That dogs should be allowed access to public open space is a basic premise of this study. As a principle we believe it should be incorporated into both urban animal management strategies and open space/recreation plans. This is not to say that problems don't exist; only that the benefits should outweigh the disadvantages and that there is considerable scope for the problems to be better managed.
This section looks first at the potential conflicts generated by dogs and their use of public open space and then at the reasons why we should continue to accommodate them in public open space.
Conflict is inevitable in urban areas; it is not confined to park management, nor indeed to dogs' use of public parks. Some of the conflicts found in public open space are set out below.
Conflict is a matter of degree with its impacts ranging from threats to safety, to detracting from the quality of the recreation experience, to more simple annoyance. Even annoyance is a matter of degree - what is intolerable to one person may only annoy another and may not even be noticed by another. Tolerance has been construed as a willingness to accept deviations from preferred or 'ideal' situations (Whittaker and Shelby 1988). Sherif and Sherif (1956) talk of the "range of tolerable behaviour" and this concept has since been evoked in the recreation literature.
So how can we say if a conflict exists and whether it warrants attention by park managers? In some cases it is clear, for example, where one activity poses danger for participants of another. However in most situations the definition of conflict depends on a subjective interpretation by park managers and by different people who may be affected. It is not an either/or situation, i.e. that there is or there isn't a conflict, but is one of degree. Most authorities rely on observation and complaints, taking into account the history of land use and recreation activity in the area.
Whether a perceived conflict warrants attention is accordingly problematic. It requires judicious assessment of circumstances, a recognition of the inevitability of conflict in urban society and, where dogs are concerned, a recognition of the capacity of the issues to be blown out of proportion. We need to carefully weigh up competing priorities of different groups and look first for ways to better manage conflict - trying to eliminate it altogether can be unrealistic and counter-productive.
At this point it is necessary to be more specific about the types of conflict generated by dogs when they use public parks. The problems generally attributed to dogs and their owners in the public realm include defecation, aggression to humans and other animals, barking and other nuisance behaviour. A related issue for park managers is non-compliance with access and leash laws. We now deal with each of these in turn.