Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Going to the dogs

The Nugget received a letter from a woman who is fed up with barking dogs disturbing her peace. She wants us to do a story about shock collars for barking dogs and we probably will.

Dogs are a constant problem in Sisters. Barking dogs, loose dogs, aggressive dogs. The local sheriff’s deputies spend an awful lot of their time dealing with animal complaints.

It’s not the dogs’ fault. they’re just doing what comes naturally: wandering around peeing on everything, talking to each other and defending their turf.

It’s the owners who aren’t doing their job.

My wife spent most of Monday morning reuniting an old lab that showed up in our driveway with her family. A little girl was most relieved and it was all very touching. but it was clear that Daisy would need to be rescued again. Dad was pretty cavalier. “Yeah, she runs off.”

Well... control the dog!

Incessant barking is maddening; if your dog is a barker, keep it indoors so it doesn’t bother the neighbors.

Don’t let your dog run loose in the neighborhood. If your dog bites a kid, you’ve got a big problem. Leash the critter when you’re on a walk. Yeah, I know your dog responds to voice commands — except when he doesn’t.
I don’t want my dogs tangling with yours. Neither do you.

I hate the idea of using a shock collar to stop a dog from barking. I don’t much care for cops handing out reams of citations for nuisances and dogs at large. But that’s the kind of step people start insisting on when dog owners won’t just do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

Jim Cornelius, Editor


  1. I usually don't agree with you, but you are right on in this case.

    Here in Sisters, leashes are the exception rather than the rule.

    The fact is that YOU are responsible for your dog. If it runs free and hurts someone or destroys property, YOU are liable. If your dog is barking incessantly, YOU are disturbing the peace.

    There is no reason to not have your dog on a leash and there are very few reasons a dog should bark enough to bother a neighbor.

  2. A note to Jim: Comment moderation is just silly. This is a blog, which is a place for discussion.

    Waiting for you to "approve" my comments is way to conduct a discussion. Are you trying to avoid expletives? Or spam?

    If you have a problem with cursing, you can always delete it later. Other than four-letter words, are there comments that you wouldn't let stand "as-is"?

    Just wondering...

  3. Easycure:

    Your point is well-taken; moderation slows down the flow of discussion.

    While we wanted a more freewheeling forum than Letters to the Editor or the article comments on the web site, we still want some standards of civility.

    I'm sure you've seen blogs where "discussions" devolve into name-calling — You're a moron!" No you are!" and never recover. We don't want that. And language is an issue — we promote the blog in the newspaper and don't want to be associated with a bunch of spewing.

    That said, people have been acting like grown-ups — I haven't rejected a comment yet, nor do I recall any bad language being used.

    Another consideration is time. If it takes more time to deal with inappropriate usage after the fact, that's a problem, because I can only budget so much time for the blog.

    Let me ask you this: Does moderation inhibit your use or enjoyment of the blog? How would unmoderated comment affect same?

    We'll give some consideration to changing the settings.

    Thanks very much for weighing in. Feedback from readers is valuable as we venture our here into the blogosphere.

    Jim Cornelius, Editor