No, I am saying that in areas that people have dog hunted for generations and the vast majority of the land was open permit for nearly 100 years and entire Communities gathered together and had dog drives on each other's properties that there exists the strong likelihood that a dog or dogs may inadvertently cross your property a couple of times a year.
And, therefore, if this is something that you cannot tolerate and you have ZERO ties to the property or area, that you would probably be better served to lease property elsewhere.
Is that hard to understand??
I think that when this is settled, you are going to find that GPS tracking can be admitted as evidence and someone WILL be found guilty of animal cruelty.
