Pets

Neighbours on my street leaving thorned rose branches on lawn to deter dogs

Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
4950 posts
781 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Nov 23rd, 2017 2:06 am
Isn't it pretty obvious something happened to the lawn in question for the lawn owner to set up these obstructions? The dogs should 1 or 2 on their owner's property, period.
Karala wrote:
Nov 23rd, 2017 2:26 am
Not necessarily. Some people simply have very weird hang ups, these people simply may hate dogs.
And if it's their lawn, don't they have a right to their own feelings?

a) They could hate dogs. OK, not a pleasant attitude to have, but you know what, it's THEIR LAWN. They don't need to justify hating dogs and therefore not wanting dogs on their lawn.

We are talking about a dogwalker who thinks he/she is entitled to control what another homeowner does/wants on said homeowner's own property because their (?deterrent?) vegetal clippings are an inconvenience or a minor potential boo-boo to themselves or their dog.

b) Maybe they have--or someone in their family has--a serious dog allergy. Even "hypoallergenic" breeds can cause allergies in some people...the likelihood of avoiding a reaction or having a serious reaction to dogs wandering lawns may be low, but they don't have to like it either.
Karala wrote:
Nov 23rd, 2017 2:26 am
Also, dogs aren't machines where you control their every action nor do they understand property lines. Never met a dog that only went on their own property -- you're being completely unrealistic there. It is in their nature to mark.
Right, it cannot be expected that dogwalkers can prevent all "accidents" on someone else's lawn...therefore perhaps use your leash, and training, to keep them off lawns where you know they are unwelcome??

Dogs do not have to "understand property lines", they just need to be able to heed their owners' commands. And don't tell me they can't be taught to keep on sidewalks. Otherwise, seeing-eye dogs would not be possible.

This isn't about whether YOU are someone who picks up your dog's poop. 49/50 dogwalkers might do so, but it's the 1/50 who doesn't that can make people not want to see dogs wandering on their lawn.

I absolutely love dogs, but many dog owners are sloppy, irresponsible jerks and I don't trust randoms to be conscientious. I have come into my driveway to see some dogwalkers acting like my property is theirs. I'm not even glaring, just standing there looking without a smile on my face for them to *slowly* get the clue that I don't like them letting their dog play on my lawn and then they tug on the leash.

My mom loves dogs so she plasters walls with calendar photos of dogs, computer screensaver is a dog...but as soon as stranger dog and stranger dogwalker is on her lawn, she doesn't like it, either.

I'm not OCD about it so you don't need to speculate on my, nor someone's psychological state. Just stick to the facts -- if you know your dog is not welcome on someone else's property -- keep dog off -- their property is theirs.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7570 posts
1017 upvotes
Toronto
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 10:18 pm
And if it's their lawn, don't they have a right to their own feelings?

a) They could hate dogs. OK, not a pleasant attitude to have, but you know what, it's THEIR LAWN. They don't need to justify hating dogs and therefore not wanting dogs on their lawn.

We are talking about a dogwalker who thinks he/she is entitled to control what another homeowner does/wants on said homeowner's own property because their (?deterrent?) vegetal clippings are an inconvenience or a minor potential boo-boo to themselves or their dog.

b) Maybe they have--or someone in their family has--a serious dog allergy. Even "hypoallergenic" breeds can cause allergies in some people...the likelihood of avoiding a reaction or having a serious reaction to dogs wandering lawns may be low, but they don't have to like it either.

Right, it cannot be expected that dogwalkers can prevent all "accidents" on someone else's lawn...therefore perhaps use your leash, and training, to keep them off lawns where you know they are unwelcome??

Dogs do not have to "understand property lines", they just need to be able to heed their owners' commands. And don't tell me they can't be taught to keep on sidewalks. Otherwise, seeing-eye dogs would not be possible.

This isn't about whether YOU are someone who picks up your dog's poop. 49/50 dogwalkers might do so, but it's the 1/50 who doesn't that can make people not want to see dogs wandering on their lawn.

I absolutely love dogs, but many dog owners are sloppy, irresponsible jerks and I don't trust randoms to be conscientious. I have come into my driveway to see some dogwalkers acting like my property is theirs. I'm not even glaring, just standing there looking without a smile on my face for them to *slowly* get the clue that I don't like them letting their dog play on my lawn and then they tug on the leash.

