Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and there is always a great deal of interest in the issue. Attacks can occur against humans, other dogs and other animals. Most dogs don't bite people or other dogs. Those that do are either frightened, dominant, protective or possessive. Attacks against wildlife is part of the predatory instinct natural to all dogs.
Without wanting to underrate the seriousness of dog attacks in either the private home or public open space, they need to be kept in perspective. People are concerned about dog attacks but the extent to which the mass media amplifies isolated problems out of proportion needs to be questioned. We need to understand how the triggers to aggression vary in different settings and avoid simplistic management mechanisms. For example very few dogs that attack livestock are dangerous to people. The two behaviours, although having a similar expression have different causes (Jennens 1992).
It would seem dog attacks are more likely to occur in the dog owner's home or immediate vicinity than they are in public open space. In one study of aggression in dogs it was found that from 65% to 93% of dog attacks occurred in or near the dog owner's home (Poderbercek and Blackshaw, 1990). Similarly, the Victoria Injury Surveillance System (VISS) has issued several reports on injuries caused by animals. As of May, 1989 the VISS database had recorded a total of 266 injuries. Forty percent of the bites occurred in the home or the home yard and another 22% occurred in the yard of another home. Sixteen percent occurred in public places and place of bite was not stated in 22% of cases. Attacks on private property frequently happen when a dominant, protective or injured dog is not adequately supervised with children and visitors. These triggers are not present when a dog is in the neutral territory of a public park.
Another concern is public liability. Undoubtedly, this is the most far reaching confrontation between park managers and the legal system today, e.g. for injuries or damage that occur on play equipment, from damaged park infrastructure, because of inadequate park maintenance etc. This is a fact of life with all public facilities and stems from a mentality of injured parties that "someone will pay".
In relation to dog attacks, it is the owner of the offending dog who is mostly liable for any injuries or damage. However the search for "who is responsible" often absorbs a great deal of energy and local authorities are often seen as easy targets for legal action. For example it could be construed that a park management authority contributed to an attack by designating a park for off-leash free-running by dogs. The laws vary from state to state and are open to interpretation. Local authorities should obtain their own legal and insurance advice and accordingly make their own risk assessments. However the question of whether unleashed dogs are more prone to aggression than leashed dogs remains unresolved. Certainly owners have more control over their dogs when they are leashed but a greater relative incidence of attack in free-running areas has not been proven and was not necessarily raised as a concern in those municipalities we spoke to that already allow dogs off leash.
Absolute safety can never be attained. Safety can, however, be improved. Aggressive behaviour in dogs can be prevented or controlled by responsible breeding, socialisation, obedience training and careful management of the dog (Jennens 1992). Liability insurers can also advise on risk management strategies, e.g. appropriate signage etc. Naturally Councils have a moral responsibility to minimise risk as well and they should monitor all reported incidents. Dogs that are designated as 'dangerous' should be barred from off-leash areas.