I'm not talking about what's permitted. I'm talking about what the dog consider his "prime territory". As opposed to the land that surrounds it. In between is a fence, which constitutes a boundary.
A more hands-on way of illustrating the difference: Walking on the sidewalk (on the opposite side of the street) will earn you loads of barks and a threat display. Try jumping that fence and see what happens.
OK, point taken, but now you're talking about a scenario that is different than the original post. The original post is talking about a fence that is either insufficient or non-existent.
In every neighborhood I lived in, there is always at least one dog that has a territory that extends at least 100 feet past the property line. Everybody in the neighborhood kind of gets to know the dog. In fact, at my folks' house in northern California, there is a big dog across the street that roams around a few hundred feet outside the property line. There is no fence. The dog clearly thinks that its territory includes my parents' front yard. The dog doesn't know any better. I wouldn't blame anybody for pepper spraying the sucker if the dog suddenly got territorial. It's rather selfish and irresponsible for the owner to think that everybody must become familiar with the dog's behavior, as opposed to the owner keeping the dog inside a suitable fence.
Previous Topic
Index
