Dogs In Front Yards

[LizT]

I wonder what DOLers views are on Electronic collar/fencing arrangements.

Personally I wouldn't trust them. A dog could run the fencline, get zapped and not want to return home, finding itself on the wrong side of it's perimetre.

I know some people swear by them, but I am a doubting Thomas and don't feel its' "adequate fencing" for any dog.

[Luke GSP]

In the pack of pitbulls scenario, the training would have stopped them from breaching the fence line, not the physical fence. By your standard, the dog needs to have gotten out in order for the fencing to be deemed inadequate - too late for the poor person who bears the consequence of this (dogs often behave differently on their own territory when the owner isn't there).

I was rushed by a staffy cross who slept out of the front of a house with 2 ft fence and no gate. The dog never crossed the boundary but I wasn't waiting around to find that out and ran into the road with my two dogs. Adequate?

"By your standard, the dog needs to have gotten out in order for the fencing to be deemed inadequate" No, not by my "standard" but by the pure definition of adequately contained!

The staffy scenario, now, lets think about that one, it had no gate, hence there was no form of containment, hence not contained, hence not adequately contained. See what I did there, its called thinking, give it a go, you will find that if you apply the definitions of adequate and contained to most of these types of scenarios, coming up with the answer is relatively simple.

"too late for the poor person who bears the consequence of this" unfortunately yes, much the same as when any owner does not apply adequate due diligence and adequate care of the requirements of looking after an animal. Maybe we should treat all dogs as lethal killing machines and form a standard of containment cage and force owners to keep there dogs in them, and not take there dogs out. I know that it would be penalising all the responsible owners that would have taken adequate measures but it would stop the poor person bearing the consequenses of the minority of owners that don't. Oh hang on, that sounds a bit like something else?????? Are you suggesting we introduce a wider form of BSL? maybe Dog Specific Legislation?

Deed not Breed, unfortunately means that there was a Deed, hence someone or something has bore the brunt of that deed.

ETA Before everyone jumps on here and starts accusing me of supporting BSL and now suggesting that we introduce it for all dogs, Above is an example of how you are applying different standards to essentially similar scenarios.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Luke GSP

[Luke GSP]

Aahhahahaha, so even legislation is not enough for Luke GSP to admit he's wrong. But then he still hasn't even admitted that no pure bred APBT is 50kg so why am I not surprised.

So Melzawelza, legislation makes things right then does it? So you'll be agreeing with BSL then in the future as after all, it is legislation!

Bit of a comedy basic there me old mate, you seem to have tied your own shoelaces together and shot yourself in the foot all at the same time. :rofl:

You should write a comedy, honestly! :rofl:

ETA So, are you saying that as long as I comply with my local councils requirements of adequate fencing height, materials etc everything is roses? What if the dog still manages to scale/jump/extricate themselves from its confinement? can I hide behind "but you said that it would be adequate"? I would suspect not, most legislation has some form of caveat that states that you are still responsible for taking any additional measures that are required to meet the intent of the legislation. Or in other words........

Even if there is a local government requirement for a fence it is still the owners responsibility to ensure that the animal is adequately contained so that it cannot injure another dog or person should their requirement still prove inadequate at containing your dog for any reason.

And I have been saying all along in all of these threads that it is the owners responsibility to ensure their dogs are never placed in a position where they are able to injure another dog or person.

So please, show me exactly where my statement is at odds with any of that?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Luke GSP

[rebelsquest]

*sigh* wish you'd lose the attitude Luke GSP.

[Luke GSP]

*sigh* wish you'd lose the attitude Luke GSP.

*sigh* rebelsquest, how about you have a read of the name calling, misrepresenting, misquoting, mudslinging and attitude that have been directed at me in the last 48 hours and you might understand why with some people here I have a certain "attitude"

Love the fact that when you present fact and define meanings in the face of hysteria, hyperbole and opinion rather than doffing your cap and apologising to the "pack" you are the one seen as having an attitude :laugh:

[mixeduppup]

OK I am officially against dogs in front yards as of today. Scariest thing just happened!

I just went to meet my friend for a game in the park with our dogs and I was on my way home and walked down a street I've never walked down before with the dog. A friggin ridgeback jumped the 3 foot gate just after we had passed its house. I yelled at it to go home and its owner came out and called it back in and it jumped back over the gate. I'm officially reporting that shit and also sticking to my guns and not letting my friend talk me in to walking the 3 blocks instead of driving.

[Zug Zug]

A lot of dog attacks happen that way.

The owner thinks the dog won't bother leaving the yard.

And they don't. Until they do.

And then everyone acts surprised.

[Luke GSP]

OK I am officially against dogs in front yards as of today. Scariest thing just happened!

