Dogs and Cats in the Urban Environment

  Part two >  Chapter 9 > Highlights

Next | Back | Contents  


HIGHLIGHTS OF CHAPTER 9: Restraint
  • Unless MPM legislation on dogs-at-large is clear and unequivocal, the victims of incidents caused by dogs-at-large have difficulty getting any compensation, and the community is unable to prevent the same incidents recurring. a

  • Dogs-at-large cause the majority of MPM problems. a

  • Restraint laws are designed to ensure that the owners of inadequately restrained dogs are considered negligent, and are liable for any damages caused as a result. a

  • Restraint regulation is a classic example of a community giving up one freedom (the right to have an unrestrained dog) so that it may gain a greater freedom (the right for all citizens to walk and travel in public places without the risk of a dog-related accident). a

  • Properly restrained dogs in public places are good for the community. Restraint should be seen as the norm for public open space. However, with careful municipal management, restraint requirements can be relaxed or tightened in special cases to provide a variety of access opportunities to residents eg. leash-free areas and dog-free areas. a

  • Making MPM decisions about provision of leash-free areas requires a thorough understanding of both the benefits and the risks of such decisions. a

  • A range of strategies can be employed to encourage compliance with local restraint laws. a 

  • As well as providing good facilities, making restraint laws work depends on good local laws, effective enforcement, effective community education and efficient administration. a 

 
  Part two >  Chapter 9 >  Highlights

Next | Back | Contents