The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concep


Comment: Sorry for late response
Sorry for late response
Hi Melinda,
To elaborate, I meant that your neighbor that keeps reporting you seems out to get you, and that reducing your interactions with them might be a worthwhile goal. Not sure whether a fence would help to limit their view of your activities -- and I understand there's an expense involved with that solution.
The son sounds like someone to be wary of as well. (Caution, that is, not fear.)
I like the idea others have offered, of a military-style temporary bridge, as that would provide for the maximum leeway for the fish, and as long as you place it on "not-wetlands" footing on either side it sounds like a reasonable temporary solution, that might be permanently temporary, perhaps. Also have a bicycle or ATV on the other side, to use in your yard, both in the meantime and if they decide to destroy your bridge.
I find the whole idea of wetlands to be completely wrong. This is my property; how anyone can have a claim to my property is beyond me. I mean, I understand that they do it -- it's just not constitutional.
I'm considering purchasing some wetlands here that are under 10k and then mounting a fight to eliminate wetland classification. If the fight costs less than 100k it might be worth doing. Perhaps I can find some like minds.
I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
Replies to this comment: