Fence and leash laws are designed to ensure that dogs are not free to roam in public places, causing problems for members of the community.

In the context of dog restraint, Zappia v Allsop (17/3/94) as reported by LBC Information Services, 1996, was a very interesting court case.¹ (See: Zappia v Allsop)

This case was an expensive way to come to the fairly simple conclusion that the dog was at large and the owner was liable for the damage it caused. Every effort had been made to ensure that the end result in the case was technically correct and that the intention of the Dog Act was realised. But, surely, in the end, Handly JA was dead right in what he said: it was basically a matter of common sense.

The case ended up supporting the principle of owner responsibility that underpins the whole process of effective MPM. But councils and victims shouldnít have to endure such tortuous processes in determining responsibility and remedy for every dog-related accident or injury. This should have been a routine regulation event; instead, professionals were paid for months of court appearances.

Council MPM budgets canít afford problem resolution processes like this. Standard day-to-day practice for the municipal management of dogs must be more efficient.

This is not because PMOs are looking for an easy ride. It is because the more straight-forward we can make the processes of restraint regulation, the less time and money will be spent on reacting to problems. This will leave more time and money to be spent on prevention of problems.

Every trick of the trade should be employed to enhance voluntary compliance with the communityís requirements for dog restraint. But for all the reasons we have discussed in earlier chapters, regulation with enforcement will always rank high as a means of getting the desired result. It must be definitive, meaningful, reasonable, validatable, and, most of all, enforceable.

1. Carvan J. 1996. Dogs - liability of owners - where no direct contact between dog and injured. The Australian Legal Monthly Digest 21/05/96 LBC Information Services, 1996: 3.