Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Thursday, November 26, 2020











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Easy to use website tools to help your board
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Invisible Fence
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Author Messages
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/02/2016 3:41 PM  
Townhouse community. No fences on grounds.

Got our first request to install invisible fence.

Individually deeded plots are small. So invisible fence would need to extend onto common property to makes sense.

When a homeowner requests a change to grounds, we ask for pre-approval from immediate neighbors. Owner requesting approval of invisible fence got those approvals.

Would you have any concerns about approving the installation of invisible fence?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10130


07/02/2016 6:24 PM  
Does this mean they wish their dog to run about without a leash? Refer to leash laws, invisible fence or not.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/02/2016 6:32 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 07/02/2016 6:24 PM
Does this mean they wish their dog to run about without a leash? Refer to leash laws, invisible fence or not.

Local ordinance (which HOA follows) requires animal to be under owner control. Leash not required by township or HOA.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17026


07/03/2016 3:51 AM  
Posted By NpS on 07/02/2016 3:41 PM


Individually deeded plots are small. So invisible fence would need to extend onto common property to makes sense.




Living in a town home development, I don't see why you would need to extend the fence into common area.
That simply isn't the case. If you wouldn't let a regular fence into the common area, the same should go with an invisible fence.

The only other concern the Association may have is that some places require signage of an invisible fence (as it could shock any other animal with a shock collar) it also lets others know about the fence so they aren't as concerned seeing the animal loose.

See:

dog fence signs

Subject: How are Invisible Fences handled in your neighborhood? 2012 thread on forum

Invisible Fences Make Visible Feud 1991 article in Chicago Tribune

NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/03/2016 5:20 AM  
Nice feedback Tim.

Very much appreciated.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9716


07/03/2016 7:12 AM  
Small issue... The flags notifying there is an invisible fence. Will your HOA allow for such small flags to be displayed? I have a neighbor that doesn't display theirs and it makes it looks like the dog is loose. Not sure if it is required to have some kind of display letting one know one exists. However, I would prefer one up due to the confusion it may be to those unfamiliar with the situation...

Former HOA President
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/03/2016 8:20 AM  
Posted By MelissaP1 on 07/03/2016 7:12 AM
Small issue... The flags notifying there is an invisible fence. Will your HOA allow for such small flags to be displayed?

Not sure how other board members will respond, but my only question is whether flags will be an inconvenience for mowing. Any thoughts?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17026


07/03/2016 2:31 PM  
Posted By MelissaP1 on 07/03/2016 7:12 AM
Small issue... The flags notifying there is an invisible fence. Will your HOA allow for such small flags to be displayed?




The homes I have seen that have the fence did not have any flags.
The sign I mentioned on the one home that did have a sign was on the mailbox post.
BobD4
(up north)

Posts:918


07/03/2016 4:23 PM  
Posted By NpS on 07/02/2016 3:41 PM
Townhouse community. . . Would you have any concerns about approving the installation of invisible fence ?



Good comments above. Without speculating on the less expensive brands, personal experience with Invisible Fence TM was that it was effective. Unless Fido is really stupid or stubborn the flags will be unnecessary after a couple of weeks ( prior electronic warnings from the collar ). But :

1- it "fences" only when power is on. Or while backup battery lasts during power interruption. Duration = ? ;

2- 18 gauge wire runs are exposed or must be trenched = asphalt cutting or landscape disruption. ;

2 a What happens if competing demands are made for intersecting routes through common element ? ;

3 Fine print warns that some dogs - possibly the most lethal - are pain insensitive :

4 For multiple dogs of substantially different weights there will be a need for corresponding number of complete sets/wire runs ;

5 It doesn't exclude other dogs nor bears . . deer . . . snapping turtles . . .

Fine print also warns against misusing on humans, howsoever kinky or . . .
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10130


07/03/2016 4:44 PM  
NPS

Based on what you said, I think it is time for your BOD to consider an R&R implementing a leash R&R.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/03/2016 4:55 PM  
Thanks for your thoughts Bob.

