PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND DOGS - A DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE FOR SPACE PROFESSIONALS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
AND DOGS
A DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE
FOR SPACE PROFESSIONALS
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTPUBLIC OPEN SPACE
AND DOGS
Prepared for the Petcare Information & Advisory Service
HARLOCK JACKSON PTY LTD
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
Level 1/160 Johnston Street, Fitzroy, Victoria 3065, Australia
Tel: (03) 9419 7477
Fax: (03) 9419 7577
In Assiciation With
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR JUDITH K. BLACKSHAW,
Animal Behaviour and Welfare
The University of Queensland
And
JANE MARRIOT
Landscape Architect
August 1995
ISBN 0 949492 15 9Study approach creased community, professional and
EXECUTIVE academic interest in urban animal man-
SUMMARY • The Guide's principal concern is with agement. We now have a broader and
planning at the area or municipal wide more soundly based body of knowledge
Background to the Study level although we provide guidance and on which to make judgements about
suggestions for design and management managing domestic pets as well as more
• The public open space management of individual parks. It stresses the im- effective ways of disseminating new
environment has changed dramatically portance of taking a comprehensive ap- ideas and knowledge.
in the last twenty years. The range of proach that is forward planning in out-
activities in which people are engaged look as opposed to reacting to issues on Section 3: Open space planning
has expanded while budgets and re- a case-by-case basis as they arise. and management in Australia:
sources have contracted. There is now • The Guidelines are not prescriptive be- How dogs and their owners
much more emphasis on efficiency and cause there is no single right way to ad- have been affected
improved management. At the same dress these issues. The most important
time, conflict in public parks appears to contribution this Guide can make is to • This section looks at how dogs and their
have increased although not necessarily set out the strategic framework to assist owners have been affected first by plan-
because of a higher incidence of prob- local authorities to assess their own re- ning for public open space and then by
lems. Dog owners have not been im- quirements and choose the right combi- its management. It establishes the con-
mune from these changes. Increased re- nation of options in a balanced and in- text within which access by dogs to
strictions are being placed on their use formed manner. It provides the back- public open space may be considered.
of public open space either by requiring ground and supporting information re- • Dogs have not been considered sepa-
dogs to remain leashed or by outright quired and a framework for Councils to rately by open space planners - their
banning. initiate a process in their own communi- needs have been assumed to be part of
• Many Councils are grappling with these ties - the more detailed planning can the overall need for passive open space.
difficult questions regarding dogs' ac- then be done at the local level. This is probably as it should be and
cess to public open space but their re- worked well in the past. The difficulty
sponses are often based on unproven as- Section 2: The role and place of has emerged with the changing man-
sumptions and principles. Part of the domestic pets agement environment where park man-
problem is that the whole area of urban agers have been forced to deal with
animal management is so new. The time • This section discusses the popularity more intense user conflicts. For dogs,
has come to re-assess established prac- and benefits of pet ownership and con- this has meant greater restrictions on
tices. This Study aims to fill that gap. cludes with a brief examination of the access.
developing field of urban animal man- • It is because of this gap between the
Study objectives agement. planning and management levels that
• Owning pets has always been popular in we now need to plan for dogs and their
The aims of this report are as follows: Australia and it has become more popu- access to public open space.
lar over time. In 1994, 57% of house- • Local authorities have responded in an
1. To clarify the needs of dogs and their holds owned either a dog or a cat (42% infinite variety of ways and with vary-
owners for access to public open space. of households owned one or more dogs ing levels of success. Part of the prob-
2. To improve understanding of the bene- and 31% owned one or more cats). lem has been a lack of correct informa-
fits of access to public open space by • Owning pets is part of the Australian tion about both the conflicts and the
dogs and their owners. way of life. Eighty-nine percent of pre- reasons why dogs need continued ac-
3. To develop principles for accommodat- sent pet owners and 83% of non-pet cess to public parks.
ing dogs and their owners in public owners had pets in the family during
open space. their childhood. Fifty-three percent of Section 4: Domestic dogs in the
4. To recommend improved techniques of non-dog owners surveyed would, in the public realm: the case for
planning and design to improve the future, like one. continued access
quality of the experience for dogs and • The benefits of pet ownership are be-
their owners and to minimise potential coming clearer as more studies and case • That dogs should be allowed access to
conflicts. histories become available. Pets are now public open space is a basic premise of
5. To present the findings in a format that being recognised for their physical and this study. As a principle we believe it
will assist local government and other mental health benefits, for their role as should be incorporated into both urban
park management authorities to assess companions and social lubricants and in animal management strategies and open
their own requirements for accommo- helping children learn responsibility and space/recreation plans. That is not to
dating the needs of both dog owners and how to share. say that problems don't exist, only that
non-dog owners using public open • The field of urban animal management the benefits should outweigh the disad-
space. has emerged to ensure pets are appro- vantages and that there is considerable
priately managed in the urban environ- scope for the problems to be better
ment. The number and range of pro- managed.
grams being trialed and implemented • Unduly restrictive access policies are
both here and overseas reflects in- inequitable and likely to be counter-
4productive in managing conflicts and • The most obvious reason why dogs of these programs can only be limited
varying demands. need access to public open space is be- without an access policy that is per-
cause of their popularity. Dog owners ceived to be fair by dog owners.
