| |
|
|
Contemporary Planning Practice
Public Open Space and Dogs pays a good deal of attention to the reasons why dogs and their owners need to be accommodated in public open space. To recap, these reasons include:
The case for providing dogs with a range of on- and off-lead opportunities has been broadly accepted by most stakeholders involved in the debate. However we still see many examples where acceptance occurs in theory only. The current trend in Australia is towards increasing restrictions over dogs. This is understandable given the complexity of planning for the modern public open space environment. The days of complete freedom for dogs in the public realm are long since gone. Dog owners need to recognise and accept some leash restrictions as a reality of the 1990s.
What is of concern is the reluctance of local authorities to provide dogs and their owners with good free running opportunities. Some other stakeholder or recreation function always seems to win out. The park is either too popular, too environmentally sensitive or has other functions that are perceived to be in conflict. Free running dogs are left with fewer and fewer opportunities, often in the least accessible parts of the municipality in which no one else has an interest. Of concern too is an apparent decline in the number of places where securely tied dogs can be left for a short time eg outside shops, libraries etc. This impedes people's ability to offer a range of different outings and clearly does nothing to encourage people to walk rather than use their car.
But why does this reluctance exist? Of prime importance is the perception that it would be planning for dogs - ananathema to planners - when in fact it would be planning for people with dogs. The distinction is important. It recognises the central and important role that dogs can play in people's leisure and recreation. By this, we mean more than as a social lubricant or inducement to exercise, both of which are important and have been established in earlier research. It relates to the way people's recreation tends to revolve around interaction with their dog. People don't just take their dog out because they have to. They take their dog out because they themselves get something outof it. When their dog experiences joy, they too experience some of that joy. In a way, it is like the enjoyment people get from watching their own children at play. More research needs to be done on this question but it is clear from discussions we have had with dog owners around Australia that dogs are an important part of leisure and recreation. If we accept this premise, it leads us away from the notion of planning for dogs to the more important need to plan for people with dogs. For the 42% of Australian households that own dogs this issue is important.
This is not to say that problems don't exist. They do, just as they do with most recreation activities. However to blithely conclude that dog owners won't behave responsibly is unfair. The effective control provisions have been in place around Australia for some time, however with little promotion and often lacklustre enforcement. The provisions themselves are open to interpretation meaning situational factors (like how other dog owners are behaving) often take over. The laws on their own won't result in lasting voluntary changes in behaviour. They need to be supplemented by effective and sustained public education. Fortunately most states are now implementing or considering formal education programs.
[COMPLIANCE] [STRATEGY] [HOUSING DESIGN] [AUTHOR][INDEX] [PETNET]