Responsibility for dog is on the owners. They're the ones installing the system. So as far as our board is concerned, it's on them to figure out the power and Fido issues. Good to know though - so thanks.

Wires will be trenched - grassy areas only - so no asphalt cuts.

Don't think we'll have any issues with intersecting routes. The common area behind a house looks like it belongs to that house - No way of telling from visual inspection what is and what isn't common property. Although anyone can walk anywhere on property, most adults don't walk behind another owner's house.

Multiple dogs - same size - but good to know.

Other than deer and foxes, not many roaming animals.

Thanks again.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/03/2016 5:01 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 07/03/2016 4:44 PM
NPS

Based on what you said, I think it is time for your BOD to consider an R&R implementing a leash R&R.

Wondering why you think a change should be considered.

Our perspective is that if our regs match the township regs - then we're not taking on any unusual liability..

We've never had an incident with an unleashed dog.

We've had a couple of incidents tho - both times the dog was on leash but stronger than the person walking it.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
CyrstalB
(Maryland)

Posts:457


07/04/2016 5:14 AM  
NPS, if the HOA allows for the fence to encompass any of your common area, wouldn't that put the HOA on the hook for any problems that could arise on said common area? If a dog bites a person in their yard, you would expect the owner to be responsible, but what if it happens on the common area part?

Also, if it's approved for them to install anything on the common area, how do you go forward when other HO's want to do similar actions, but some want the real fence? Why would one be acceptable and the other not, because one is invisible? In these United States, common sense is no longer a valid justification for anything.

And finally, if anyone is allowed on the common area, and the dog in question does his business on the common area, will you now have to police it to make sure the HO is cleaning up after? Because we have all seen on this forum what one pile of dog doo can do to upset the whole cart of apples~


MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9716


07/04/2016 6:14 AM  
Our issue was actually we were not allowed to have any other signs besides For sale or For rent. So the flags for invisible fencing was an issue. Keep in mind we had to go to the city to have our curbs painted red instead of having "No parking" signs installed by the city. We were that particular on signage.

If they fence off the common area, will that now make that "Exclusive use" area of that common area? Which falls into the cracks of responsibilities. Exclusive use usually means the owner's responsible and the HOA has to act against them for violations. Common Area the HOA controls and can act on their own.

Former HOA President
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/04/2016 7:20 AM  
Posted By CyrstalB on 07/04/2016 5:14 AM
NPS, if the HOA allows for the fence to encompass any of your common area, wouldn't that put the HOA on the hook for any problems that could arise on said common area? If a dog bites a person in their yard, you would expect the owner to be responsible, but what if it happens on the common area part?

Our situation is that there's no real visual difference between private and common land. No one really knows or cares where the property lines are. Everyone naturally assumes that everything from house to curb is the responsibility of the homeowner - except when it comes to grounds maintenance.

We'll hold strong to the belief that the invisible fence is not a transfer of responsibility. Any act by the dog is the responsibility of the owner whether it's on private property or common property.

Posted By CyrstalB on 07/04/2016 5:14 AM
Also, if it's approved for them to install anything on the common area, how do you go forward when other HO's want to do similar actions, but some want the real fence? Why would one be acceptable and the other not, because one is invisible? In these United States, common sense is no longer a valid justification for anything.

Don't think we'll have any problem differentiating between invisible and real fences. If someone else wants an invisible fence, they'll have to get signoff from immediate neighbors. If the neighbor sells to a new owner, we've never had a new owner complain about something that's already installed ... so we don't expect any problems.

Posted By CyrstalB on 07/04/2016 5:14 AM
And finally, if anyone is allowed on the common area, and the dog in question does his business on the common area, will you now have to police it to make sure the HO is cleaning up after? Because we have all seen on this forum what one pile of dog doo can do to upset the whole cart of apples~

Could become an issue. Need to trust homeowner to take care of it. But that's a problem any HOA has where pets are out. We have homeowners who walk their dogs on leash that don't pick up. But our bigger problem is dog walkers from neighboring communities who let their dogs relieve themselves on our property.