Conflicts are a substantial group of park users.
• The second reason has to do with its Section 5: Towards a model for
• Conflict is inevitable in urban areas, it is links with promoting acceptable behav- access to public open space by
not confined to park management nor iour from dogs. Dogs need to be prop- dogs: establishing the principles
indeed to dogs' use of public parks. erly socialised in appropriate behaviour.
Conflict is a matter of degree with its They also need regular outings to re- • With the changing management envi-
impacts ranging from threats to safety, duce boredom and pent-up energy at ronment new ideas are being tried but
to detracting from the quality of the rec- home. Access to a park close to home is often on the basis of old assumptions.
reation experience, to more simple an- the safest and most effective way to en- What is needed is a new set of princi-
noyance. Whether a perceived conflict sure owners socialise their dogs and ples that challenge, or at least clarify,
warrants attention is problematic. It is provide them with on-going experiences these old assumptions.
not an either/or situation, i.e. that there in the outside world. This not only • The first principle is formal recognition
is or isn't a conflict, but is one of de- benefits the dog and its owner but also of the legitimacy of dog owners as be-
gree. It requires judicious assessment of neighbours who are affected by unac- ing as deserving a group of clients as
circumstances and recognition of the in- ceptable behaviour at home, other park any others. It affirms their legitimacy
evitability of conflict in urban society. and street users and authorities respon- where disagreement exists and frees de-
• The problems generally attributed to sible for urban animal management. cision-makers from a limiting mindset
dogs and their owners in the public • The third reason why dogs need access that emphasises problems over the need
realm include defecation, aggression to to public open space is for the positive to accommodate the needs of all park
humans and other animals, barking and effects it can have on their owners. users.
other nuisance behaviour. A related is- Owning a dog encourages people to ex- • The second principle is to understand
sue for park managers is non- ercise and visit their local park. Taking more clearly the needs of both dogs and
compliance with leash laws. a dog out has also been found to stimu- their owners. Management practice to
• It would seem that the problems are, on late social interaction with other hu- date has been hampered by a lack of in-
the whole, being kept at a manageable mans. formation - inaccurate in the case of
level. There are incidences where the dogs' needs and simplistic in the case of
level of conflict is high but we need to “Dog owners are a dog owners needs.
remember that these are issues that are • The most fundamental need for dogs is
easily inflamed by community, media substantial group that they be taken out with their owner
and political interest - they require im- of park users.” as much as possible. This enables them
partial assessment. We need to be wary to experience the full range of benefits
of accepting uncritically many asser- • All of these reasons are likely to be from the public realm (benefit to every-
tions made against dogs' use of public magnified in the future as a conse- one, not just dogs). They don't need to
open space. quence of the government's urban con- run freely off the leash as much as they
• Having said that we don't want to un- solidation policies (i.e. a higher inci- need interaction with their owner and
derestimate or trivialise the seriousness dence of smaller homes and back gar- diversity of experience.
of some problems nor do we want to dens). As more people live in compact • For dog owners we need to recognise
diminish the constructive efforts being types of housing it will place greater that their needs are likely to be very dif-
made to resolve the numerous practical demands on public open space both for ferent depending on stage in the life cy-
issues that dogs use of parks entails. humans and as an outlet for dogs; a cle, housing type, inclination, etc. We
However we do urge park authorities to fourth reason to provide for dogs' access need to avoid defining dog owners
critically appraise reported problems to public open space. needs in terms of one universal set of
and keep them in perspective: they rep- • The final reason is that a balanced ap- prescriptions.
resent a challenge but they are not in- proach to accommodating dogs' owners • The third principle is that we should
surmountable. in public open space may achieve aim for integration of dogs with other
higher levels of compliance by dog park users. While separation is war-
Why dogs need access to public owners with relevant by-laws. If dog ranted in some instances, it should not
open space owners perceive by-laws to be unfair it be a philosophy upon which to base an
may elicit a defiant rather than a com- area-wide strategy for dogs.
