Australia and New Zealand are governed by democratic processes. By this method the community-at-large determines in a general sense what individuals within the community are allowed to do. Regulation is the process we use to translate these decisions into practice.

As we discussed in Chapter 2, regulation is a bit of a paradox. It protects one freedom by restricting another freedom. For example, people can walk safely (the freedom that is protected) because people are not allowed to exercise their dogs without a leash (the freedom that is restricted). Provided the freedom gained is greater than the one lost, the regulation has been beneficial.

In Chapter 2, we went on to use the car paradigm to justify regulation as a legitimate activity for MPM. Without traffic regulations, we wouldnít be able to use the roads; there would be no point in even having a car. The regulations allow access to the benefits of motor vehicle ownership and use. The same is true for restraint laws for dogs.

As we will show in the chapter on aggression, members of the public are right when they feel threatened by dogs-at-large. Restraint laws facilitate access to dog ownership by enhancing the communityís tolerance of dogs. The overall effect of restraint laws is positive, to owners as well as to the community.

Experience from western Europe, where people pressures are greater than those in Australia and New Zealand, indicates that dog access in public open space is at risk as the spare room between people gets less. Keeping dogs on-leash in public open space is like keeping cars on the left side of the roads ñ it allows higher density usage of the common resource. Far better to have dogs on-leash and everybody happy, than to have them off-leash until they are banned altogether.

If the primary goal of MPM is to smooth the path easier pet access, then an undeviating commitment to the application of restraint laws in MPM would appear to be worth much more than just lip service. Many municipalities have already taken the task on board. It wasnít long ago that dogs-at-large were commonplace in most municipalities. Dogs were then a universal municipal nuisance, on the streets and in the parks. Today the story is changing. The transition happened when councils got serious about dogs-at-large.