Large Fierce Mammal

This is not an invisible fence.

Mrs. LFM and I work professionally in the field of dog rehabilitation and dog owner training. It also periodically happens that a dog can no longer remain in its present home and we are called upon to be involved in the re-homing process. Some of these dogs have issues and require rehabilitation before they can be placed, others do not, but no matter what, the adoption of any dog through Golden Mountain Dog Solutions requires the signing of an Adoption Agreement. This Agreement is non-negotiable, each item in it exists for sound reasons, and the adoption process ends immediately for any candidate that refuses to sign it as written.

Item 11 in our Adoption Agreement states:

“The Dog is not to be confined within an area contained by an “Invisible Fence” or any similar product designed to automatically administer electric shocks or other corrective signals, nor shall it be subjected to the effects of systems or equipment designed to control barking or otherwise modify its behaviour through electric shocks, exposure to sound waves, or to  radiation of any frequency.”

This policy isn’t unique to Golden Mountain Dog Solutions. There are other animal rescue organizations that include some version of this stipulation in their own adoption contracts.

Let it be understood at the outset that it is neither our purpose nor intention to brand the people who manufacture,  market, or install these systems as cruel, evil, or unscrupulous; nor is it our position that they are bent on making a living built on callous disregard for any physical or emotional discomfort their equipment may cause to be felt by the animals contained within them. It is likewise neither our purpose nor intention to single out the specific brand of products sold under the trade name of “Invisible Fence”, but employ the name as a descriptive term, both in our Adoption Agreement and throughout the rest of this article. Being the first product of its kind, and therefore one of the most visibly promoted brands, the name has come into general use as a generic term for any animal containment system that employs a proximity activated electronic device that is attached to the contained animal for the purpose of administering an electric shock or other negative stimulus. Similar systems of varying levels of quality are manufactured and sold but, regardless of brand name, most people who have purchased such a product will tell you they have installed an “invisible fence” for their dog. For this, the people who market the real Invisible Fence can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Their promotional efforts have successfully positioned their brand among such lofty ranks as Kleenex, Aspirin, and Lifeline.

What we are saying is that the promotion of these products as alternative solutions to non-technological - biological - methods of addressing behavioural issues either ignores, sidesteps, or dismisses critical facts of animal and human behaviour, and no matter how sunshiny the promotional literature, these systems ultimately reduce the relationship between the dog and the human to a simple matter of livestock containment. The dog becomes a problem to be managed. We are also saying that a containment system that has no effect on other animals, including people, permitting them to cross the containment perimeter with impunity while the contained animal has been trained to fear the consequences of doing so, can and has resulted in tragic injury and death to the contained animal. While the safety and security of the contained animal is touted as the motivating factor for installation of such a system, the end result in an alarming number of cases has been that the animal contained by the system is simply the one who is guaranteed to end up bearing all the consequences when something goes wrong. We don’t approve of these systems no matter who makes them, and as experienced trainers and behaviour consultants, our position is based on a body of evidence that, as if it needed it, further supports the adage that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Speaking for a moment specifically about the company that actually markets “Invisible Fence”, it should be understood that they do take a very serious approach. Their systems are intended to be professionally installed and serviced by a trained technician, and come with hands on training both for the animal to be contained and the humans who own it. They admit up front that certain behaviour traits will eliminate some animals as candidates for successful containment by their system and will recommend against its installation in such cases. This is commendable, and coming from the originator of this entire genre of products, I would expect nothing less. To their credit, they specifically recommend against leaving a dog so contained outside while its owner is away from home. On the FAQ page of the company’s website, under the question, “Can I leave my dog unattended in the yard while I’m at work?” they provide the reply, “Animal experts do not recommend leaving pets outside unattended for long periods of time regardless of how they are contained.” This is quite true.

That having been said, regardless of its manufacturer, this and similar products are marketed as the containment solution that will work in a large percentage of applications. The question isn’t whether or not it does or will work, but rather whether it should be employed at all. A containment system of this type supposedly replaces the need for a structural barrier, as in a physical old school fence, with an electronic system that contains an animal through automatically induced behaviour modification. Many trainers object to such systems based on the premise that they are inhumane. We agree with them, but our objections run much deeper than that.

Behaviour modification is at the root of all training methodologies, even those used on our children. For them there’s a really big system you may have heard of - it’s called “school” - and another even more important one called “parenting”. But the invisible fence concept is about behaviour modification that is constantly reinforced without human interaction, supervision, or oversight, and therein lies problem #1 - no technology can replace proper training and supervision by a knowledgeable handler.

We have personally witnessed the end result of failure to grasp this fact on many occasions. A property gets fitted with one of these systems and the dog gets left outside on its own while the rest of the family goes about its business - business I may add that, the advice of Invisible Fence notwithstanding, sadly often includes leaving the property while the dog is still outside. Sometimes this is the result of a poor understanding of what a dog really is, what motivates its behaviours, and what it needs. In other cases it comes from false beliefs that alternative containment methods - crating the dog while the owner is at work for example - are even less humane based on the illusion of freedom enjoyed by everyone involved except the dog. Worst of all, sometimes it’s because the system is embraced as a solution that absolves the dog’s owner from the duty and responsibility to actually train, lead, supervise, interact with, and be truly involved with the dog. A little searching on the internet will turn up many testimonials written by people who praise these systems for the way they permit one or more dogs to be released into an otherwise unsupervised yard to “play”, presumably the way Nature intended. In fact, the actual Invisible Fence website promotes their system as being able to, “… keep your dog safely contained while promoting exercise and play. Your dog can run, jump and play – free to be a dog – and you can rest easy knowing your family’s safe.” This is one point of specificity to the Invisible Fence brand that we will address directly.

First off, this blurb makes the claim that the system will ” … keep your dog safely contained ….” When something is safely contained then it stands to reason that it can’t get out and either cause, or get into, trouble, so we assume the message here to be that a properly conditioned dog, contained within a properly installed and maintained invisible fence, will be safe from any harm because it will not leave the containment area to be, for example, hit by a car. We won’t argue with that. Taking this statement a step further though, what is not mentioned is even more important than what is.  While the system’s manufacturer may claim that it safely insulates a dog from all the hurtful things that lie outside its protective boundary, how does it keep the dog safe from harm inflicted on it by people and animals that are free to ignore the almighty power of the Shock Gods? Safe is safe after all, no matter which direction danger comes from, but coyotes, porcupines, raccoons, foxes, cougars, bears, the 8 year old little bastard in Newfoundland who beat a tied Pomeranian to death with a barbecue fork earlier this week - none give a shit about your signs or little flags. And whether people who enter the contained property do so out of necessity (as with meter readers, letter carriers, or delivery drivers), stupidity (one of our recent calls was from a woman who suddenly found her unfenced yard full of orienteering students running through without a care while she sat in her house worrying over what might have happened if her territorial dog had been outside), malice (dogs are injured or stolen every day by people the world would be better off without, as bad as or worse than that 8 year old little bastard in Newfoundland), or simple lack of understanding, they are absolutely free to do so. Any dog that objects will bear the consequences.

In this latter category is the heart breaking story posted by Rob Goddard of helpinghomelesspets.com titled “What You Should Know About Invisible Fencing“. Like us, Mr. Goddard states that he has never been a fan of invisible fence systems, and the story he presents is an excerpt from an e-mail he received from a volunteer with Sheltie Rescue in Jacksonville, Florida. In case the link gets broken at some point in the future, I will include Mr. Goddard’s post in its entirety, with proper credit of course, at the end of this article.

How would you feel if this fence was invisible? What if it was invisible but we added a sign that said, "Don't worry, be happy"?

