On Mon, 15 May 2006 09:06:38 -0500, Rex B
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:10:04 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 13 May 2006 23:37:08 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

On Sat, 13 May 2006 12:26:07 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:
I don't know for sure that the ultrasonic headache would train a
distant dog, but I kinda think it might. ARF --OW! And so on.
Anti bark training collars are about $25-80 bucks at most pet places.
More for large dogs.

If you have a problem, ask your neighbor if you can train the dog not
to bark. Vet approved, humane etc etc. Then go buy one and stick it on
the dog. It works in about 2 days at most. When solved..put it on the
shelf until the conditioning breaks in a couple years, then repeat.
I've asked neighbors before. Either they entirely deny their dog ever
makes a peep (90% of the time) or "ELECTROCUTE MY BABY?" or "The
collar is too cruel for my dear pet." (the other 10%) big sigh
First I tried getting them to purchase one, then I offered. I've never
had a taker yet, and I've screamed at dozens of folks (after asking
nicely several dozen times, of course.)

AFAIC, the owners should be put to sleep and the dogs trained and
given to good homes.

In the few cases Ive encountered that mind set..Ive asked the owner
have they ever seen an animal going through the terminal processes of
antifreeze poisoning..then describe them in excruciating detail and
say unless they keep the dog in the house..a couple meatballs soaked
in antifreeze could be snarfed up by the poor little doggie and they'd
not know it until the drooling and aphasia stage.

They either agree that a training collar is best..or keep the barker
inside. Either ways works for me.

Gunner

I'm good with all that, but I'm pretty sure that a conversation like
that, followed by the untimely demise of the 4-legged offender, would
result in unpleasant legal proceedings, both criminal and civil.

Perhaps you miss the point. It's motivation therapy, AKA psywar.
Gunner didn't say he'd actually do that, the point is to make the
owner understand that "screw you" can cut both ways -- that's why the
graphic description. The owner, obviously being a scofflaw who
thinks that neighbor who says please isn't serious, might
understand the notion of sneaky scofflaw retribution agains the
hapless animal -- particularly if the message is delivered in a very
calm, cold manner making the indelible impression in the jerk's
"mind" that the speaker would have no qualms or hesitation about
doing such a reprehensible act.

Now the laizzez-faire of "the authorities" works against the negligent
and delinquent owner and a scumbag will understand that better than
Ms Whitebread would. If they don't care about noise control,
they're also not going to care about rover-cide. To them it'd just
be a petty property crime even if it was provably ascribable to a
particular perpetrator -- which it clearly would not be short of
videotape or witness testimony, even if threats had been made.
Scumbags know that cops don't dust for prints after petty theft, and
even if they did they certainly wouldn't find any prints on a
partially-digested meatball. So they'd just fill out a report.
Their attitude toward petty property crimes is that insurance is the
remedy. When they do catch thieves with stolen property, they bust
the perp (who often skates with a scolding unless drugs are involved)
and auction off the spoils for the benefit of the Policeman's
Fraternal Brotherhood or some such.

As for civil action, the owner is legless there as well because it is
his responsibility to keep his animal safe. If the dog were properly
supervised it couldn't have eaten something that is bad for it, and if
the dog was trespassing it's often legal to shoot them absent a leash
law in effect.
..