All Australian governments are encouraging urban consolidation to make better use of existing infrastructure, to reduce the costs of servicing new suburbs and to better accommodate the changing housing needs of the community. Our cities are now experiencing the very visual effects of urban consolidation with more high and medium density housing developments occurring, especially in inner and middle ring suburbs. Even the new suburban house block on the urban fringe has been reduced in size to 400sqm in some cases through better design and siting.
As more people live in these compact types of housing it will place greater demands on public open space both for human needs and as an outlet for dogs; a fourth reason to provide for dogs' access to public open space.
A balanced approach to accommodating the needs of dog owners in public open space may lead to better outcomes for all public open space users through higher levels of compliance by dog owners with relevant by-laws.
The research on regulatory compliance is complex and there is scope for a lot more research in relation to dog owners. However it is clear from the literature that compliance with by-laws is related to both acceptance of its "fairness" and levels of enforcement.
If dog owners perceive by-laws to be draconian or unfair, e.g. banning of dogs from all parks or nowhere for free-running off the leash in an area where there is a demonstrated need, it may elicit a defiant rather than a compliant response from dog owners - they may ignore the by-laws in protest. If, on the other hand, dog owners understand the reasons for restrictions relating to access and accept them as reasonable they will be more likely to voluntarily comply with associated by-laws.
Compliance is obviously linked to the extent to which local authorities are prepared to undertake enforcement. There are a number of reasons why the necessary levels of enforcement are not occurring.
First, there seems to be an emerging consensus amongst local authorities that the by-laws are not working, possibly because they are unenforceable.
Second, some Councils impose by-laws relating to dogs which they have little or no intention of enforcing. They would appear to be recognising their responsibility to dog owners while being seen to be "doing something about the problem". While credible in its intention and workable in difficult political circumstances, such a tacit policy is imperfect. It creates conflicting expectations in the community and greater levels of non-compliance by dog owners. A balanced and open approach which caters for everyone's needs is likely to be better accepted and cause fewer problems.
Third, given new fiscal realities in government, resources are no longer available to maintain an effective enforcement presence in local parks.
Finally, a new management culture is actively being sought in all levels of government which, in terms of public open space, would view members of the community as 'clients' rather than simply as park users who comply or don't comply with park by-laws. A new spirit of co-operation and encouragement is being fostered which relegates regulatory enforcement to a last resort measure.
As a result of these limitations there has been a proliferation of education programs to encourage voluntary compliance with park by-laws. These include dog training programs, school talks, appearances at local shows, information sessions, promotional material in the local media and so on. These are very positive initiatives. However we must recognise their impact can only be limited without a park access policy that is perceived to be fair to dog owners.
In summary, because conflict is inevitable we need to find ways to manage it in creative ways. Some dog owners cause problems in the public realm and there are also some basic incompatibilities with other recreation activities that need to be recognised. However unduly restrictive dog access policies are inequitable and likely to be counter-productive. We also need to be wary of accepting uncritically many assertions made against dogs' use of public open space. A balanced approach that caters to everyone's needs will not only benefit dogs and their owners as a group with legitimate needs but also the wider community as well as those charged with the responsibility of enforcing animal management by-laws.