
But it doesn’t remove the technical liability, most likely.
The most common claims that do actually get paid out is for things like public parks, street trees, etc.
Someone gets hit by a falling branch at a public park, or their car gets totaled by a falling tree, they tend to get sue happy.
hagbard_c
2 days ago
> It is highly unlikely, at least in the species I’m familiar with, that a tree will just fall over. > > Evolution tends to select against that kind of thing.
This is correct when the trees are bordered on all sides by more trees. On the forest edge - which is what this seems to be - things tend to be different though and the occasional tree does fall due to storm, rock slides, wildlife activities, water erosion and more. Especially when the forest edge is relatively new, i.e. the bordering land has been cleared somewhere within the last 40-50 years these edge effects can be sizeable. Eventually the forest edge thins out once the larger trees have all fallen to create a more gradual progression from open land to forest and there will be fewer large trees to fall on bordering land.
sally_glance
4 days ago
I recently learned at least here in Germany it's not. Because larger trees are protected, you're generally not allowed to remove them even if they are close to another property. When they fall, it's considered force of nature and you won't be blamed. Unless, of course, the tree wasn't healthy in the first place and would be considered a danger.
How that works out in practice is basically you as the owner of the tree have to document it's healthy each year. Then, if it falls and you can prove it was healthy you're fine. Hopefully neighbors insurance pays. If you didn't document the health of the tree, your neighbor can press charges and you (or your insurance) have to pay.
Den_VR
4 days ago
Tree law.
Teever
4 days ago
Oh my god you're right.
I think I unintentionally brought Tree Law to HN.
Now that I think of this may be the first time that I've seen Tree Law on here.
We're only a hop, skip and a jump from getting some vigorous discussion about Bay area Tree Law now.
hagbard_c
2 days ago
They even make songs about it, quite good ones at that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc
The Trees
Available on Hemispheres
Music: Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
Lyrics: Neil Peart
There is unrest in the Forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the Maples want more sunlight
And the Oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the Maples
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the Oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the Oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the Maples
Can’t be happy in their shade?
There is trouble in the Forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the Maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the Oaks, just shake their heads
So the Maples formed a Union
And demanded equal rights
‘The Oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more Oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw…Rumudiez
4 days ago
nope. live in the forest, take care of yourself. a 250' sitka spruce fell from my neighbor's property onto the roof of my detached garage. it cost over 10k to fix it. the neighbor was not liable; it was covered by insurance
lazide
4 days ago
There is the legal responsibility, and the practical ability to get things done/protect/help oneself.
What they are noting is the State is it’s own beast, and good luck getting it to do what you want.
This also is not a city type situation, where the density and value of something makes certain types of situations play out differently.
In the city, if a neighbor’s diseased tree falls on your house, you might have a legitimate legal claim, depending on the circumstances.
Your homeowners insurance will figure that out.
If one of the million random trees on state property falls on your fence? It doesn’t much matter what the law says, good luck.
The_Fox
4 days ago
And provide firewood to heat your home for the year. Depending on how much of a problem the broken fence is, you might even like it to fall your way.
Depending on the size of the tree and your home you might have enough to sell to the neighbors too.
I'm assuming the state doesn't come around asking for payment for their fallen trees.
zdragnar
4 days ago
Fences are expensive. Firewood really isn't unless you're silly enough to spend money on the guys who come out and stack it for you for $600 a full cord. Awhile back I was getting 13 loggers cords for $1000, delivered, with the only caveat I had to cut and split and stack it myself. Upshot: I got to cancel my gym membership for the summer because that's a lot of work.
diggernet
3 days ago
Fences can be made out of the tree that fell. Even post holes are optional. Only thing you need to pay for is some cheap wire mesh, and that may be reusable for repairs.
zdragnar
3 days ago
The OP mentioned having fences to keep their dogs in the yard. It depends a bit on the dog that they have, but I wouldn't trust untreated wood, using cheap wire mesh, without post holes, to keep dogs in a yard.
