If you carefully apply round up, and not spray it indiscriminately, you be able to apply a chem safely so it doesn't affect the dogs or the plants. Cover the plants that you don't want to kill with a plastic, use a paint brush to apply glyphosate directly to the plants that you do you want to kill, (I would buy generic glyphosate, and not the name brand stuff.) And once you get the plants killed, I would apply a heavy mulch between the fences, to reduce the amount of plants that grow there in the future. And I would reapply a heavy mulch, every year.... dump thick layers of wood chips between the fences would keep plants from growing between the fences. OR I would plant something between the fences that would be aggressive enough to outcompete the weeds, but not so noxious that you don't want it growing there. Cup plant and Joepyeweed might be worth trying to replace the noxious weeds with pretty flowering aggressive perrenials that are good for the birds and butterflies.

Yowza!!! The only statement that approaches any degree of accuracy in the above post is the one that suggests you do the research. Which the above poster has obviously not done. "Ask yourself basic logical questions like, how in the world can a toxic chemical intuitively know not to poison your tomato or your dog, but to target that bad dandelion only (for example)." The answer to that is simple and is the same principle behind the development of beneficial pharmaceuticals that target disease organisms. It's called 'mode of action' - glyphosate's mode of action is to disrupt a metabolic pathway that allows for the biosynthesis of certain amino acids. This metabolic pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is specific to plants and some microorganisms. The absence of this pathway in mammals explains the low toxicity of glyphosate to non-target organisms. "It is extremely hazardous, and it is toxic to all life" Again, a completely erroneous statement. After some 40 years of the most extensive scientific testing any pesticide has ever undergone, glyphosate is considered to be of very low toxicity and therefore is NOT considered to be "extremely hazardous". And it is obviously not "toxic to all life" - it just simply does not work that way (see above re: mode of action) and if it did, it would not be on the market. And the declaration that it is a causation for cancer is still under debate by world health authorities. First, it has never been documented that gylphosate is carcinogenic with humans - that's probably the major bone of contention with this assessment. The association was made based on very limited epidemiological studies which have been disputed by non-consistent patterns of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between total cancer or any site-specific cancer and exposure to glyphosate. The bulk of the determination was based on studies based on animal experiments submitted by the producers of glyphosate as evidence for the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate. And these findings were considered by various other agencies involved in this assessment (IMPR, FAO/WHO) who concluded that “In view of the absence of a carcinogenic potential in animals and the lack of genotoxicity in standard tests, the Meeting (IMPR) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans” (does glyphosate cause cancer?) Finally, had the above poster done her research, she would be aware that glyphosate is a non-specific herbicide. It does not just target weeds nor was it intended to just target weeds. This is a basic premise of any understanding of herbicides and to bother to post without knowing this elementary fact gives no credence to the rest of her rant. Junk science will always be junk science and simply spewing back sensationalized conclusions plucked from the online press without knowledge or understanding is merely ignorant fear mongering.

The simplest answer is YES. Nothing meant to kill something can do so without some harm to your environment, at best some might do so with less harm than others. Even digging a "weed" (a plant you do not want growing where you do not want it) disturbs the soil which then needs some time to heal.

Sorry. This will be a long one. It always is with me. (blushing) I'm with the OP on this one. Even if no one but me ever saw my lawn, I would want it to be dark, rich green GRASS...and nothing else. (I'm known for wanting everything to be beautiful. I'm also a bit of a home body, and enjoy spending time in my yard. Many guests have remarked that, no matter where they look (on my property), there's always something beautiful. I'm always taken aback by those comments, since while that was MY goal, I never expected others to pick up on it.) Case in point about the intentional act of putting down grass, and not other (lower maintenance) plants. I own a small, remote island. I made the decision to create a lawn area and, once you include the slow-moving barge fees (3 days to get from its port to the island), labour, equipment, and materials, that lawn cost me $14,000. That obviously begs the question, why, on earth, would anyone spend a nickel putting in expensive, high-maintenance grass, only to let it be taken over by clover and other weeds??? My husband and I recently purchased a 19th century farmhouse in need of roof-to-foundation renovation. As such, I inherited a lawn that is EASILY 70% weeds, including clover so thoroughly interwoven, it would be impossible to pull by hand. I pride myself on my beautiful lawns and gardens, and can spend/have sent hours, each day, ensuring everything is healthy and how I want it. At my last home, I developed a bit of a reputation for being out weeding my lawn by hand for hours, plus how awesome my expansive lawn was. My point is, I want my lawn and gardens to be a certain way; plant the plants I want; pull the plants I don't want; unafraid to put-in the effort to achieve that. I prefer not to use any kinds of "chemicals", other than the ammonia and mild soap I include in my homemade fertilizer recipe. (My last home was a beach house. So, that only reinforced my desire to go chemical-free.) But this new-to-me house is demoralizing me...practically to the point of tears, much of it because of the state of the (laughing) "landscaping". Sure, mowing can cut off 60% of the sea of clover flowers that make my lawn look white (or dying...can't decide which). But there are still lower flowers that seem to sprout up to full height within the next 24hrs after a mow. These flowers last from late spring to fall. In short, I'm plagued by clover flowers throughout the entire season I want my lawn to look great. It's just such a shame the previous owners didn't nip the clover in the bud, when each plant was jut a little, round cluster. I love catching them early, knowing I've stopped additional infiltration. But I'm helpless, overall. Looks like I'll have to replace the entire lawn; start from scratch; do what the previous owners SHOULD have done, and pulled weeds when I first see them. I'm not really buying the whole "benefits of clover" thing, amidst a grass lawn. If I wanted a clover lawn, I would plant a clover lawn. Putting down and maintaining grass is an expense in time and resources. Clover is virtually free (since it shows up on the wind), and is seemingly mantenance-free. Since most sod and grass seed are sold with some guarantee of being weed- (and clover-) free, I just don't believe that most people who spend the money and effort to put in a grass lawn, are okay with losing any percentage of it to other, invasive, undesirable plants. I kind of liken it to suggesting that a Ferrari owner would be okay with someone switching it with a Cavalier, and just saying, 'They both get me from point A to point B, so I don't mind.' I can fully envision putting in other kinds of ground cover, and have considered it at past properties. Not being my first rodeo, I already have substantial plans to reduce the amount of lawn area, and increase planting beds. But much of this current property begs for a beautiful, thick, dark green lawn...of grass. No dandelions. No clover, but particularly no clover flowers. (I'd be more okay with clover, if not for the flowers.) The desperation was so great, I did something I thought I'd never do, and tried the iron-based WEED-B-GONE product. (Harsh, chemical herbicides have been banned in my area for years...resulting in public parks being taken over by weeds, for the most part. It's such a shame, in the sense that a healthy, well-maintained lawn is not only beautiful, but fantastic underfoot.) That is really my philosophy, beyond the aesthetic. A lawn should be cool, soft, and luxurious under bare feet. Weeds, even overgrown grass, also tend to make barefoot walking less than a joy. So far, I haven't found a way to get rid of mats of clover. The WEED-B-GONE did nothing I could notice. I'm at my rope's end on ths matter, and likely will have to pull up the entire lawn, to put down new, almost-weed-free sod, where I can physically manage pulling individual weeds as they appear. I guess I'd plead with people to pull unwanted clover plants when they're small... if not for yourself, then for the next property owner. Sure, it means time, every day, or every few days, combing the lawn, looking for weeds. Yes, it can be back-breaking and time-consuming. But that grass lawn didn't get there by accident. A grass lawn is intentional.