When is a fence not a fence

My opinion, it's not a fence. Its not visible. This raises a whole set of other questions. Dogs are usually not supposed to be left unattended or should be on a leash when outside. The exception to that has always been the "fenced" back yard.

If the owners claim that the electronic barrier is a fence, then it needs to be approved by architectural control or the board. If they claim it isn't a fence, then their dog shouldn't be out in front of their house unless on a leash, which means the electronic fence isn't needed.

My own opinion is that dog's shouldn't be left out in front of the house, even with an electronic fence, so maybe the rules need to be revised or clarified.

Just my soomewhat rambling thoughts

Joe

Brain,

Excellent post! I would say that Joe as said it best. I believe as well that it’s not a fence. The purpose of a fence is to keep something in or to keep something or someone out (privacy). Dogs are not supposed to be left unattended or not to be on a leash.

IMO, I don’t feel a homeowner has the right to install this useless piece of equipment. According to the by-laws of many communities,and state laws the homeowner is to monitor their pet at all times. People walking by these properties don’t know that the homeowner has installed one of these wireless invisible fences. It could be a potential accident just waiting to happen. Then who would be held accountable, if the startled individual goes to run away and trips and falls on the sidewalk, beauty strip or the curb and unfortunately H/she break their wrist! Who pays the bill then? If the streets are privately owned is it the Associations obligation? (Essentially the paying homeowners of the community) If owner by the city, would they be held accountable? Does the homeowners insurance cover it? If the homeowners insurance will cover it would there be any restrictions? Obviously when those invisible fences are installed the homeowner generally will install it as close to the property line as possible. So with this being said, if someone should fall and get injured, it most likely won’t happen on the homeowners property at all. If h/she were to fall at all then I guess it would be best to fall into the yard. Then the homeowner would be held responsible for any physical damages. (Broken bones, cuts, scratches and I’m sure plenty of dog bites)

It’s a good rule of thumb to just exclude any and all invisible fencing.
That’s just my opinion though.

Thanks for the idea
Chuck W.

Brian:

I would say it would depend on what your city code says. Our say that a dog must be on a leash anytime it is off the owner's property, which to me says that if the dog sits in the front yard of the owner than it is no problem. We actually have a neighbor that installed one of those fences, don't know if it is on but it doesn't work worth a hoot. I would say a fence is a structure and by that definition an invisible fence wouldn't qualify and I don't think it is.

Brad, that's an interesting city code. Here in my city, the dog must be under physical control at all times. I actually spoke with an animal control officer once, about one of my own dogs, who loved to sit in the garage with me while i worked... door up, open, but the dog just stayed in the garage.
the officer told me that he COULD cite me, as the dog had open access to the public, and could 'escape'; that the dog was not tied, leashed, fenced or under my physical control. That made sense. However, when i asked the officer if I could refuse to open my front door to him or another officer, because with an open front door, my dog "could escape, and was not under my physical control", he refused to discuss the issue anymore.

Brian:

It is an interesting code because I have watched several dogs in their owner's yards just take off. The problem is our animal control officer is not willing to do much about anything. But, as I tell my wife, it only takes one person to get seriously hurt and then watch the backpeddling begin.

Interesting question Brian - just goes to show what happens when a rule is implemented without giving it a thorough thought process looking for all implicatons. There is always that old fall back clause in the CC&Rs that gives the board the power to "interpret" the CC&Rs. However, with your list of other "signal" types, it could be selective enforcement against the lady becasue of the dog annoying signal. How do you determine where this signal or any is coming from? And how come the HOA did not do anything about the barking dog before this woman had to resort to this solution? Harold

That's because an improperly designed or installed underground sprinkler system can contaminate the public water supply under backflow conditions.

Many of the definitions on-line classify a fence to be much of the same. I can see where this, just like all the CC&Rs can be interpreted differently.

Definition: Fence-
1. enclosing structure: a structure erected to enclose an area and act as a barrier, especially one made of wood or with posts and wire

If you ask me, I say, that yes it is a fence! With the definitions I have read on-line it would be considered a fence, but the definitions do say key words which again can be interpreted differently, to whom ever reads them. The phase “to enclose and area and act as a barrier” would apply to this type of fence. The word especially is specifically mentioning wood or with posts and wire! It’s not excluding underground wiring.

Although, many of the definitions I have read do say a structure erected, which (invisible fencing) is not.

I don’t know, I can see both sides.

I know I wouldn’t be making any friends if I were to tell a homeowner that there under ground wire fencing (that they just paid thousands for) wasn’t going to be approved because the board classifies it as a “fence”
I’m sure it may even go to court.

Chuck W.