Bark, bark, bark continuously!

rjxj wrote:
After you approach the neighbor and if it goes wrong, you are willing to go to the same office that I would go to let them deal with it and run their park how it should be run. If you will do that in the end, why not eliminate the risk/confrontation and just go there first?

No one said go get a lawyer, cop. Just go to the office that you dealt with and the same people who are ultimately the ones who will deal with it. I mean you could have the cops there and a lawyer if it escalates to that point. I really dont see that escalation in my method. In fact in the end I do not have the confrontation risk, but after they talk to the neighbor just say that he mentions it to me, all I have to say is no, I never heard your dog or we were out for awhile I dont know. Would you like a beer? We have a couple dogs, would you like to see them? Hey let me show you a couple gadgets that we bought for our dogs. SURE, you can try ours out on your dog tomorrow. Lets put it on your dog tomorrow and you guys drive off and I'll pay attention and see how he does. :) There is more than one way to handle things.

So, you are frustrated because the dog next door is barking continuously. You don't want a confrontation, so you tell the office and let them deal with it. Fine.

But then, if the neighbor says something like "we just got told by the office that our dog is barking non-stop, have you heard him barking?", you are going to say "No, I haven't heard your dog barking"??????????????

I get wanting to avoid a potential confrontation by going to the office first, but denying a problem exists (one that you are frustrated with) only results in trivializing the problem. A simple "actually, yeah, I have heard the dog barking while you're gone. I didn't think anyone else could hear it." validates the complaint but doesn't ID you as the complainer.