My mom loves dogs so she plasters walls with calendar photos of dogs, computer screensaver is a dog...but as soon as stranger dog and stranger dogwalker is on her lawn, she doesn't like it, either.

I'm not OCD about it so you don't need to speculate on my, nor someone's psychological state. Just stick to the facts -- if you know your dog is not welcome on someone else's property -- keep dog off -- their property is theirs.
Well said. Some of those dog owners really shouldn't be if they can't even control their 4-legged, never mind those ones who think they're "amazing" owners and let them run amok w/o leashes. The level of entitlement and foolishness is just frustrating.
Sr. Member
Apr 25, 2011
712 posts
266 upvotes
British Columbia
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 10:18 pm
And if it's their lawn, don't they have a right to their own feelings?
I never said they do not have a right to their feelings but I did say they are acting overall unfriendly and said that they can be sued if someone harms themselves by tripping on these thorns especially since they were placed there intentionally. I said there are simpler -- safer --solutions.

Also it's worth noting there are many exceptions to what you can do on your own property where the city can intervene. It depends were you live and if someone complains really; I can think of issues such as building a tree house as well as neumerous cases where the city will tell a homeowner to clean their property due to various issues or face fines or jail if they do not comply.

I also mentioned that the fire hydrant at the very least is likely not on their property; no one seems to want to defend public property nor the safety of those in the vicinity for some weird reason. They'd rather jump to the defense of some grass on public land because some homeowner is insensed that lives beside it.
Last edited by Karala on Nov 27th, 2017 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 1, 2011
4950 posts
781 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 10:46 pm
The level of entitlement and foolishness is just frustrating.
It's also the assumptions about the homeowners themselves...that they hate dogs, the implication that they're horrible or crazy people in general...that's kind of annoying. Except for the one homeowner trying to boss around the OP and tell him/her where to walk--obviously that's rude and worth ignoring--you can't really guess all motivations or reasons.

I had a good friend in university who loved animals, and made Evolutionary Biology her field as a researcher/future professor. She went vegetarian at 13 years old, because she couldn't stomach eating animals anymore, but I learned that she disliked dogs. A stranger made a really obnoxious comment about that, "Really? I find that dogs and children are the best judges of character..." (implying she's not a nice person.) Yet when I asked her why, it's only because when she was a child, she was bit by stranger's dog, so she developed a kind of phobia.

People in general can be selfish and irresponsible. Dogowners are not some magical exception to this; there are good owners and there are selfish, stupid ones.
- dogowners who neglect dogs
- dogowners who abuse dogs
- dogowners who abandon dogs at the smallest inconvenience
- dogowners who don't properly train or teach dogs
- dogowners who don't keep dogs on a leash on leash areas
- dogowners who think it's "cute" and acceptable for their huge canine to dig their noses at random people's crotches
- dogowners who don't pick up after their pets

I'm happy to pet friendly dogs that I meet in a public place. My neighbors have a sweet beagle who will kiss my ankles in the summer when I'm clearing out my car in the driveway. One of the most adorable encounters I ever had was with a pomeranian who pounced and hugged a pair of furry boots I was wearing in the winter a few years ago...and I would love to have a dog myself if my lifestyle and schedule wouldn't be neglectful of what I think is proper care for a dog. I've had dogwalkers stop and chat with their dogs right in front of my lawn, and I see that the dogs are greeting each other, and behaving well, so there's no ill feelings there.