I don't think we would allow invisible fences in front of houses, but because it's in the back where few people walk, don't think we'll get much noise over it.

Haven't talked to rest of board about it yet, so we'll see where this goes.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/04/2016 7:29 AM  
Posted By MelissaP1 on 07/04/2016 6:14 AM
Our issue was actually we were not allowed to have any other signs besides For sale or For rent. So the flags for invisible fencing was an issue. Keep in mind we had to go to the city to have our curbs painted red instead of having "No parking" signs installed by the city. We were that particular on signage.

Township isn't interested what we do with signage. So aren't restricted that way.

We do have sign restrictions for alarm systems. Will probably adopt something similar if we allow signs at all.

Like you, we only allow for sale/rent signs (plus one political sign). Both are restricted.

Posted By MelissaP1 on 07/04/2016 6:14 AM
If they fence off the common area, will that now make that "Exclusive use" area of that common area? Which falls into the cracks of responsibilities. Exclusive use usually means the owner's responsible and the HOA has to act against them for violations. Common Area the HOA controls and can act on their own.

No installation above ground. So no risk of "exclusive use" claims.

One of the things we might do is "provisionally approve" the request. When we do this, it means that we are allowing something to see if we want to approve it for the entire community. That gives us a legitimate reason to deny the next request but not take back the first approval.

We've done that with non-standard windows and skylights. Most of the time, a "provisional approval" becomes an open approval for all, but not always.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9716


07/04/2016 9:37 AM  
Keep in mind that I do like an invisible fence. They are something I would like to have one day myself. However, when it comes to having one in an HOA it takes it to a different level of issues. Especially when common areas are involved and restrictions of use.

The only real suggest I can make is to make this an amendment to your CC&R's or by-laws with a majority vote. Since there is already a fence restriction there, it may need modified/added. This way you all can get the HOA's opinion of what they want. If most people are for invisible fencing, then a rule change should be a natural process of approval. Otherwise, it's an uphill battle with lots of bullets flying your way...

Former HOA President
PitA


Posts:0


07/04/2016 12:28 PM  
IMO:

Do NOT allow the fence to infringe upon a common element.

The HOA may even consider, on a 'periodic" basis, to spray paint a water soluble marker down the property line(s) at issue as a simple reminder that, while used privately, the land in question is actually 'community property'.

Once 'fenced' ownership 'could' become problematic, from both a liability issue AND an 'adverse possession' issue.

Simply allow the fence ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY.

The flags are temporary for 'training' only 7-10 days - imo, ignore them.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/04/2016 12:59 PM  
Posted By PitA on 07/04/2016 12:28 PM
Once 'fenced' ownership 'could' become problematic, from both a liability issue AND an 'adverse possession' issue.

Don't see where fence itself can be an issue of liability. I do see where the dog can create liability. But IMO that liability sits with the owner - whether something happens on private property or on common property.

Example 1: Kid wanders on private property. Gets bit. Owner responsible.

Example 2: Kid wanders on common property. Gets bit. Owner responsible.

Same difference.

Don't agree that "adverse possession" is a risk. If the HOA grants an easement, which the approval to install the invisible fence would do - then there owner cannot later claim that the possession is adverse. Possession is never adverse when it has been approved by the owner.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/04/2016 1:15 PM  
CORRECTED:

Posted By NpS on 07/04/2016 12:59 PM
Posted By PitA on 07/04/2016 12:28 PM
Once 'fenced' ownership 'could' become problematic, from both a liability issue AND an 'adverse possession' issue.

Don't see where fence itself can be an issue of liability. I do see where the dog can create liability. But IMO that liability sits with the owner - whether something happens on private property or on common property.

Example 1: Kid wanders on private property. Gets bit. Dog Owner responsible.

Example 2: Kid wanders on common property. Gets bit. Dog Owner responsible.

Same difference.

