Don’t Fence Me In!
Last week I met a young woman who had bought her dog from a breeder. She did not want to go to a breeder, but after many attempts to get a dog from rescues and shelters and being denied for not having a fence, she bought. Another dog sits another day (week, month) in a shelter because of a black-and-white policy like this one.
This is one of those policies that just simply does not make sense. In fact, one can easily argue that a home with a fenced yard is less humane for the dog than one that is fenced. Frankly, I just do not understand the policy at all. Do we really assume that folks who come to our shelters who do not have fences are not willing to take their dog out on a leash, but will instead brazenly open the door and let their dog go even after we give them the tools to walk them? From my perspective, dogs who live without a fenced-in yard are much more likely to be walked on a leash. This means that they are more likely to meet people and other dogs, and thus have enrichment and socialization opportunities.
One can argue that dogs who have fenced yards are often left in the yard unattended. Fences can fall, holes can be dug and pets can be lost. In our research on ID tagging, one of the most common ways in which dog owners report their dog became lost was from a fenced backyard where some failure (door left open, hole or other) occurred.
Fences can be great options for dogs – off-leash time outside with running and social opportunities can be great for bonding and enrichment. Public fenced-in areas can be found in most communities, and we can serve our non-fenced clients well by providing them a list of safe fenced areas where they can bring their dogs to run and play.
Many of you no longer have such a policy at your facilities – I would love to hear how adoptions changed when the policy was eliminated. And for those of you that still have a policy in place, I hope that we can help you to take down those fences…
Related links:
“Tagging Matters…and we’ve got the data to prove it
Policy Is Overrated”
Tags: Research, Research & Data, Saving Lives
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Valerie Sheppard Says:
A few years ago I was turned down by an agency because I have an invisible fence and not a “real” fence. I was surprised. And then I adopted Trooper from another agency.
Gina Wolf Says:
You can look at this issue in several different ways. I agree that responsible people who have unfenced yards do plan on taking their dog out on leash and training their dog. This also applies to people who live in apartments, condo complexes, etc. It can be a great way for a dog to live.
However, I do believe that many people assume that, after a honeymoon period, they will be able to just let the dog out and “it won’t go far.” This may or may not be true. Also, many unfenced neighborhoods tend to be in very rural, woodsy areas that are filled with wildlife, which can be dangerous or deadly to dogs. Especially when we are talking about small dogs, it needs to be made completely clear to an adopter that a bird of prey can make off with your dog in seconds.
I guess it all comes down to what it always comes down to: some adopters are in 100% and will do whatever is necessary to make sure their new dog has a happy, well-lived, long life. Others have a short window of interest and the hassle involved with keeping their dog safe becomes justifiable reason to slack up on safety measures. You never really know which camp an adopter falls into until after the fact.
Kristi Mallinson Vogel Says:
Excellent piece! I think we all need to review those well-intentioned black and white policies, whether it’s with cat or dog adoptions. Let’s keep taking those fences down, one board at a time.
Thanks for your continuing inspiration.
Heather Mohan-Gibbons Says:
Great piece! My dog came from a shelter who adopted him to me despite me renting a duplex with no fence. I quickly learned he is the kind of dog that you can not let off-leash as he will chase wildlife. My landlord let me set-up a trolley tie-out system so that I could play ball and give him enrichment and games in the yard without him wandering away. Every apartment I have lived in since then I only select those that had a fenced in yard for him.
My point is that I may not have had an “ideal situation” at the time of adoption, but I found solutions that worked well at the time. Also having him changes all my future decisions on what kind of place I want to live in.
Heather
Scott Sheaffer Says:
I am inclined to agree here. Hard and fast rules can leave dogs homeless when there is no reason. Microchipping, proper leash training (for the guardian that is) and training the dog to stay in boundaries works.
Also, chaining a dog up outside for short periods with a proper leash/chain, collar, water and shade is OK too. Especially when the alternative is endless months in a cage at a shelter or euthanasia.
Mickey Parker Says:
I Think the issue can be looked at many ways, the point is people need to be educated. Just because one dog gets into trouble and the person does not have a fenced yard does it mean everyone else with out a fenced yard should also be made to suffer and in that point and fact the animals who could be potentially adopted out to those homes? It is the people who let that dog out the door, it is also people who leave a dog for HOURS outside in a fenced yard with no supervision because they believe that dog wont go anywhere.
For every unfenced yard there are just as many people who behave just as wrong that have a fenced yard. The point of shelters and rescue agencies is to help homeless animals and if you turn away a potential owner how are you helping that animal find a home? IF you have these policies I believe they should be reviewed and instead of making policy how about you educate rather than deny.
kozzykats Says:
Great piece Dr. Weiss. I too, almost went the breeder route after being turned down by rescue after rescue for a variety of black/white policies, no fenced yard, no prior “dog” experience, and the mac daddy of them all, “we’re afraid your cats will hurt the dog, so no thanks, *click*”
Like other have said, it all boils down to the adopter. In my case, like others, I started out without the fence, then after a year or so, ended up putting one in, because my dog needed it. She still gets leashed walked every day and does agility, goes to dog camp every year does a type of bike joring with a Springer attachment because these are the things she needs to stay healthy.
I’m thankful every day that St. Hubert’s has an open adoption policy and gave me the chance to provide a good home for an unwanted dog.
In the case of shelters I have worked with, I have seen adoptions increase as the walls have come down…way back when, our group would never ever waive an adoption fee, I mean after all, if you can’t afford the fee, can you really afford to care for the cat?
Fast fwd to today, and we’re getting more cats into homes with programs that include waived fee adoptions and less judgmental policies.
Everyone wins!
Jann Becker Says:
I get tired of the prejudice against invisible fences. It happens to be the only fence we can have on our property due to shallow topsoil and heavy woods. Using the system gives our two dogs the free run of an acre of woods. None of the possible problems have happened to us; our guys are bright enough not to get shocked. (Not rocket science: you hear a tone, you back up.)
I’ve seen sight hounds and other dogs who take off running whenever they see daylight. An invisible fence wouldn’t even slow them down. But my territorial Goldens are fine with it.