I also wouldn't expect the fence to hold up well if the yard had anything that would attract deer or bears.
hagbard_c
2 days ago
This somewhat silly statement reminds me of when a city person moved in to a house on a piece of land bordered on all sides by mine in rural Sweden. Come autumn the trees - of which we have many, living on the forest edge as we do - started shedding leaves which also ended up on the gravel path leading to his house. He came to me and asked me to remove those trees bordering the path because they drop leaves on it which he doesn't want there. I had to explain to him that he no longer lived in the city where the streets are swept, that instead he now more or less lived in the forest where trees are the dominant life form and that these happened to be mostly deciduous trees which shed their leaves every autumn and as such the solution to his conundrum is not to urbanise the forest but to accept the occasional cover of leaves and the occasional branch on the path, remove them when they're in the way and otherwise just leave them be. Not long after that he bought a garden tractor which he now uses in a futile attempt to recreate his urban park in the forest. The trees keep on winning though, they're many against his one tractor.
Aurornis
4 days ago
> If the fence line is on the state land, which it almost certainly is barring a surveying error when it was put up, it is entirely possible that if he fixed it, he would actually get in trouble with the state
Trying to maintain the state’s fence is not a good idea.
You would build your own fence on your side of the property set back by a couple feet.
monknomo
4 days ago
It's very common to build a fence on your own land, even if your neighbors have a fence?
Like my neighbors have a fence, I have a fence, there is like a 1' alley in between them, everything is on the respective owner's land, and that would definitely work even if your neighbor is the government.
If fence integrity is important, you need your own fence. Otherwise your fence is as good as your least interested neighbor.
SkyPuncher
4 days ago
It depends. I had fences on several sides of my yard growing up. Nobody doubled up. For the most part, it worked. It seems liked all of the fences had a primary owner who’s attitude was “I have a fence, it doesn’t matter if you have a fence, but I do - so I will pay to maintain my fence”
It worked.
_heimdall
4 days ago
I'd also assume the fence is on state land if its theirs to maintain. That doesn't stop someone from putting up their own fence on their side of the property line though.
jerf
4 days ago
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.
Aurornis
4 days ago
> 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.
troupo
4 days ago
> 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.
jerf
4 days ago
If you're planning on posting snark it's generally a good idea to make sure you read the rest of the post first.
troupo
4 days ago
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
newsclues
4 days ago
Will the state pay when their trees fall onto a private property and break the fence?
goosejuice
4 days ago
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?
dylan604
4 days ago
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?
prmph
4 days ago
> If the fence line is on the state land, which it almost certainly is barring a surveying error when it was put up, it is entirely possible that if he fixed it, he would actually get in trouble with the state.
Oh, the joys of living in a place with actual rule of law.
Here in my 3rd world country, people are free to annex land demarcated for streets that adjoin their property, without any real consequences, as long as it is not meant to be a major street.
juleiie
3 days ago
You have never dealt with government if you think asking anything even in good faith and especially in good faith is a good idea.
For some reason every bureaucracy is a host to a type of person that will go very far to make sure everything is in accordance with rules. If you draw attention to yourself they might want to check some ridiculous things that no sane person would ever actually pay attention to.
These are the ambitious bureaucrats and are probably the worst scum on earth. If you watched Andor you know who I am talking about. Not the lady but that security guy. This is the exact type.
Sure, most times you will not meet them but some totally amazing people.
But it’s enough to meet them once and your life could be ruined forever.
The power asymmetry is too strong to risk it.
I would rather act as if I was an outlaw and a guilty criminal with my dealings with government. Guilty, on all accounts. Now.. how to avoid the punishment?
That’s how we think about the government in Eastern Europe culturally. Whether that’s exotic or relatable to you as American, that will be interesting.
jandrewrogers
4 days ago
The government often claims exclusive authority and responsibility over the land but never acts on the responsibility they've asserted except to prevent anyone else from doing so. You can be required to pay a significant fee and file reams of paperwork to fix things for free that the government is expressly obligated to fix but never does.