Don't agree that "adverse possession" is a risk. If the HOA grants an easement, which the approval to install the invisible fence would do - then there owner cannot later claim that the possession is adverse. Possession is never adverse when it has been approved by the owner.




Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
BobD4
(up north)

Posts:918


07/04/2016 2:40 PM  
Posted By PitA
IMO: Do NOT allow the fence to infringe upon a common element. . . . . Simply allow the fence ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY.



Lots of good comments above.

After a lot of thought & despite being crazy about my own dog, I nevertheless agree with RECOMMENDING AGAINST authorizing an electrified containment system system within any part of the common element.

A sign merely worded "XYZ Fence" or "Dog Containment Device" or whatever may be in place, it sends respectfully an incomplete message or an ambiguous message.

That message may NOT be readily apparent to a child nor to some adults. I may have a blind spot about how Rover 'would never harm anyone'. But Rover may rip apart anyone entering his pack's territory.

Not sure about how this plays out ? :

"Yes we have authorized extended private dog domains intruding within the common element.

NO we do not 'assess' such dogs from time to time within such extended domains.

Our corporation is insured. We believe that we can rely on indemnification / hold harmless provisions within each authorization plus occupant insurance.

No we are are not in a position to review that such domain was 'extended' within the occupant's private insurance, that the private coverage is adequate, nor even that the private coverage is even kept in place . . . "
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/04/2016 2:57 PM  
Posted By BobD4 on 07/04/2016 2:40 PM
A sign merely worded "XYZ Fence" or "Dog Containment Device" or whatever may be in place, it sends respectfully an incomplete message or an ambiguous message.

That message may NOT be readily apparent to a child nor to some adults. I may have a blind spot about how Rover 'would never harm anyone'. But Rover may rip apart anyone entering his pack's territory.

I'm not following your line of thought Bob.

IMO bad behavior by the dog is the responsibility of the dog owner. Period.

If the dog owner takes the dog to a public park where the dog misbehaves, liability goes to the dog owner, not the govt entity that owns the park.

To me, our common area should be treated the same way as a public park for purposes of determining liability for the behavior of the dog.

It's the responsibility of the dog owner to have his dog under control no matter where he takes the dog.



Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9716


07/04/2016 3:20 PM  
Remember this: A dog is considered "Property" under the law. Not every dog bite means responsibility directly to the owner. It can be both parties. Also one has to consider insurance considerations on the type of dog. Certain breeds cost more to have on insurance.

Again not against the invisible fence. It's just got a lot more areas to cover before proceeding.

Former HOA President
BobD4
(up north)

Posts:918


07/04/2016 5:44 PM  
Posted By NpS . . . I'm not following your line of thought Bob. IMO bad behavior by the dog is the responsibility of the dog owner. Period. If the dog owner takes the dog to a public park where the dog misbehaves, liability goes to the dog owner, not the govt entity that owns the park. To me, our common area should be treated the same way as a public park for purposes of determining liability for the behavior of the dog. It's the responsibility of the dog owner to have his dog under control no matter where he takes the dog.




“How dangerous can a single goldfish be ?” ( quipped recurrently about pet prohibitions & levels of substantiality )

NPS : I could be wrong but consider these please .

1- I am presuming rear-yard Invisible Fenced areas intruding into common lands. There would be little or no physical definition except possibly the typical flags soon superfluous & likely ripped up by lawnmowing or deteriorated as mine were.

Each Rover would police each domain ( . . . hmmm . . . ) ( & - by pain-conditioning - would "know where" the virtual fence ends. Others may not know including possible visitors . . landscapers . . . inquisitive children. . . .

2 - Without a magic wand, how to predict what may here be eccentric/idiosyncratic outcomes ?

2A- GenoSFla March 25/16 found : two 1996 cases in Florida, i.e. Barrwood Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Maser, 675 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Sanzare v. Varesi, 681 So.2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). ; "... homeowners associations were put on notice that they too can be found liable, at least in the civil context, for dog bites occurring on common areas. Each of these cases held that Florida homeowners associations may be liable when a bad dog harms someone within the community if the association was previously aware of the dog’s vicious propensities."