But turds and lawn burn and general trespassers...not welcome. Even if it's only the first metre inward of the lawn that's "city property"...does this mean I can have a picnic on random neighbours' 1 meter of lawn, or pitch a lawnchair and sunbathe, perhaps leave "presents" there...and expect that this be acceptable?
Karala wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:23 pm
I did say they are acting overall unfriendly
Yes, this happens. OP could be acting disrespectful in their eyes. Are you friendly to people you perceive as disrespectful?
Karala wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:23 pm
...and said that they can be sued if someone harms themselves by tripping on these thorns especially since they were placed there intentionally.
So let the OP complain to the city and we can see what happens, and let them be sued.
Karala wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:23 pm
Also it's worth noting there are many exceptions to what you can do on your own property where the city can intervene. It depends were you live and if someone complains really; I can think of issues such as building a tree house as well as neumerous cases where the city will tell a homeowner to clean their property due to various issues or face fines or jail if they do not comply.
Are you telling us that there are city laws against vegetal debris on people's lawns? Because the link is about city laws, complying or not complying with. Do you want cities to start requiring permits to have plant matter on lawns?
Karala wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:23 pm
I also mentioned that the fire hydrant
I mentioned it before you did. Yet the OP specifically complains about the neighbours' LAWN.

Lawn.

I am addressing the attitude and mindset of the lawn (in topic and body of original post.)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 9, 2006
9895 posts
918 upvotes
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:48 pm
I'm happy to pet friendly dogs that I meet in a public place. My neighbors have a sweet beagle who will kiss my ankles in the summer when I'm clearing out my car in the driveway. One of the most adorable encounters I ever had was with a pomeranian who pounced and hugged a pair of furry boots I was wearing in the winter a few years ago...and I would love to have a dog myself if my lifestyle and schedule wouldn't be neglectful of what I think is proper care for a dog.
Image
Sr. Member
Apr 25, 2011
712 posts
266 upvotes
British Columbia
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:48 pm
It's also the assumptions about the homeowners themselves...that they hate dogs, the implication that they're horrible or crazy people in general...that's kind of annoying. Except for the one homeowner trying to boss around the OP and tell him/her where to walk--obviously that's rude and worth ignoring--you can't really guess all motivations or reasons.
Of course we cannot guess all reasons and we are only hearing one side of the story. True enough. I put forward a possible reason, the one I personally see as most likely based on the story I have heard. If you have a different conclusion and believe the OP is being disrespectful so be it.
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:48 pm
So let the OP complain to the city and we can see what happens, and let them be sued.
I suggested they do let the city know if it bothers them. And yes, by all means let the homeowner be sued if someone gets hurt.
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:48 pm
Are you telling us that there are city laws against vegetal debris on people's lawns? Because the link is about city laws, complying or not complying with. Do you want cities to start requiring permits to have plant matter on lawns?
Of course not. My link was suggesting that while you may "own" your land, there are rules that come with it. If you, for example, stopped cutting your grass you could be fined. This scenario similarly may not comply if brought to the city's attention and reviewed.
peanutz wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 11:48 pm
I mentioned it before you did. Yet the OP specifically complains about the neighbours' LAWN.
That is the phrasing, yes, but the issue is broader than merely their lawn once you read the story.
[OP]
Sr. Member
User avatar
Jul 25, 2008
699 posts
197 upvotes
Toronto
Lol at the outcome of this thread.

Here was scenario 1:
I’m walking on the sidewalk with my 2 dogs. They go sniff the hydrant on the outer edge of neighbour’s neighbour’s lawn. I have not even reached their section of the sidewalk yet. Man tells me ‘Lady, the park is that way, why you gotta walk over here with your dogs’

Scenario 2. Corner lot, 2 houses down from neighbour of scenario 1. They have a home-made fence built along their inner lawn so you cant get into their inner lawn. My dogs sniff the tree (no peeing, no pooing) at the outer edge of the grass by the road, lady stares at me not in a nice manner until I have walked 2-3 houses pass their house. The weird thing is that she stares at me rudely but smiles at my husband when he’s walking the dog so I don’t know what her problem is. This is the house who owns the rose bushes and has them planted in most likely spots that dogs are likely to stop at. Neighbour from
Scenario one doesn’t own any roses that I know of but most likely got some from neighbour on scenario 2.

