Electronic Fencing Not Always Effective, or Humane

Q: What do you think of electronic fencing? My neighbors have it to keep their dog in the yard, and it works. I'm considering the same thing because real fences aren't allowed in our community. -- S.J., Cyberspace

A: I'm not a fan of electronic fencing. I prefer a real fence, and high enough so a dog can't jump over. However, I do understand that, depending on the size of your property, real fencing can be more expensive. Also, some communities prohibit fences.

So, what do you do? Right now, you're probably taking your dog for leash walks. Actually, dogs that walk around the neighborhood generally are better socialized and well exercised than those confined to their yards.

I have two primary concerns about electronic fencing:

Some companies are pretty much: The consumer buys it, the consumer installs it, the consumer trains the dog. There's little real assistance available. If you must have electronic fencing, I prefer companies that provide hands-on professional guidance, making a house call to install the fence and helping train your dog.

My second concern is that some dogs will eventually disregard the shock when a stimulus comes along that's more exciting than the risk of being shocked. A dog may disregard the fencing to chase a squirrel, another dog, or anything the pet finds exciting.

However, all it takes is one escape for a dog to be hit by a car or get lost (hopefully, the pet is microchipped for identification). A stray dog might even find its way inside your fencing, which could be a problem if the interloper is aggressive. I know such incidents don't happen every day, but you've read letters here from readers who've witnessed them.

Whatever type of containment you choose, back yards are not baby sitters. Whether chained up, behind real or electronic fencing, some dogs can become aggressive. Sometimes people even steal dogs from yards. And in extreme weather, it's never a good idea to leave a dog outside for long.

Q: What do you think of shelters that advertise they're "No-Kill"? The issue has become controversial. -- G.H., Cyberspace

A: Entire books address your seemingly simple question. Here's a Cliff Notes' version:

"No-Kill" is a marketing term. Certainly, it has garnered public attention, which is a good thing. There's no way we should be content killing as many innocent animals as we do. Having said that, let's define "no kill." The truth is, some animals may have incurable diseases or serious behavioral issues. It's an easy argument to make that these pets are better off being euthanized.

However, what about shelters that claim to be 'no kill' but in fact, do kill animals with solvable medical or behavior problems? Are the shelter personnel hypocritical? I'm not sure. The definition of "no kill" varies from shelter to shelter.

An even bigger concern are shelters that claim to be ethically right because they don't kill. This suggests other facilities that do euthanize pets are ethically wrong and are "killers." So, guess which shelter donors gravitate toward?

Of course, no kill facilities typically fill up quickly. But unwanted animals have to go somewhere. That's because having a no kill facility or two in town doesn't necessarily correlate with increased spaying/neutering, or more owners committed to keeping their animals. Also, the shaky economy has led to increased relinquishments in many communities.

Under such circumstance, when no kill shelters turn people away, they're forced to go elsewhere to have their pets euthanized, simply shifting the problem. There's a cost associated with euthanasia, a hard cost, as well as a cost in public perception. While overall, the "no kill" movement has moved the needle (to fewer euthanasias), the growing divide between "no kill" and "kill" is not benefiting communities or pets.

Q: In light of what happened with all those wild animals that got loose in Ohio, what do you think about people keeping exotic pets? -- S.U., Las Vegas, NV

A: Well, I suppose I'm guilty of this myself. One of our pets is a Northern Blue-Tongue Skink, a lizard which can grow to about 2 feet. In the wild, they eat insects and vegetation, and are hardly a danger to people. While not truly domestic, they're easily tamed. Our skink (and her parents going back several generations) was born in captivity, so wild numbers were not diminished. Besides, these skinks are fairly common in Australia and nearby islands.

While lizards aren't lions or tigers, the question is, where do you draw the line? I'm hugely concerned that many wild animals require care in captivity which can be difficult. Some are endangered and those who keep such animals are harming the species by not participating in a larger breeding program (as do zoos and certified wildlife facilities). Also, too often people who keep wild animals are injured.

While I believe the Sheriff's Department in Zanesville, Ohio, suffered from a serious trigger finger (after all, Columbus Zoo staffers were available to tranquilize), there was a clear potential danger to the public.

Lions, tigers, venomous snakes, alligators and a long list of other wild animals found on private property in America belong instead in professional captive environments, such as zoos or facilities run by certified wildlife rehabbers, not in back yards or ranches.

(Steve Dale welcomes questions/comments from readers. Although he can't answer all of them individually, he'll answer those of general interest in his column. Write to Steve at Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY 14207. Send e-mail to PETWORLD(at)STEVE DALE.TV. Include your name, city and state. Steve's website is www.stevedalepetworld.com; he also hosts the nationally syndicated "Steve Dale's Pet World" and "The Pet Minute." He's also a contributing editor to USA Weekend.