Next, whether we’re dealing with a physical fence or an electronic one, no method of containment will “promote exercise and play”. Exactly how is a containment system supposed to influence a dog into exercising, playing, or doing anything else for that matter? You guessed it - it won’t, but saying that it will works against the natural human tendency to see electric shocks as actually being a bad thing to get, by replacing that imagery with another that is full of sunshine and puppies running free. What containment will do, no matter how it is done, is elevate a dog’s sense of vulnerability by removing the flight option from the “fight or flight” equation, and heighten the propensity for displays of territorial aggression in dogs that are so inclined. This latter effect is guaranteed to be misunderstood by passers by who may suddenly come to find nothing but empty space between their tender flesh and an apparently threatening dog. Add to that the possibility of a frightened child screaming and running away and the potential for disaster looms. Even a dog with a normally sound recall can switch off when the prey drive has been allowed to take over.

The term “free to be a dog” is, sadly, not unique to this case. We encounter it a lot, as often as not spoken by someone who has decided they have to give their dog up, but want it to go to live with an older couple who live on a farm, with lots of land, so it can “run”. This is such a common sentiment that it’s often spoken very nearly word for word, almost as though there’s a script somewhere. Unfortunately, and no matter how it’s phrased, this is just another feel-good expression that has no meaning in real life with dogs because what it’s actually saying is that a dog is only happy and fulfilled if it’s doing what it wants, when it wants to do it. To embrace this philosophy is to take a bath in bullshit. It hasn’t escaped our attention that the people we encounter who have actually adopted this, or some variation of it, as the foundation of their relationship with their dog have done so because they didn’t want to “be mean”, or suppress their dog’s right to the noble and natural state of dogness, by providing it with any real leadership. Once educated to the facts that a dog, by its nature, will lead if it is not led, and that assuming the leadership role is best approached as a calm and peaceful process, free from excess energy and false expectations, the light comes on and the world becomes a better place for all concerned. Those few who won’t be changed, and on those rare cases when this happens it’s always the people who won’t change - never the dog, are dooming themselves to a relationship that will never come to full flower, with dogs that will be rude, unruly, disrespectful, untrustworthy, and often, dangerous. This is most unfortunate because a properly led dog is none of those things.

Our next  objection has to do with the way these systems so readily lend themselves to the lazy, self-excusing side of human nature. As mentioned earlier, the manufacturers of the original Invisible Fence specifically recommend against leaving a dog so contained while its owner is away from home. Unfortunately, from our observations to date, of all the information to be obtained on the Invisible Fence website, this is the one piece of advice that gets routinely ignored by the end user. Another all too common alternative is that the dog is never left outside while nobody is home, but is still commonly left to do its own thing outside while the owner is inside or otherwise engaged, and trusting the containment system to see to the dog’s safety. This is false security on a level similar to people who have installed a security system and now feel so safe and protected that actually arming it never enters their head. In reality, all a containment system is doing for the owner of an unsupervised dog is limiting the size of the search area they need to cover after something bad has already happened. Even this isn’t guaranteed because of Murphy’s Law and the fact that such systems do not represent an impenetrable force field like the ones pedestrians in Halifax believe surrounds cross walks at intersections. The message here is that unsupervised dogs, just like unsupervised children, can and do get into trouble. The containment system won’t cause the trouble but, unfortunately, its presence often nurtures the kind of negligent inattention that fosters it.

Grisha Stewart owns and operates Ahimsa Dog Training in Seattle, Washington. Her website contains an article titled Dog Fences: Invisible vs. Visible in which she documents her own reasons for feeling basically the way we do. Among these are dogs she has worked with that have developed neurotic fears or heightened aggressive responses following exposure to shock collar containment systems. Even of the little flags that are used to mark the perimeter so that little flags encountered anywhere produced a sudden fearful response. She tells the tale of Rufus who was wearing a brand new shock collar while left out in the rain resulting in a malfunction that caused the collar to shock him repeatedly for hours and left him alive but traumatized, and with severe burns to his neck. We routinely recall cribs and toys after a single incident of child death or injury on the premise that if it saves one life it’s worth it. Are our dogs not worthy of an equivalent sentiment?