It is common in parts of the US for government land to be illegally maintained by locals at their own expense because the government fails to do so. The impacted people aren't left with many other choices. There is little recourse when the government claims sole authority but also neglects its responsibilities under that authority.
This has been an issue in land management for as long as I've been alive. It sort of works to the extent the government is oddly incurious about someone else illegally doing their job for them. But every so often a bureaucrat with idle hands will decide to make an example of someone for illegal maintenance without addressing the underlying problem.
IanCal
4 days ago
> Hey, I mean this in as kind a way as possible, but I actually don’t think the government should pay for the fence line!
Which is a fine option, but it should be something agreed to by both parties. You can't just hand over a cost like that, and if you buy property with some kind of agreement this choice is baked into the original price. It makes perfect sense for the government to uphold agreements it has made.
Secondly - if they did own the fence line, it'd be on the government to come and fix it when one of their trees breaks it, surely?
toast0
4 days ago
> It makes perfect sense for the government to uphold agreements it has made.
The key question is what is actually in the agreement. 'The state will maintain the fence' doesn't indicate the level of maintenance or the timeliness of said maintenance, it just means the neighbor isn't allowed to do it.
> Secondly - if they did own the fence line, it'd be on the government to come and fix it when one of their trees breaks it, surely?
From discussions I've seen, generally there's no legal responsibility for tree falls, unless there's neglegence like ignoring a clearly failing tree. But leaving a forest to do whatever the forest wants doesn't feel like neglegence.
estearum
4 days ago
Did the government agree to maintain a fence…?
dylan604
4 days ago
If the government built a fence on their property, the burden is on them to maintain it. What other agreement is there?
estearum
4 days ago
Your position is that if the government builds a fence it is de facto obligated to maintain it to any abutting property owner's standards in perpetuity?
There is no agreement whatsoever, that's the point. No agreement was made or mentioned. The mere existence of a fence on government property does not constitute an agreement to maintain said fence.
dylan604
4 days ago
I'm not stipulating anything about abutting property. I'm saying that if the government builds something on their land it is theirs to do with and is on them to maintain it. If they decide to no longer maintain it, that is also their decision. To clarify my point, if someone bought property when the government's fence was intact believing it will always remain so they did not have to build a fence, it is a bad decision on the neighbor's part and not the government's. If you require a fence, the only way to ensure you have a fence is to build and maintain your own fence. There are plenty of examples of the government building something on their land and then walking away and abandoning it when it is no longer needed.
estearum
4 days ago
Okay so I don't know why you're responding as if you're disagreeing with me.
We're on the same page.
cucumber3732842
4 days ago
>The mere existence of a fence on government property does not constitute an agreement to maintain said fence.
Can you imagine the sneering and hand wringing that would ensue in the comments if you tried to make such an argument about private property?
If a private landowner failed to maintain anything that was created by man (as opposed to nature) they'd say things like "public nuisance", "blighted", "antisocial" and all the other buzzword people of that bent love to use.
I don't really care what the standard is. If some standard is good enough to be worth legislating enforcing then it ought to apply equally to all land owners regardless of public or private.
carlosjobim
4 days ago
There's plenty enough of unmaintained fences between rural properties in the middle of nowhere.
estearum
4 days ago
It seems like everyone here is literally conjuring up first an agreement, and now laws out of thin air. What law is the state exempting itself?
Anyway tree law is super, super well-established and it works the same way for private parties. Your neighbor's trees are none of your business until they are on your property, and then they're exclusively your business (except you can't structurally damage or kill the tree e.g. by cutting roots that cross onto your property).
You clearly have some strange bone to pick. You should pick it elsewhere.
jmaw
4 days ago
Are you going to call the HOA on the government to enforce them to maintain their fence?
empyrrhicist
4 days ago
> Isn’t the premise of “you may as well own that land” the entire appeal of living next to public land anyway?