2B Aug 5 2014 Law Blog : Chicago ILL court in preliminary procedure holds condo corp NOT automatically liable for common area dog attack without prior actual or constructive knowledge of substantial danger Tyrka v. Glenview Ridge Condominium Association, 2014 Il App. 1st 132762 (1st Dist. 2014), http://www.chicagocondolawyer.com/2014/08/the-bark-before-the-bite-new-case-finds-boards-not-liable-for-dangerous-dogs-without-notice/ )

3 - If your jurisdiction is like mine, there have been pet prohibition judgments & nuisance compliancing judgments including expelling outdoor cats & awarding $20 K costs !

Not as common have been lawsuits over injuries caused by dogs uncontrolled within the common element.

For injury within a condo common element, in 2014 an 89 year old woman here - injured by an owner's merely exuberant big dogs at large within the common element - sued both :

1 - the DOG OWNER under strict liability law as widespread but not universal in the U.S.; and

2 - the CONDO CORPORATION as statutorily deemed Occupier of the common elements ( able then to proceed to a negligence analysis ). All with lawyers.

Not some physical authorized dog run but a mere unfortunate interaction between users without special exclusionary or semi-private privileges like Invisible Fence OKd by the condo corporation.

The condo corporation argued in vain that it should be released as a co-defendant. Argued that liability here is a dog harbourer's, NOT MERE Occupier Liability arising by enacted condo law from the venue of the injury & whether steps taken to enforce etc.

Argued from SOME landlords & SOME innkeepers slope-shouldering all liability onto the dog harbourer.

The court however denied that defence and ordered the condo corporation to continue as a defendant under Occupiers Liabiity. A condo lawyer commented insightfully as to possibly why :

" while all owners “own” the common elements, it is the corporation who is in the best position to control the conditions of the premises and to control the activities and the individuals allowed on common property."

The parties apparently settled privately.

Anyway, it's just a single case. There may be no magic answer nor anyone ever to be injured in your community either.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/04/2016 6:51 PM  
Thanks for doing the additional research Bob.

After reading what I could on the cases you identified, I'm shifting my thinking.

Currently, we have no restrictions on breeds of dogs. It's very unlikely that a dog incident is going to take place on the dog owner's property because the size of our parcels are so small. There's a 90+% chance that an incident, if it occurs, will be on HOA grounds.

So whether there's an invisible fence or not, we might have liability because of known aggressiveness of a particular dog.

I'm not really sure that the invisible fence will make that much difference re our liability.

Will have to think on it. Definitely appreciate the input.


Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
BobD4
(up north)

Posts:918


07/04/2016 7:29 PM  
NPS Good luck with whatever decision. No magic wands seem to be kicking around.

( Also : I have reread the 2014 Illinois judgment Tyrka v Glenview to which the legal article no longer is linked. Not a lawyer nor is this legal advice, but the Illinois court doesn't rule out claims against condo corporations.

It only holds that the Tyrka victim claimants - attacked outrageously within the common element - appear to have filed some sloppy stuff, failed to meet burden of proving a breached duty. Condo corp had argued there is NO such duty, but that proposition does not seem to have been pronounced upon here. My jurisdiction's condo law was believed heavily influenced in 1960s by pioneer Illinois statute. . . )
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:7660


07/05/2016 1:13 PM  
We, per our rules & regs, hold Owners responsible for anything their dogs do. A few weeks ago in our lobby, a stranger (to the dog) reached down to show the back of her hand to a small leashed dog to "show it she was friendly," and the dog nipped the cuticle of one of her fingers producing a little blood. The bitee became very upset.

the dog owner, who's a lone-time respectable owner here, contacted our security officer on duty to report the incident and also contacted animal control who visited and guaranteed the dog.

We invited the Owner to a hearing last week and, partly because the dog has lived here about 8 years without incident, we voted to put the dog on probation for 6 months. Any further nips will most likely result in a muzzle order and if more serious, we'll ban the dog from the premises.

