Also known as off-leash areas, exercise areas for dogs, dog parks, dog zones etc., they allow dogs access to parks off-leash.
Free-running areas have been designated in many parts of Australia. In most cases dogs are required to remain "under the effective control of the owner" (or some variation thereof) under either the relevant legislation or an accompanying by-law. Some municipalities define "under effective control" precisely while others leave it to the discretion of individual ACOs. Usually, it is taken to mean voice control - the dog is under effective control if it responds to the owner's command by the second call, or if it is anyway behaving in an orderly manner.
Free-running areas provide the opportunity for unstructured and 'joyful' play without the restrictions of a leash. They allow for a form of interaction with their owner that is not possible when they remain leashed, e.g. some forms of training and play such as 'fetch', as well as play with other dogs. Dogs also benefit from exercise and relief of pent-up energy although this is possible in on-leash areas as well.
Problems commonly attributed to free-running areas include a greater potential for risk of injury to person or animal from attack and a greater potential for damage to plants. However the risks need to be assessed critically on the basis of correct information. Section 4 highlighted these complexities.
There is an infinite variety of ways in which free-running areas can be provided. We present three approaches here but the distinctions are actually blurred. It is probably more appropriate to view them as positions on a spectrum which vary depending on the priority given to dogs.
On the question of terminology we prefer the term 'free-running area'. The term 'exercise area' is unsuitable because it implies first that dogs can only be exercised off-leash and second that such areas are only provided for the dog's exercise and not for the important reasons of play, interaction and learning. The term 'dog park' is also not favoured because it suggests that it is unsuitable for anyone else. In the following discussion we use the terminology commonly used by municipalities in their description of the free-running areas provided by their Council.
The first approach allows unleashed dogs in all parks in a region or municipality (perhaps with a few exceptions where they are banned or required to be restrained on a leash). It could almost be called a policy of no response and reflects the situation that existed prior to leash laws being enacted. The emphasis here is on integration with other open space users rather than separation. This approach is reasonably common where it has been in place over a longer period of time.
Its advantages are that it is easy to understand and is inherently fair to dog owners irrespective of where they live. ACO's can concentrate on encouraging and enforcing acceptable behaviour rather than enforcing leash laws and explaining and justifying Council's policy. It also spreads the effects of potential conflicts over a wider area. The second approach is to aim for a fairly equal distribution of free-running areas across the municipality in accordance with the distribution of residents. The aim here is that each dog owner would have a free-running area within a reasonable distance of home. This approach is equitable for dog owners providing on-leash areas are also provided. The main problem is finding sufficient parks to designate for free-running especially where residents are used to dogs remaining leashed. It also tends to be confusing unless careful attention is paid to information requirements. Signs are often not provided at each entry point or leaflets are distributed that list the parks available by name - most people don't know the formal name of parks. The greatest confusion lies where the access policy varies within a particular park or area, i.e. 'that part of the beach between x and y' or 'excluding the playing area'. The instructions are often confusing and open to interpretation. This makes enforcement difficult.
The third approach is the specially designated or designed dog park or
dog zone. The distinguishing characteristic from the previous two approaches
is that it is designated specifically for dogs and their owners. It might
be purpose-designed or simply set aside for dogs. It implies the greatest
degree of separation from other recreation activities. This approach has
the advantage of being clear but is not advocated if:
Poorly designed and/or located 'dog parks' are usually the result of limited opportunities - there is just no where else to put them because of established interests in other parks. We would encourage specially designated dog parks to be provided as part of an overall package but not at the expense of other opportunities. Councils should also be aware of the access and safety characteristics in their choice. A park is not likely to be well-used if it is poorly located or laid out.
What to look for in selection of free running areas:
Figure 3. Topography would provide a natural barrier to free running dogs.
Figure 4. Select park areas that are already fenced at park boundaries for free running.