I too own several pets .. none of which I would allow to relieve themselves on someone elses property. I have had the occassional accident with one of my dogs while out for a walk. I actually took my whole bottle of water and poured it over the spot where she had urinated to dilute the mess and save the grass. All I have to do is look out into my own backyard to see the damage that urine can do to a lawn :o( I love the idea of the motion sensor sprinkler ... does this person have a routine where they walk their dog at about the same time every day?? If so an easy solution is to have a normal sprinkler going at that time. Set it on a timer so that it only runs for a short period when they are out walking their dog. I think that speaking to them is the best way of dealing with the situation .. but as you have said this has not worked. I think I would ponder a passive aggressive attack also :o) We have an elderly dog on our street that likes to rip open everyones garbage .. the owner does nothing to stop him ... one night I thought about ripping his garbage open and leaving it all over his yard to clean up in the morning .. but the raccoons beat me to it :o) All in all there is no perfect way to get someone to take responsibility for their pet. Damage created by human urine doesnt hold a candle to what a dogs urine can do .. especially a female dogs. Roundup has the same effect :o) But that would be considered unlawful to spray someones lawn with that (so remember to hide the label) lol .. just joking. Laura

If you want the whole story about cocoa mulch here is the link to the story. Read the whole thing...especially under the heading "origins". Home Depot is now selling a product that has been treated to rid it of the toxic chemicals...etc. Here is a link that might be useful: more on cocoa mulch

"It is reasonable to only own one small dog in a crowded urban area." I merely suggested that those who live in crowded urban areas should choose a dog that would fit in with that lifesyle - such as a small lap dog. A larger dog that needs lots of exercise or any dog that is hyper and active would probably not be suited for city living - especially if the owner were unwilling or unable to walk the dog (on a leash of course). I believe people should look at their lifestyles when deciding whether to have a dog and deciding which dog to select. There are websites set up for this purpose - where you can put your wants and lifestyle in and they will come up with a percentage match of which dog breed might be best for your situation. A dog is a living creature and deserves consideration. It is not wise to buy a dog at the spur of the moment like you would a pack of gum or a soda pop. Such choices often create misery for the dog, owner, and community. "One owner has a limited amount of time, energy, and money to take care of pets - it is reasonable to restrict the amount of pets per household and to restrict who can own dogs and cats." I believe the above is clear and simple but apparently not. I have heard of collectors who believe that they can house and care for an unlimited number of dogs or cats - but this is a form of mental illness. Most sane people would agree that one person or one family can only care for a limited amount of dogs or cats. At some point it gets unreasonable and you are labeled mentally ill collectors. Now should the authorities allow animals and the community to suffer so they can access each situation to see if this person can own 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 25, 40, 66, 138, etc dogs or cats or should they set some sort of limit or limits based on zoning and space available? Do animal owners pay for animal control to assess each animal owning household or even assess those households with complaints? The answer in most communities is no. Animal control is usually underfunded and undermanned and animals and their owners are out of control. Animal owners whine and whine about regulations and complain about animal cruelty etc. Animal cruelty will probably never end but the one thing that could put a real dent in animal cruelty is strict regulations and strict enforcement. All of us have to conform to regulations and laws because they were deemed to be in the best interest of the community. For instance we must drive our cars under a certain speed. Many of us can drive faster and still be safe. However, many people will push their limits and drive at a speed where they are unable to control their vehicle. So a speed limit had to be established for everybody. Same with traffic lights. Many of us could function without a light telling us when to go and when to stop. However, some of us would not yield to other drivers without that red light and the possibility of a traffic ticket. The examples go on and on. Basically societies have to have rules and regulations to function properly and the larger and more dense the society the more rules and regulations you need. What you would suffer from only owning one or two dogs or owning no dogs if you couldn't handle the responsibilities and costs of dog ownership pales in comparision to those who are drivin out of their homes and made physically ill due to the constant irritation of a barking dog or dogs. Remember by endorsing the status quo you are condoning the abuse and neglect of animals and sacrificing the health and safety of humans in your community. Also you think nothing of those who have had to move out of their homes (often losing the value of their home) due to living near a nuisance barking or a vicious dog and its unstable owners. Nor are you considering people and other animals who have been attacked or attacked and killed due to irresponsible dog owners who create vicious dogs. Your unwillingness to have rules, regulations, and enforcement strikes me as suspicious and selfish. You should welcome rules and regulations to protect all of these abused and neglected dogs and cats. If you are doing the right thing then you shouldn't have much to worry about. If you own a small pack of dogs then giving up a few or moving to a rural more spacious area should not be too much to ask to protect the rights and lives of the community and dogs.

Reguardless of what your cat does or does not want I believe that it is irresponsible to have your cat become an outdoor cat or "keep" a stray cat. Vaccines can fail and your animal can be exposed to a number of bacteria or infections such as rabies. The comment that cats can't cause damage is false cats are one of the largest carriers of the rabies vaccine and become hosts to nasty viruses that can be fatal to humans. My two little girls, 4 & 5 at the time, each had to undergo the 7 shots rabies vaccine as a result of outdoor cats. That is a horrific experience for anyone to go through especially little kids that don't understand. The exposure happened in our own back yard because a neighbor didn't see a reason to "force" her cats to stay inside. The cats that were exposed died a horrific painful death due to rabies because of the negligence of their owners. Neighbors that are forced to deal with roaming pets of another eventually reach their breaking point.