The above options have been used in many different ways throughout Australia. It is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each option and ensure they are used appropriately. However it is the combination of options overall that is most important, not the policy affecting a particular park. It is this task that we now turn to.
In too many municipalities we found an over-reliance on free running in combination with banning. This reflects a fundamental misconception about accommodating dogs that relies on a separation rather an integration philosophy as well as a misunderstanding about the benefits of on-leash areas. On the face of it, this combination would seem to be an easy way to "solve" the problem of conflicting needs. We consider it inequitable and probably counter-productive.
Instead the starting point for any dog access policy should be to allow dogs in all parks in a municipality. In many cases this will mean access on a leash, although we found many successful examples where unleashed dogs were allowed in nearly all parks of a municipality. Areas where they are banned and/or allowed off leash can then be designated after a thorough and impartial assessment. This provides for a package of different opportunities while accounting for any incompatibilities.
The question is where do you draw the line. We cannot answer that question - it can only be decided at the local level taking into account levels and distribution of dog ownership, housing type, existing opportunities, local opinion so on. A community that is used to widespread off-leash areas will have different expectations to a community used to more stringent access policies. In practice where standards of any sort are used, they inevitably end up being a wish list and create unrealistic expectations. What is acceptable in the inner suburbs is likely to be inappropriate in the outer suburbs. Alternatively the funding may not be available even though potential opportunities exist. Inevitably it will be a give and take process taking into account needs, opportunities and constraints in accordance with the views of all members of the local community.
The most effective way to accommodate dog owners' needs taking into account existing constraints and incompatibilities is to aim for a hierarchy of opportunities throughout the municipality that provide dogs and their owners with daily, regular and occasional opportunities;, i.e.:
'Daily' opportunities would be scattered throughout the municipality. It is envisaged that everyone would have an opportunity for daily use within walking distance of home.
'Regular' opportunities would be spaced more widely apart, perhaps within a 30 minute walk or short drive from home. Some dog owners will use them on a daily basis either because they are favourably disposed to do so or because their dogs require more exercise and stimulation.
'Occasional' opportunities have a municipal or sub-regional catchment. Usually only 1 or 2 such parks would be provided in any one municipality.
The higher up the hierarchy the greater the priority given to dogs in planning, design and management. In practice of course the location and spacing of opportunities will vary widely according to local circumstances. Defining daily, regular and occasional opportunities should be an objective to work towards and a tool for assessing needs. In practice, the process will be fluid. The hypothetical example of "Anytown" following should make the hierarchy approach clearer.