The discussion to date has highlighted the dilemmas facing park management authorities in relation to dogs' use of public open space as well as the gaps that seem to have emerged between the planning and management processes. New ideas are being tried but often on the basis of old assumptions. What is needed is a new set of principles that challenge or at least clarify these old assumptions. In many ways the principles presented in this section represent a new paradigm for the way we approach the question of dogs using public open space. It is necessary to explore these principles before we look at more specific policy recommendations contained in Sections 6 and 7.
The first step is formal recognition that dog owners are as legitimate as any other group of clients. This is an important step for two reasons. It affirms their legitimacy where disagreement exists but more importantly it frees decision-makers from a mindset that emphasises problems over the need to accommodate the needs of all park users. But how does this mindset actually affect the decision-making process? In the first place it leads to a search for solutions that would eliminate conflict instead of finding ways of better managing it. This inevitably means separation from other park users (i.e. banning with or without free running) and we will show how this can be both inequitable and counter-productive. Any consideration that is given specifically to dogs under this approach tends to occur in a piecemeal, "add-on" fashion; dog owners are allocated whatever is left over after everyone else has been accommodated - often the least accessible and the least attractive parks that no one else wants and all because they are not credited with the same rights as other park users.
If, on the other hand, we treat them as a client group rather than as a problem generator, their needs are considered as an integral part of the decision-making process. We don't dismiss or underestimate the conflicts but use a multi-method approach to addressing both their needs and the problems generated (education, enforcement, consultation etc.), while simultaneously asking for more tolerance from the rest of the community. Section 4 clarified the benefits and assessed potential problems. Local authorities should use that section to affirm legitimacy where disagreement exists in their community.