The final word - there are better alternatives to the reprehensible tradition of dogs tied out in back yards (also not permitted in our Adoption Agreement), to expensive or possibly prohibited perimeter fences, but electronic systems that employ automated aversive methods to unsupervised animals, sold under the guise of doggy happy time, are certainly not among them. A quick tour of the pet department at your local Walmart, or of any chain pet store, will turn up a seemingly endless supply of items that shoud never be used except under professional supervision or, in some cases, should never be used at all. If you are unwilling to obtain the basic skills necessary to properly lead and supervise your dog, to provide it with meaningful, fulfilling, stimulating exercise; with interaction and play that involves your own participation; if you can’t wrap your mind around the simple glory of just being with a dog, or if your life style doesn’t permit you to, then don’t get a dog.

For these people we offer this - a fence with invisible dogs!

A fence with invisible dogs!

What you should know about Invisible Fencing
by Rob Goddard

I have never been a great fan of Invisible Fence - dogs can blow through the boundary despite the shock if sufficiently excited and adrenalized, for instance while under full steam chasing a squirrel. They are then prevented from returning through it, as they will be shocked trying to re-enter.

The following is an excerpt from an email I received from a volunteer with Sheltie Rescue in Jacksonville FL.

Like many of the homes in our area, our neighbours had decided to use invisible fencing. The boundary ran nearly to the sidewalk on one side and the road on the other side of the home. The owners had very carefully trained their dog to respect the boundary and although we no longer used the sidewalk when walking our own dogs past the house, we never saw the dog cross the boundaries - only bark and charge up and down the length of the yard.

Unfortunately, Invisible Fencing doesn’t prevent anyone - human or animal - from crossing into a yard so protected. A child might think twice about opening a gate to enter a yard fenced by “visible” material, but most won’t think at all before stepping a few feet onto someone’s grass. Most folks might think twice about crossing a whole lawn to enter someone’s backyard, but who thinks about stepping one or two feet off a sidewalk?

So yesterday afternoon, on the way home from school, one of the children in the neighbourhood who knew the dog well stopped to say ‘hello’. He walked onto the grass to greet the dog. He was accompanied by a girl who adores dogs and she, too, walked into the yard to greet the dog. Then, the girl bent down to kiss the dog. And the dog bit her, tearing her lip badly.

The girl’s mother called the police and an ambulance. One of the policeman saw the girl covered in blood while her mother screamed “That dog tore her face off”. The police then went to the house where the dog lived. The dog was protective of his property, knew he had done something wrong and also knew the police were acting in a threatening manner. He growled and menacingly charged the police; but never ever crossed the boundary of his yard.

He was standing in the middle of the yard when the policeman shot him. Shortly after, the young teenaged girl who lived there realized something was going on and opened her front door only to find the dog’s body with police cars in the street and police standing in the road.

You could say that no one should ever approach a dog they don’t know. That no one should ever put their face close to a dog they don’t know well. That no one should ever enter another person’s yard without their express permission and in the owner’s presence.

You can argue that the police should have waited for Animal Control. You can argue that the dog was a Mastiff mix, that the police considered it a bulldog and dangerous. You can argue, as do the neighbours who knew the dog well, that the dog was actually just a big loveable teddy bear of a dog. You could argue that the dog was large, looked mean and threatening, as large dogs frequently do. You could even argue that Invisible Fences don’t always work - as the police believe happened in this case. However, my husband was working outside and saw the children inside the yard.

Each of those arguments have some truth to them. But what you can’t argue with is that Invisible Fencing is basically no protection at all, especially when it is run up to your property lines. It doesn’t protect your dog from animals entering the yard. It doesn’t protect your dog from humans entering the yard. It leaves your dog to do the protecting. And while that little girl, now awaiting plastic surgery, might have petted a dog through a “real” fence and still been bitten, it is doubtful that it would have been her face that was damaged. It is also doubtful that the police would have felt they needed to shoot the dog on the spot if it had been contained by a “visible” fence.