TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

It's unclear whether they are in the unincorporated part of the county, but that would be my guess. If so, then she has absolutely nothing to complain about. People typically choose to live in the county rather than a city to avoid higher taxes and greater regulation. If one wants to live where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

Chas.

She can still complain about the noise and shot falling on her. If this is a small pond and they are right on that pond then they can further complain the moment that shot crosses her boundary. Further using that logic the hunters cannot complain interference. After all if they want to be where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

The noise levels that on very rare occasions support a trespass claim are much louder and of much greater duration than gunfire. It's very hard to make such claims; so much so that no one tries any longer. They seek to get noise ordinances passed.

I thought you were going to stick to the printed story. If so, then show me the evidence of shot falling on her property this season. As for harassing hunters, there's a criminal statute that prohibits such conduct. That too was in the article, or did you forget it also?

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

Noise doesn't constitute a trespass. There's no indication that shot fell on her property, other than her statement that it did in the prior year. However, her claim that her dogs had to be "medicated" because they were "traumatized" by the noise, is so absurd that it calls into question her credibility about anything she said.

Chas.

Now I am just going by her story so lets stick with that.

Do what you will, but Im not when it's highly unlikely and inconsistent.

The noise levels that on very rare occasion support a trespass claim are much louder and of much greater duration than gunfire. It's very hard to make such claims; so much so that no one tries any longer. They seek to get noise ordinances passed.

It's unclear whether they are in the unincorporated part of the county, but that would be my guess. If so, then she has absolutely nothing to complain about. People typically choose to live in the county rather than a city to avoid higher taxes and greater regulation. If one wants to live where anything goes, then they should be prepared for their neighbors to feel likewise.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I like the use of airhorns. They are trespassing on her land via noise and - evidently-actual shot.

Noise doesn't constitute a trespass. There's no indication that shot fell on her property, other than her statement that it did in the prior year. However, her claim that her dogs had to be "medicated" because they were "traumatized" by the noise, is so absurd that it calls into question her credibility about anything she said.

Chas.