I just went to meet my friend for a game in the park with our dogs and I was on my way home and walked down a street I've never walked down before with the dog. A friggin ridgeback jumped the 3 foot gate just after we had passed its house. I yelled at it to go home and its owner came out and called it back in and it jumped back over the gate. I'm officially reporting that shit and also sticking to my guns and not letting my friend talk me in to walking the 3 blocks instead of driving.

A perfect example of an inadequate fence for the dog in question.

[mixeduppup]

OK I am officially against dogs in front yards as of today. Scariest thing just happened!

I just went to meet my friend for a game in the park with our dogs and I was on my way home and walked down a street I've never walked down before with the dog. A friggin ridgeback jumped the 3 foot gate just after we had passed its house. I yelled at it to go home and its owner came out and called it back in and it jumped back over the gate. I'm officially reporting that shit and also sticking to my guns and not letting my friend talk me in to walking the 3 blocks instead of driving.

A perfect example of an inadequate fence for the dog in question.

it scared the crap out of me and if the owner wasn't there I'm not sure what would have happened. I just told my friend and apparently it's a repeat offender. Hackles all up and really stiff, exactly the reason I stopped walking the dogs int own, I should have driven.

[Dame Aussie]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

[JulesP]

I wonder what DOLers views are on Electronic collar/fencing arrangements.

Personally I wouldn't trust them. A dog could run the fencline, get zapped and not want to return home, finding itself on the wrong side of it's perimetre.

I know some people swear by them, but I am a doubting Thomas and don't feel its' "adequate fencing" for any dog.

Not adequate on their own. Fine as an extra measure. But it also depends on the block a bit. My boss uses one and it fences the back of the block so it isn't like his fluffies are running the fenceline on the street.

[Luke GSP]

A lot of dog attacks happen that way.

The owner thinks the dog won't bother leaving the yard.

And they don't. Until they do.

And then everyone acts surprised.

Yes that is what happens when people do things because they think it is right, rather than identifying what is actually right. Its basing action/inaction on perception. emotion etc rather than in fact, which is rarely the responsible way to do things.

[mixeduppup]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

I'm going to get to writing a letter to the council expressing my concerns at inadequate fence height in a large dog area and how it is not allowing people the freedom to lawfully walk their dog because of fear of being attacked by dogs that are able to escape.

[Luke GSP]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening!

[Sheridan]

<br />

<br />No behaviourists would judge a dog aggressive from behind a fence! Very unfair comment<br />

<br /><br />AGREE 100%<br />

But some people would judge a dog aggressive on size alone. Ironic, no?

[mixeduppup]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening!

But most of these people (at least the ones I know with poor fencing/poor dog keeping skills) can't even be responsible for themselves let alone adequate dog containment and unless men in suits turn up they probably couldn't give a crap.

[Dame Aussie]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening!

Of course but as we all know, a large number of people aren't responsible at all when it comes to dogs. Mine are behind solid high fences on every side, plus padlocks :laugh:

[Luke GSP]

<br />

<br />No behaviourists would judge a dog aggressive from behind a fence! Very unfair comment<br />

<br /><br />AGREE 100%<br />

But some people would judge a dog aggressive on size alone. Ironic, no?

Some would, if on the other hand you are referring to me, I would judge a dogs size and power in relation to the level of trauma that it can cause. As I am sure you are aware

Agression is displayed in an action, biting for instance

Trauma is the aftermath, losing confidence, losing a finger, losing a hand, losing a life

So probably best to speak to the people that do believe that big dogs are more aggressive and put them straight.

[Luke GSP]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening!

But most of these people (at least the ones I know with poor fencing/poor dog keeping skills) can't even be responsible for themselves let alone adequate dog containment and unless men in suits turn up they probably couldn't give a crap.

And do you honestly believe that men in suits turning up will suddenly change them? If they couldn't be bothered to identify suitable containment measures do you reckon they're going to make sure that all the measures are utilised effectively? It's fine having a gate, but people still need to close it.

saying that, this is of course supposing that they wouldn't simply get rid of their dog and get another one, or refuse to have the fencing done and then should the dog be seized (again) just get another from their BYB mate.

laws keep lawful people lawful, locks only keep honest people out, leopards dont change their spots.

[Luke GSP]

Yes it was. If someone had been worried the dog would jump over, reported it and the council had insisted on better fencing, it wouldn't have got out at all, that's all anyone has been talking about.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening!

Of course but as we all know, a large number of people aren't responsible at all when it comes to dogs. Mine are behind solid high fences on every side, plus padlocks :laugh:

I agree, but sadly you could give all of that to an irresponsible owner and their dog would still not be contained.