I mean, if they had a sign to indicate they prefer you to keep off their lawn, sure I would respect their wishes, but leaving cut up thorned branches all scattered and on windy days it gets blown onto the sidewalk and is pretty messy at times is something that personally peeves me off just as a pedestrian who is walking on the sidewalk.
Sr. Member
Mar 19, 2013
609 posts
175 upvotes
Prince Albert, Sask.
We have 3 dogs. When walking we do not allow them to venture on private property. We are fortunate in our area we have city owned boulevards. The are for the most part, unkept. That’s where they roam, sniff and relieve themselves. We always pick up, no exceptions, no excuses. Has been mentioned, dog urine will do serious damage to grass. Burn or in a lot of cases kill it. Our dogs have a grassed area in our backyard. It’s theirs. It takes a beating. To repair involves costs, labor & time. Just maybe, the home owner is sending a message to irresponsible dog owners. Personally, I think it would be an excellent deterrent. The notion that home owners should put up signage.... silly. Responsible dog owners are “all in”. Half measures, debate & excuses don’t cut it.
Sr. Member
Nov 7, 2012
671 posts
238 upvotes
TORONTO
OP... what dick neighbours!

I too have some neighbours that are along one of my various routes to walk my dog. In the summer my wife was walking our dog and at the corner across the street from said neighbour my dog took a pee on the stop sign post. That neighbour was home and saw it and called out to my wife saying ' ehh ehh ehhh' (heavy Jamaican accent). My wife was taken aback for a second. The guy didn't acknowledge my wife but talked to her like shes some child. My wife walked away and that was the end of the interaction. My wife was pissed.... she's like, use words! I'm right here. If you have a concern let me know, because my dog doesn't understand wtf you're saying.

That being said, we can't really avoid that house due to its location, but we make sure our dog never stops there, which is a corner house with a lamp post and a stop sign, to do his thing.

I understand what it's like to be a homeowner and to take pride in where you live. But if your neighbour is telling your to walk somewhere else... man... tell them to f'off.... d'fuq are you to tell me where I can walk my dog. That' stuff infuriates me. I too think the intent to injure any dog with the thornes is just wrong.
At my house we have a cedar bush right by the sidewalk and placed a shale stone right under it for the neighbouring dogs to pee on. Doesn't hurt the tree and the rest of my grass is fine.
Member
User avatar
Jul 7, 2005
453 posts
82 upvotes
akswun wrote:
Nov 29th, 2017 3:14 pm
I understand what it's like to be a homeowner and to take pride in where you live. But if your neighbour is telling your to walk somewhere else... man... tell them to f'off.... d'fuq are you to tell me where I can walk my dog. That' stuff infuriates me. I too think the intent to injure any dog with the thornes is just wrong.
tranquility922 wrote:
Nov 27th, 2017 10:46 pm
The level of entitlement and foolishness is just frustrating.
Case in point! lol
Karala wrote:
Nov 28th, 2017 12:24 am
I suggested they do let the city know if it bothers them. And yes, by all means let the homeowner be sued if someone gets hurt.
Lets go after the easy target, maybe it will send a message to the those leaving the poison/razor blade meatballs that they can potentially be sued too! Sorry, I just found it ironic that thorns are relatively harmless, yet will be the receiving end of divine retribution just because they're a stationary target. I've stepped on a thorn, hurt like hell but when I plucked the thorn out all was good....

Is it just me? I feel the thorn bush was a very good subtle warning and actually applaud the neighbour for not using more extreme measures.
As we see, an oral warning is no good either in poor english or not on the level of politeness acceptable to the listener, because it can inadvertently irritate or infuriate some people.
So we need signs eh? and if said sign was written in poor english or not on the level of politeness acceptable to the reader, it may also inadvertently irritate or infuriate some people, it may trigger "d'fuq are you to tell me where I can walk my dog"

I just noticed, grammar check wants me to capitalize the E in english.... who d'fuq are you to tell me what to do built-in grammar check!!
Sr. Member
Apr 25, 2011
712 posts
266 upvotes
British Columbia
Didi_beee wrote:
Nov 28th, 2017 12:45 am
The weird thing is that she stares at me rudely but smiles at my husband when he’s walking the dog so I don’t know what her problem is.
She likes your husband. So you're a threat! Mystery solved. :D In all seriousness, I have no idea why she appears outwardly more friendly to your husband. Is he more chatty, does he walk the dogs differently? What happens when you walk the dogs together?
waitin4BOOST wrote:
Nov 30th, 2017 10:40 am
Lets go after the easy target, maybe it will send a message to the those leaving the poison/razor blade meatballs that they can potentially be sued too! Sorry, I just found it ironic that thorns are relatively harmless, yet will be the receiving end of divine retribution just because they're a stationary target. I've stepped on a thorn, hurt like hell but when I plucked the thorn out all was good....
I don't actually know what you're getting at when you talk about going after "the easy target". If a homeowner does not clean their property, or worse, intentionally places something that is deemed unsafe and someone harms themself they can be sued. Simple. I didn't make the rules. Thorns hurt, and if you happen to trip and fall on them when they're cut up alongside the sidewalk or if they've bown all over the sidewalk after it has been windy that's not very good, and there are safer ways to deter people/animals... like a fence... which hey, apparently they have on their "inner lawn". Sounds like where they are placing the thorns is the boulevard. AKA, not their property.