But now that I've read Bob's accounts, I'm wondering if we were too lenient.
BobD4
(up north)

Posts:918


07/05/2016 2:49 PM  
Woof woof ( 'not too lenient' ). What would a muzzle look like on a Chihuahua ? Would it be better to truss up like the Hannibal Lecter character in Silence of the Lambs ?
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/05/2016 3:11 PM  
Posted By KerryL1 on 07/05/2016 1:13 PM
the dog owner, who's a lone-time respectable owner here, contacted our security officer on duty to report the incident and also contacted animal control who visited and guaranteed the dog.

Bringing animal control into the situation as soon as possible makes total sense. IMO your COA was right to rely on an independent evaluation. If they had determined that the dog had a propensity toward violence or a history of aggressive behavior, then a different decision might have been appropriate.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/12/2016 7:33 AM  
Below is what I think we're going with. FYI - we seem to be split on the issue with the minority opposing invisible fences under any circumstances. Any final recommendations?

I expect that we will provisionally approve the invisible fence installation on condition that:

1. Dogs cannot be left unattended. Observation and control from the rear deck is acceptable;

2. Association rules on pet noise must be strictly followed;

3. Dogs must be individually pre-approved by the HOA for invisible fence use. Please provide name, breed, age, sex, weight, and veterinarian's health inspection certificate for each dog;

4. Dog waste must be removed every day;

5. Installation and continued use of invisible fence is based on medical condition only; and

6. Invisible fence must be removed if house is sold.

The provisional approval may be withdrawn for failure to comply with any one of these 6 conditions.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17026


07/12/2016 8:55 AM  
NP, Clarify unattended.

This is what we have used:

“Unattended” – refers to an animal that does not have a responsible person physically present. e.g. the animal is outside and the responsible person is inside.

“Responsible Person” – means the owner of the pet or any individual who has assumed responsibility for the pet with the permission of the owner.
DaveD3
(Michigan)

Posts:796


07/12/2016 9:19 AM  
Posted By NpS on 07/12/2016 7:33 AM
Below is what I think we're going with. FYI - we seem to be split on the issue with the minority opposing invisible fences under any circumstances. Any final recommendations?

I expect that we will provisionally approve the invisible fence installation on condition that:

1. Dogs cannot be left unattended. Observation and control from the rear deck is acceptable;

2. Association rules on pet noise must be strictly followed;

3. Dogs must be individually pre-approved by the HOA for invisible fence use. Please provide name, breed, age, sex, weight, and veterinarian's health inspection certificate for each dog;

4. Dog waste must be removed every day;

5. Installation and continued use of invisible fence is based on medical condition only; and

6. Invisible fence must be removed if house is sold.

The provisional approval may be withdrawn for failure to comply with any one of these 6 conditions.





That seems a bit extreme imho.

1 Dogs cannot be left unattended? What good is served by having the owner on the deck and the dog in the yard? If the dog breaks through the fence, or bites someone that comes into the yard, it doesn't help much. And a well trained dog can be currently unattended without the fence, correct?
2. Noise seems irrelevant here since there's already a rule in place. Why is a barking dog with an invisible fence different than one without?
If your dog barks, we'll take your fence away and your dog can bark without the fence.
3. What basis is a volunteer HOA board going to use for approving which dogs can/cannot have an invisible fence?
4. Every day? Who is going to check this? Is the board going to trespass and mark poop to see how long it sits there? "This one was dropped on Tuesday morning between 8:15 and 9:15, and it's still there at 8pm on Wednesday evening. We better issue a violation"
5. Medical condition?? What? The dog's? The owners? Why is this relevant?
6. Pointless to remove a fence when the house is sold. Leave the wire in place rather than disturb the grass & soil to remove it. It doesn't do anything sitting there.

