As long as the dog owners respect his private property rights, this is a non-issue.
<><><><
I think you are being intentionally dense (meaning I don’t think you’re dense, but appear to be playing at it for effect on an internet forum).
You completely recognize that the dog owner is the issue, but seem to want to pretend that the property owner’s solution is not directed at hurting the dog to teach the dog’s owner a lesson.
Mmmm...I might be able to agree slightly with that, BUT...
You completely recognize that the dog owner is the issue, but seem to want to pretend that the property owner’s solution is not directed at hurting the dog to teach the dog’s owner a lesson.
Trust me, I don't want to see a dog suffer for a moronic owner's actions. BUT, I also don't want to place a dog above private property rights. If there were a dog in immediate danger due to the ignorance of its owner, then I would likely sing a different tune. I don't have a problem breaking a car window to let a mutt mutt out of a hot car. To take it a step further, the dog owner might then want to hope and pray the cops show up before they get back to their car, because I'd be happy to wait to beat their tail into a pulp. Likewise, I would be first in line to trash this guy, were he walking down the street feeding chocolate to neighborhood dogs. But like I said before, he's not. He is merely taking steps, increasingly effective steps, to protect HIS property.
Are his steps the MOST effective? I dunno. Like I mentioned before, I would think dropping a few human deuces in the offending neighbors yard, or rigging a motion activated sound system as previously mentioned would be a heckuva lot more fun, if not more effective.
But again, he's taking steps to protect his property, plain and simple. If the dog owners were responsible dog owners, and they are aware of the chocolate, then the simple answer is: walk on the other side of the road.