If you start actively managing it (removing invasive species, dead trees etc.) the state can take a more active interest at any time and sue/fine you into oblivion.
lazide
4 days ago
Yup, and this becomes a very real issue if there is something like serious fire danger due to lack of (politically untenable) logging.
Or a serious pest issue (someone mentioned ticks, for instance).
Pros and cons of the situation, for sure.
sophrosyne42
4 days ago
I think the gist is more something like: you should expect the government to neglect their property.
bdcravens
4 days ago
Put up your own fence inside of your property line that you can keep up to your needs and standards.
timcobb
4 days ago
Sounds like trees would fall onto it every year :/
nkrisc
4 days ago
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.
alexgoodhart
4 days ago
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.
itake
3 days ago
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.
luqtas
4 days ago
or better! exercise and support the freedom to roam [0] by not having fences and have no dogs which probably disrupt wildlife too
alexgoodhart
4 days ago
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.
luqtas
4 days ago
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
throwdown7653
3 days ago
> 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...
intrasight
4 days ago
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.
everforward
4 days ago
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)
dylan604
4 days ago
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.
zeroonetwothree
4 days ago
Yes it’s because fences break constantly. So it would be less “insurance” and more like a forced savings plan.
phyzix5761
3 days ago
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.
nomel
3 days ago
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.
pyrale
4 days ago
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.
bdcravens
3 days ago
At least they'd have control and can fix it as they see fit, instead of waiting for the government.
hasbot
4 days ago
That's a good point. What about wetlands? My property has a terrible mosquito problem and I just found out there is a pond/swamp hidden in the brush. Since it's my property, I'll take steps to reduce the mosquito problem next year but if it was public land, that'd probably wouldn't be acceptable.
jaggederest
4 days ago
If you throw some mosquito dunks with BT into any given water body small enough it doesn't have a name, nobody is going to come after you. I think it's probably a pretty prosocial thing to do, unless I'm missing something
tristor
4 days ago
> I think it's probably a pretty prosocial thing to do, unless I'm missing something
Agreed. I'm in South Texas where we have Aedes mosquitoes that are an invasive species and spread Malaria, Dengue, Zika, and other infections which kill people. I consider disrupting their lifecycle to be an unvarnished good. I carry mosquito dunks in my pocket when I go on walks and toss them into any puddles, drains, storm sewers, and ponds I encounter, and it seems to have helped a lot anecdotally. I care a lot about nature/ecology, but also fuck mosquitoes.
jaggederest
3 days ago
I'm slightly less pro-social in motivation because the bastards bite me preferentially and I'm fairly allergic. The pathogen-transmitting mosquito species, as far as I am concerned, could be magically extinct tomorrow and the world would be better off for it. There are lots of mosquitoes that don't drink blood, let them have the niche.
hasbot
4 days ago
Doing that on public land is a risk. The USFS absolutely has restrictions on chemical usage. For example, pressure treated lumber is not allowed.
jaggederest
3 days ago
USFS uses it themselves so I don't know that they have much in the way of complaining to do. It's regarded as the least toxic mosquito management option, since it's quite specific and biological instead of pesticide.
cucumber3732842
4 days ago
>I think it's probably a pretty prosocial thing to do, unless I'm missing something
Also massively illegal if you live anywhere that has a state level wetlands protection type law and the enforcement authority decides to exercise their discretion to make your life hell. They typically claim jurisdiction and authority over all activity in/around wetlands so theoretically you should be getting a state permit before digging a mailbox post hole or doing any sort of "management" of plants/animals but most of the time they just turn a blind eye to private homeowners who are being reasonable.
Wetlands laws and rules (non-criminal code generally, but wetlands are some of the worst) are written in a way to make RICO look like a meticulously scoped out piece of technical legislation.
Syper
4 days ago
I thought you could ask your local assessor or judge where the WOTUS line is? If so, you do your management up to just short of the line.
cucumber3732842
4 days ago
First off, that's like asking your building inspectors "what can I do without a permit". Governments are dearth to "help out" like that. Even if you know a guy, the boundaries typically aren't binding until a survey has been done the state or municipality has a approved it and it's been registered with whoever handles land stuff in your jurisdiction.