BobD4
(up north)

Posts:918


07/12/2016 10:12 AM  
Life's full of risks, but several more :

1 - Periodic collar charge. Triggered by the perimeter wirerun, a battery-powered collar deters by a prior electronic warning before a range of severe shock. Rover should quickly get used to the dimensions. But that deterrence is backstopped not by a physical fence but Rover's memory & the dog owner taking the trouble to re-charge the collar or replace a collar battery particularly in cold weather.

2 - Given #1, do passersby really understand a roadside warning of electronic fence ? ( Does it just look like an ad that a customer once owned one here ? )

After the flags disappear would passersby otherwise know the lines to which it physically deters the dog's roving ( if it is kept working properly ) ?

Would they understand the re-charging risks they are running to some extent if poor ole Rover's memory isn't much better than the owner's ?

NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/12/2016 11:11 AM  
Posted By DaveD3 on 07/12/2016 9:19 AM
Posted By NpS on 07/12/2016 7:33 AM
Below is what I think we're going with. FYI - we seem to be split on the issue with the minority opposing invisible fences under any circumstances. Any final recommendations?

I expect that we will provisionally approve the invisible fence installation on condition that:

1. Dogs cannot be left unattended. Observation and control from the rear deck is acceptable;

2. Association rules on pet noise must be strictly followed;

3. Dogs must be individually pre-approved by the HOA for invisible fence use. Please provide name, breed, age, sex, weight, and veterinarian's health inspection certificate for each dog;

4. Dog waste must be removed every day;

5. Installation and continued use of invisible fence is based on medical condition only; and

6. Invisible fence must be removed if house is sold.

The provisional approval may be withdrawn for failure to comply with any one of these 6 conditions.





That seems a bit extreme imho.

1 Dogs cannot be left unattended? What good is served by having the owner on the deck and the dog in the yard? If the dog breaks through the fence, or bites someone that comes into the yard, it doesn't help much. And a well trained dog can be currently unattended without the fence, correct?
2. Noise seems irrelevant here since there's already a rule in place. Why is a barking dog with an invisible fence different than one without?
If your dog barks, we'll take your fence away and your dog can bark without the fence.
3. What basis is a volunteer HOA board going to use for approving which dogs can/cannot have an invisible fence?
4. Every day? Who is going to check this? Is the board going to trespass and mark poop to see how long it sits there? "This one was dropped on Tuesday morning between 8:15 and 9:15, and it's still there at 8pm on Wednesday evening. We better issue a violation"
5. Medical condition?? What? The dog's? The owners? Why is this relevant?
6. Pointless to remove a fence when the house is sold. Leave the wire in place rather than disturb the grass & soil to remove it. It doesn't do anything sitting there.



Hi Dave.

The way it's written, it's intended to discourage people who want to install invisible fences.

But ... we have an elderly owner who can no longer go up and down the stairs ... even though he can reasonably control his dogs with voice commands from on the deck. See #5 which we should clarify. Thanks.

1. Issue of aggressive dog behavior is covered by #3.
2. True that excessive noise is already in the rules ... But this gives us the authority to revoke approval of invisible fence due to excessive noise.
3. The dogs we're approving this for are around 15 pounds apiece at adult dogs. Those will be approved. All we're doing here is reserving the right to deny approval based on the dog itself - We're not going to set a fixed policy til we have more experience with the issue. For now, we'll approve them one request at a time.
4. Townhouse community. Next door neighbors will let us know if it's a problem for them. Also, it's another basis to revoke invisible fence approval. We're certainly not going to inspect.
5. The owner. See above.
6. Good point. I'll raise it, but I think that it might be needed for the board to approve the invisible fence installation.

Thanks Dave.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/12/2016 11:17 AM  
Posted By BobD4 on 07/12/2016 10:12 AM
Life's full of risks, but several more :

1 - Periodic collar charge. Triggered by the perimeter wirerun, a battery-powered collar deters by a prior electronic warning before a range of severe shock. Rover should quickly get used to the dimensions. But that deterrence is backstopped not by a physical fence but Rover's memory & the dog owner taking the trouble to re-charge the collar or replace a collar battery particularly in cold weather.

