In Chapter 5 we discussed how councils could enhance MPM compliance. We based much of this discussion on two excellent papers prepared for UAM conferences by Virginia Jackson.^{1 2} Here we revisit these ideas in the context of restraint compliance.

The days are long gone when having enacted the law, everyone could go home content that the job was complete. MPM practitioners no longer believe that enacting laws is the beginning and the end of the process of creating behaviour change.

For most councils, restraint laws will be only part of a wider strategy to deal with the issue of dogs-at-large. The seven standard steps of the strategic approach will still apply: diagnosis, goal setting, considering options, choosing a preferred management plan, implementing, reviewing and modifying.

A pathway from start to finish will include some or all of the following strategic elements:

ï the preferred position:

deciding on and clearly defining the expectation

ï attitudes:

encouraging a public mind set that is consistent with the preferred position

ï information:

providing access to the resources necessary to facilitate compliance

ï prompts:

delivering short, clear messages about MPM as often as possible

ï design:

developing environments that are conducive to compliance

ï ambience:

maintaining an environment in which the preferred behaviour and its advantages are on show

ï owner commitment:

seeking voluntary goal setting along the preferred lines

As we have already stressed, different councils in different places will put different slants on their restraint compliance pathways. One domain of flexibility is the degree to which each local council meets the wishes of owners who want access to off-leash exercise areas.

There is widespread anecdotal evidence that various types of off-leash allowance are becoming popular in municipalities around the country. We touched briefly on this subject in the first edition of this book when off-leash was a relatively novel idea.³ The subject has also been carefully considered in the Harlock Jackson report.⁴

It has been suggested that by providing some off-leash access to public open space, councils can obtain better voluntary compliance with fence and leash laws in general. This in turn will reduce the risk of off-leash dogs overall.

These include:

ï expansion of conceptual space

Conceptual space was a term used by Newby to describe the kind of pet benefit that seems able to connect dedicated pet owners into a natural world.⁵

ï pleasure giving

Many pet owners derive pleasure from indulging their pets. People who are attached to their pets really like to do things for them.

ï behavioural homeostasis

The natural need to do the things they evolved to do (hunting/roaming, socialising/breeding etc) persists in all dogs.

The Harlock Jackson report identifies a range of places and circumstances that might be considered if we are talking about risk and off-leash areas.⁴ Weíve added a few of our own to the list below:

ï wildlife/nature reserve habitat

ï childrenís play areas

ï picnic/barbecue facilities (photograph)

ï vehicular traffic (cartoon); vehicular traffic (photograph)

ï sport recreation areas

ï faeces-free areas

ï meditative places

ï adjacent residential

ï high people traffic

ï compromised leash principle

ï liability

ï effective control

The elements presented above under the heading Risks need not prevent access by dogs to public space. These are not so much anti-dog factors as they are things that need to be considered in getting the right mix of integrated public open space access.

As we have already said, the big advantage of leash law application in general public open space is that, provided that leash (and where necessary scoop) laws are confidently and resolutely applied by local authorities, there seems no reason to exclude dogs from any public open space. In other words, a little bit of regulation (compliance with these restraints) ultimately leads to a greater degree of freedom (unlimited public open space access for dogs).

To reach middle ground, local authorities in urban areas should consider developing some designated, strategically-placed and purpose-designed off-leash areas. Ironically, one of the main advantages will be that they will then feel comfortable about insisting on leash enforcement in all other public places in the municipality.

For further insights, click to see:

ï More about the strategic approach to compliance enhancement

ï More about the benefits of off-leash areas

ï More about the risks of off-leash areas

ï More about the bigger picture with leash laws

1. Jackson V. 1995. Regulatory compliance: exploring its limitations. In: Paxton DW, Boland P, editors. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Melbourne, 1995). Sydney: AVA: 117-121.

2. Jackson V. 1996. Rethinking approaches to urban animal management: a review and integration of the strategies available. In: Hassett S, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Sydney, 1996). Sydney: AVA: 63-74.

3. Murray RW, Penridge HE. 1992. Dogs in the Urban Environment: a handbook of municipal management. Mackay Qld: Chiron Media.

4. Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd, Blackshaw JK, Marriott J. 1995. Public Open Space and Dogs: a design and management guide for open space professionals and local government. Melbourne: Petcare Information and Advisory Service.

5. Newby J. 1996. Man meets dog: surviving and evolving together. In: Hassett S, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Sydney, 1996). Sydney: AVA: 9-17.