Second, most states that regulate wetlands beyond the federal minimum adopt some sort of absurd expansive standard far above what the feds want. It's complex and varies by state. Sometimes there's a square footage minimum, sometimes there isn't. There's also "gotchas" where manmade areas can become wetlands if they are let to be that way too long, so like farmer Johnson can absolutely get screwed by his grandfather's bright idea to make all the drainage converge in one spot 40yr ago. Sometimes there are exemptions, sometimes not. There's huge variation by state and some states allow local governments to enforce rules above and beyond the state ones.
jaggederest
4 days ago
To be fair, my building inspector gave me a sheet entitled "what you can do without consulting the planning department" with like 8 pages and example deck/shed plans in it already.
But yeah I don't mess with wetlands.
verelo
4 days ago
My internal dialog can imagine my biologist wife yelling at you already.
Honestly i do not know the full scope of this one, but if there's one thing I've learnt from observing her work over the last decade...it's humans need to stop adding chemicals to water bodies with the goal of thinking they're helping something.
jephs
4 days ago
Note it's not a chemical agent; its bacterial spores that infect and kill mosquito larvae! I'm pretty sure they're not harmful to anything that isn't a mosquito, blackfly, gnat, or midge. Though midges are important to pond ecosystems as a source of food for fish and dragonflies and stuff? Idunno, ask this guy's wife.
verelo
4 days ago
I will ask her and report back...
I can imagine her having some long explanation about the unknown risks of man spreading this substance, even if its not a chemical agent. I lean on the edge of listening to Grandpa Simpson on these kind of things: https://i.imgur.com/MdjduDH.png
throwup238
3 days ago
That ship has sailed. We’ve been spraying Bacillus thuringiensis as an agricultural pesticide for a century now, at a massive scale, and that scale probably pales in comparison to how prevalent the organism is worldwide naturally.
prmph
4 days ago
I mean, there are unknown risks to having children, to eating, to having mosquitoes around, to pretty much everything.
It is not meaningful to allow every conceivable unknown unknown (to channel Rumsfeld) suck out any sense of agency.
jaggederest
3 days ago
They are dropped from planes by the thousands or millions in Florida and other places, for what that's worth. Between the actual pesticide fogging (back in the day it was DDT) and bacterial controls, they're a big part of the reason that Florida and other southern states don't have malaria any more.
ses1984
4 days ago
Mosquito dunk is some kind of microbial culture that’s supposed to be safe.
verelo
4 days ago
The path to hell is paved with good intentions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia
It might well be safe, but the question is what are the downstream affects of reducing the population of mosquitos (or other bugs in the water that this substance impacts). Maybe they've exclusively positive, but I assure you determining that is no walk in the park.
prmph
4 days ago
I always find it kind of odd that whenever any thing about reducing mosquitoes come out, you have a ton of people all echoing some variation of: "but what about all the possible effects"?
I don't know, what are the possible effects of antibiotics? What are the possible effects of uprooting weeds, which some organisms may depend on? What are the possible harmful effects of putting out wildfires?
For every action that someone might think of as beneficial, there are all sorts of "harmful" effects that can be posited. In the examples above, these harms are not even just theoretical, and yet people do not constantly wring their hands worrying about wildfire fighting, weed control, or the proper use of antibiotics.
That this seems to happen only with mosquitoes seems quite weird to me, especially when it occurs even with efforts to reduce mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases. People are oddly very worried about some nebulous harm caused by reducing real and serious harm now.
sally_glance
4 days ago
Hmm, actually specifically for the things you mentioned people did wring their hands and made changes to the procedure.
Wildfire - controlled wildfires are actually beneficial to prevent the real bad ones and help refertilize. So they now let them burn down if possible and just control the edges where necessary.