2 - Given #1, do passersby really understand a roadside warning of electronic fence ? ( Does it just look like an ad that a customer once owned one here ? )

After the flags disappear would passersby otherwise know the lines to which it physically deters the dog's roving ( if it is kept working properly ) ?

Would they understand the re-charging risks they are running to some extent if poor ole Rover's memory isn't much better than the owner's ?





Thanks Bob

Added a #7 that requires signage. Good point.

Interesting point re charge and re-charge .. We expect that owner and rover will be properly trained.

If it wasn't for the fact that the owner has a medical condition, the idea of invisible fences would have been shot down.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/12/2016 11:19 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 07/12/2016 8:55 AM
NP, Clarify unattended.

This is what we have used:

“Unattended” – refers to an animal that does not have a responsible person physically present. e.g. the animal is outside and the responsible person is inside.

“Responsible Person” – means the owner of the pet or any individual who has assumed responsibility for the pet with the permission of the owner.



Thanks Tim. Will revise to incorporate your suggestions.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
DaveD3
(Michigan)

Posts:796


07/12/2016 6:53 PM  
It seems to me that you're going through a lot of effort to create problems to solve where they don't exist.

Millions of people have invisible fences (whether that particular brand or another). They're common and effective. I've personally had one for 20+ years with 6 different dogs.

I assume you already have rules about dogs running loose. That doesn't change whether you allow invisible fences, 6' high chain link fences, or none at all. If someone's dog runs loose, it's a problem that's likely already covered.

The ONLY issue I personally see is the proposal to run the fence onto common property. Otherwise, fine. Have your fence with the expectation that you're a responsible pet owner.



NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:3987


07/12/2016 7:36 PM  
Posted By DaveD3 on 07/12/2016 6:53 PM
It seems to me that you're going through a lot of effort to create problems to solve where they don't exist.

Millions of people have invisible fences (whether that particular brand or another). They're common and effective. I've personally had one for 20+ years with 6 different dogs.

I assume you already have rules about dogs running loose. That doesn't change whether you allow invisible fences, 6' high chain link fences, or none at all. If someone's dog runs loose, it's a problem that's likely already covered.

The ONLY issue I personally see is the proposal to run the fence onto common property. Otherwise, fine. Have your fence with the expectation that you're a responsible pet owner.





Finalized it tonight. Got rid of the removal on sale requirement. Appreciate your input.

I agree with you re common area issue, but I don't think there's any physical arrangement where the homeowner can be limited to their lot. Long story but many decks protrude into common area - which means that nothing past the bottom step is private property. That's our real problem.

Board is OK with final arrangement. Accommodates a medical condition. Discourages anyone who doesn't have a medical condition from requesting an invisible fence.



Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
PatL5
(Michigan)

Posts:1


11/10/2020 9:03 AM  
I totally agree with you Dave.
As an Association, we do allow invisible "fences" on private property, not common property. I think people are way overthinking this.
Do we live in America or is this moving toward socialism?
An Association is supposed to make R&Rs to aid in the safety of its homeowners and integrity of the development. Any dog bite or confrontation on private property I would think the responsibility falls on the homeowner. Complaints about any specific dog issues need to be dealt with on an individual homeowner basis.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:7660


11/10/2020 10:38 AM  
Welcome to the forum, Pat; it's best to start a new thread than to online a 4-year-old one.
KellyM3
(North Carolina)

Posts:1575


11/10/2020 12:06 PM  
I would approve the invisible fence on private property.

I'm not sure I could support allowing privacy fence on common property as it allows a dog to run loose on common areas. My rationale is that a human being (kid) is not collared and could freely cross into a "fenced" zone and face an unleashed animal. Common area are designed for enjoyment by all.

Regarding a leash rule, if your town or community hasn't approved one, then I'd respect that.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3411


11/10/2020 3:00 PM  
And, PatL, please eliminate the political references in your post. Just HOA stuff, please.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10130


11/11/2020 8:44 AM  
A dog on the chase as in say for a squirrel, will bust through an invisible fence
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).



Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement