Management of public open space is spread mostly between local government, state government and some statutory authorities. Local government has responsibility for most open space and has a higher profile at the local level. State and national parks tend to fall under the auspices of state governments because of their regional and/or conservation significance.
Fragmentation of responsibility between different levels of government and between different local authorities has led to duplication of resources for some activities and gaps in provision for others. For dogs it may be leading to gaps - state government officials tend to view dog owners' needs as a local responsibility while some local authorities view it as a regional responsibility that should lie with the state government.
Some parks, especially state and national parks, are now managed in accordance with approved management plans that aim to better manage conflicts, particularly environmental ones. Management tools include restrictions on human access or establishing different zones in the one park, e.g. an environmental protection emphasis in some parts of a park and a human recreation emphasis in other parts. Dogs tend to be excluded from parks/zones with an environmental emphasis and as a consequence need to co-exist with other users in the reduced areas set aside for human recreation. This probably aggravates conflicts because of the reduced areas available for human recreation and could be leading to greater exclusion of dogs altogether (on the basis that accommodating dog owners' needs are a local responsibility). This is mostly only a potential threat at this stage and should not be overstated. However it could become a future reality and needs to be clearly understood.
At the local level, the management of parks faces the same issues although usually with less emphasis on conservation concerns. Being closer to the community, park managers (and ACO's) deal with very vocal demands of different groups. In many municipalities dogs' use of parks is not a problem. In others however, attitudes are polarised between pro-dog and anti-dog viewpoints and difficult decisions are being faced regarding dogs' access. Because the process is politicised, reactive solutions at the political level are common and more restrictive access requirements are being imposed on dog owners.
Broadly there are five main policy responses to the issue of dogs using public open space:
Seasonal variations have also been used although mainly on beaches, e.g. dogs banned from November to April.
There are advantages and disadvantages with each response and each has its place in an overall strategy. What is important is not whether dogs are excluded in a particular park but the number and quality of opportunities available within a wider area. In too many municipalities there is an over-reliance on Option 1 (free running) in combination with Option 3 (banning). In part this reflects a dominant cultural belief that because dogs are different and because some people are anti-dog they need to be separated from humans. It also reflects a misunderstanding of the benefits of on-leash areas. In the following sections we show clearly why a separation philosophy is inappropriate for dogs, their owners, other parks users and the authorities trying to manage public parks.
Each of these responses is examined in Section 6 along with suggestions about the circumstances in which they are best used. As we stress repeatedly in this report, more restrictive access policies may be appropriate providing they are based on a balanced and correct assessment of the issues at hand (and not as a hasty political response) and on an area wide approach which recognises the legitimacy of dog owners' to access certain parks. Widespread banning is inequitable and inappropriate.