Leather (1994) points out that dog bans are spreading in Europe because of enforcement difficulties and because of lack of co-operation from dogs owners in acknowledging their responsibilities. The same trend would seem to be occurring here, although unevenly. It is this response which is of most concern - not if it is imposed with good reason in a particular park - but if it is imposed in all or most of the public spaces available at the local level or if it is imposed for no apparent good reason.
Individual authorities have the right to ban dogs from parks. This is as it should be. However it should be used as a last resort measure and only after a careful and impartial assessment of the following:
1. What conflicts presently exist and how are they being measured or assessed? Who presently has an established interest in the park and how are they affected by the proposed ban? Is sufficient information available on which to make a decision?
2. Is the proposed ban necessary? Are there ways that the conflict could be reduced through better design and/or management?
3. If the ban is deemed appropriate, it should be decided in recognition of the need to cater for displaced dog owners elsewhere in the immediate vicinity. There may already be ample opportunities for dog owners in the surrounding area, however if there isn't they should either be provided immediately or the proposed ban should be re-assessed.
Creative management solutions should be sought as alternatives to banning. For example, a case could be mounted to ban dogs from sports ovals. An alternative (which is used by several municipalities we spoke to) is to ban dogs on sports days only. In effect this becomes a type of time share arrangement (as explained below).
We do not recommend that Councils try to solve defecation problems by banning dogs (or separating them to specially designated dog zones). We have already shown how unduly restrictive access policies can be counter-productive as a management tool. In particular it may concentrate droppings in reduced areas such as streets and nature strips and lead to non-compliance with the ban.
Fencing is increasingly used to protect sensitive activities or parts of parks from human use. For example walking tracks that are fenced on both sides are provided within areas of regeneration or wildlife habitat
This allows the public (and accompanying leashed dogs) to continue to enjoy the park environment without threat to the sensitive parts of the park. Topography and distance can also be used to separate incompatible uses.
Similarly children's play equipment is now commonly fenced. If the presence of play equipment is the rationale for banning dogs from a park, fencing the play equipment should be considered as an alternative to banning.