OP if this is the boulevard then report it to the city. In my city people often treat the boulevard like it is theirs just because they have to cut the grass there, but it isn't. City workers do occasionally come along and tear up things owners have built on them especially if the objects block where they are trying to work.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 21, 2010
7570 posts
1017 upvotes
Toronto
Some ppl are too darn annoying and stubborn. Obviously they don't want you on their property/near their property. A civilised person would just do what they are supposed to do in the first place, i.e. NOT trespass on other ppl's property. However, this somehow gives these annoying ppl an 'excuse' to use the property and stir up feces. Stupid false entitlement.

One of the rare times I wish downvoting's allowed.
Deal Addict
Feb 29, 2008
4482 posts
676 upvotes
tranquility922 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2017 5:52 pm
Ikr, the entitlement of some ppl. Do they even realize the words coming out of their mouth/typed out from their keybrds? Madness.

To be safe, maybe the neighbor is a psycho dog hater but I'm willing to bet some dogs took a #1 or #2 or did other mischief there, and that's the reason for such measures.
I see no issue here. Some dog owners are ridiculously entitled. Remember living in a condo where dog owners were complaining about not being able to have their dogs hang out in the common areas because the dog park 3 blocks away was too far. Or the ones that expect you who let their dogs stick their heads in your grocery bags like it's "cute".

The owner likely did this after getting fed up with having to spending time and money to repair their lawn that was destroyed by dog urine and shit.

Some of us still see dogs as animals.
Deal Addict
Apr 11, 2006
4822 posts
942 upvotes
Mississauga
I have a big 130lb dog. If necessary, I can take him on an entire walk along the sidewalk without touching grass. If we walk through residential neighbourhoods, I take the side of the road that has a grass portion between sidewalk and road (as that's city owned, even though upkept from residents).

Never do I let my dog go on people's actual lawn (between sidewalk and house). I just view that as kind of rude generally speaking. Like even if I had to for whatever reason go knock on a strangers door, I don't walk across the grass, I walk along the walkway or driveway to the walkway.

It's just human decency and consideration for others' property.

If those thorned rose branches blow onto the sidewalk, then take a picture and report it to the city. That simple. Or knock on the homeowner's door and tell them to clean it up off the sidewalk. But whatever they put on their own lawn (grass between house and sidewalk), is their choice. They can't do the same for the city's portion (grass between sidewalk and road) nor can they do it on the sidewalk neither.
Sr. Member
Apr 25, 2011
712 posts
266 upvotes
British Columbia
tranquility922 wrote:
Dec 1st, 2017 1:54 am
Some ppl are too darn annoying and stubborn. Obviously they don't want you on their property/near their property. A civilised person would just do what they are supposed to do in the first place, i.e. NOT trespass on other ppl's property. However, this somehow gives these annoying ppl an 'excuse' to use the property and stir up feces. Stupid false entitlement.

One of the rare times I wish downvoting's allowed.
Down vote what, exactly? The rules of city property and the rules that come attached with ownership of a home to keep it safe?

I'm finding it pretty hilarious that this is likely not their property yet everyoneis talking about entitlement issues of others when it is actually the reverse. The homeowner entitlement to land that is not theirs is actually the issue here.

We own recreational property right beside a main trail -- foot traffic all over the place beside our property as well as loud golf carts blowing dust everywhere. Annoying, sure. But it isn't our property and so the best we can do is build a fence and live and let live.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)