Weed control - poisoned groundwater from herbicides/pesticides is a huge headache, so these are tightly regulated on substances and amounts.
Antibiotics - multiresistant bacteria have taken over since years. In turn, antibiotics are now prescribed more rarely and for longer periods (to make it resistant survivors less likely) and new antibiotics had to be developed.
prmph
4 days ago
But that is my point: I specifically chose examples where people have an actual point to be concerned, and yet the amount of hand wringing over these issues pale in comparison to the concerns about mosquitoes.
sally_glance
4 days ago
But how do you know the hand wringing is less justified in this case? I imagine quite some time went by until the wringing was considered justified on all three accounts we previously talked about.
smaudet
4 days ago
I can see the headline now:
"Mosquito dunks linked to declining bear population - farmers struggling with deer populations"
james_marks
4 days ago
The mosquitoes don't exist in isolation though. Isn't this exactly how food chains / ecosystems work? You can't remove a tier without consequences.
amanaplanacanal
4 days ago
It depends. In North America our worst mosquitos (the disease carrying ones) aren't native, they are from the old world. I think everybody would be fine if they were no more.
otherwatersflow
4 days ago
Good one. Wetlands are a gap right now. The closest thing the site shows is the FEMA flood zone for each parcel, which catches some wet ground but not a hidden pond or swamp like yours. I believe US Fish & Wildlife Service publishes a National Wetlands Inventory for the whole country, so checking how much of each parcel is mapped wetland is very doable. Adding it to the list, thanks.
dietr1ch
4 days ago
It sounds like your expectations on your neighbour are way too high. Especially since them doing "their" part on par with your expectations benefits mostly just you.
When your neighbour isn't as invested as you in maintaining the border or has other annoyances you are better off leaving some buffer zone that allows to isolate yourself from the border and whatever road, river, canal, forest or loud or busy place is at the other side.
bell-cot
4 days ago
> I live next to a State Park.
In what state? Last I knew, the State Parks in most US states were miserably underfunded - so quick fixes (for pretty much anything, not just fences) just ain't gonna happen.
And what's the legal status of the fallen trees? In a fair number of places a 200' tree, already down, might be kinda valuable.
0xbadcafebee
4 days ago
Mostly it doesn't pay to process individual lumber. If it's near a property it may have metal in it, and it's likely wood you can already find at a nearby lumber yard. If it's a particularly beautiful large tree, you have a use for slabs, can rent a skidsteer/forklift, and don't mind waiting a few years for it to season, it can be worth it. Or if you have a hankering for very large boards of unusual wood.
prometheus1992
4 days ago
>>The biggest issue with sharing a border with the state is the fence line
Is it the physical blockade that the fence provides or just "where is the boundary?" - my guess is that it's both. While physical fence is hard to sustain due to trees falling but could there be an electronic solution for keeping the boundary line intact by putting some sort of gadgets underground which you can always ping to see where is the boundary?
0xbadcafebee
4 days ago
I'd much rather do yearly fence maintenance than deal with neighbors.
IncreasePosts
4 days ago
I know this wasn't your point but you could get a buried wire fence for your dogs. Or outfit them in beautiful orange jackets in the winter
ram1500natrluvr
4 days ago
Do you have room to put up a fence away from the treeline?
m463
3 days ago
wow, I kind of wonder...
tree falls over onto your property, you fix the fence.
tree falls over and you clear it, illegal logging you get in trouble.
otherwatersflow
4 days ago
Thanks, and this is a really useful perspective. The fence and dead-tree problem is exactly the kind of thing a map can't show.
My experience has been the opposite, though it's a different situation: I bought recreational land in Pennsylvania that borders state game lands, and I don't live there full time. What I wanted was the ability to step off my own ground into something wild and mostly untouched, and it's been a very positive experience.
I think you've put your finger on the real point: it's a trade-off, and it depends on what you want from the land. Living next to it full time with dogs is a very different thing from a weekend place you go to so you can disappear into the woods. "Go in with eyes open" is good advice either way.