• The benefits of allowing dogs access to pliant response from dog owners - they • The final principle is that Councils
public open space are not immediately may ignore the by-laws in protest. If on should apply a strategic approach that
clear and warrant closer examination. It the other hand, the by-laws are per- considers access on a comprehensive
is important to understand that they ap- ceived to be fair they will be more municipal wide basis rather than on a
ply not only to dogs and their owners likely to voluntarily comply. The disil- piecemeal park by park basis. The latter
but also to the wider community as well lusionment with enforcement has led to is reactive and problem-oriented. It fails
as those responsible for urban animal many worthwhile education programs to adequately address needs.
management. being introduced. However the impact
5• The strategic approach aims for a hier- Establishing the framework ABOUT THE PETCARE
archy of opportunities that provides for
daily, regular and occasional use. • The starting point for any dog access pol-
INFORMATION AND
• These principles should form the basis icy should be to allow dogs in all parks in ADVISORY SERVICE
for planning and managing dogs' access a municipality. In many cases this will
to public open space. mean access on a leash, al-though we The Petcare information and Advisory Ser-
found many successful examples where vice (PIAS) was established in 1966 as an
Section 6: Assessing the options unleashed dogs were allowed in nearly all autonomous, non-commercial organisation
and establishing the framework parks in a municipality. Areas where they committed to promoting socially responsi-
are banned and/or allowed off leash can ble pet ownership.
then be designated after a thorough and Funding is provided by Uncle Ben’s of
Assessing the options impartial assessment. This provides for a Australia as a community service and the
package of opportunities while accounting PIAS has as its charter:
• The principles outlined in Section 5 for any incompatibilities.
provide a sound basis for assessing the • To educate owners on the responsibili-
• The question is where do you draw the ties of pet ownership.
options for dogs' access to public open line. We cannot answer that question - it
space. The main options are: • To undertake original research on the
can only be decided at the local level tak-
1. On-leash areas relationship between humans and com-
ing into account levels and distribution of
2. Free running areas (access allowed dog ownership, housing type, existing op-
panion animals.
off-leash) portunities, local opinion and so on. • To ensure accurate and reliable infor-
3. Banning • The most effective way to accommodate- mation is available to all interested par-
4. Different zones in one park date dog owners' needs, taking into ac- ties on pet related issues.
5. Time share arrangements count these existing constraints and in- • To encourage pet ownership in balance
• Section 6 assesses each of the options compatibilities, is to aim for a hierarchy with society’s needs, and help owners
and makes appropriate design and man- of opportunities throughout the municipal- enjoy their pets.
agement recommendations for each. ity that provide dogs and their owners • To provide information on and encour-
• It would seem that the benefits of on- with daily, regular and occasional oppor- age the correct care of pets.
leash areas are misunderstood in Aus- tunities. The higher up the hierarchy the
greater the priority given to dogs in plan- PIAS is pleased to make this study avail-
tralia. In fact they provide an appropri-
ning, design and man-agement. In practice able as part of our commitment to ensuring
ate context for socialisation and some
the location and spacing of opportunities that all interested parties have accurate and
forms of training. will vary widely according to local
• There is an infinite variety of ways in reliable access to information on urban pol-
circum-stances. Defining opportunities on
which free running areas can be pro- icy issues.
the hierarchy should be an objective to
vided. We present three approaches in work towards and a tool for assessing
this section but the distinctions are actu- needs. In practice the process will be
ally blurred. fluid.
• Banning may be appropriate in certain • Section 6 also provides suggestions for
contexts but should be used as a last re- implementation and develops an ex-ample
sort measure, and only after a careful of how the principles and recommenda-
and impartial assessment of the con- tions might work in a hypothetic-cal mu-
flicts and any alternatives. nicipality we call "Anytown".
• Different zones in one park raise addi-
tional difficulties associated with the ef- Section 7: Guidelines for the
fect of different zones on each other. It selection, design and
is this option that has the most scope for management of individual parks
improved design and management.
• Time share arrangements allow dogs' • This section provides advice and assist-
ance on a range of common issues in- For further information please contact:
access at certain times of the day, week
or year. It is a workable option but has a cluding:
number of inherent disadvantages. − location and accessibility Petcare Information and
• These options have been used in many − form and layout Advisory Service
different ways throughout Australia. It − surrounding land use
is important to understand the strengths − designing parks with dogs in mind 404/685 Burke Road
and weaknesses of each and ensure that − fencing Camberwell
they are used appropriately. However it − paving and surfaces
is the combination of options overall − removing faeces Victoria 3124
that is most important not the policy af- − support facilities Australia
fecting a particular park. Hence the − signage
Telephone: (03) 9827 5344
need to establish a municipal wide
framework Facsimile: (03) 9827 5090
.
6CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
ABOUT THE PETCARE INFORMATION AND ADVISORY SERVICE 6
1.0 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Background 8
1.2 Objectives and scope of the study 8
1.3 Key definitions 8
1.4 Methodology 8
1.5 Contents of the guide 8
1.6 Who should use the guide 9
1.7 How to use the guide 9
2.0 THE ROLE AND PLACE OF DOMESTIC PETS IN THE COMMUNITY 9
2.1 The popularity of pet ownership in Australia 9
2.2 Benefits of owning pets 10
2.3 Responsible pet ownership 11
3.0 OPEN SPACE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA 11
3.1 Planning for public open space 11
3.2 Management of public open space 12
3.3 Summary 12
4.0 DOMESTIC DOGS IN THE PUBLIC REALM: THE CASE FOR CONTINUED ACCESS 13
4.1 Potential conflicts 13
4.1.1 Defecation 14
4.1.2 Aggression towards humans and other animals 14
4.1.3 Barking and other nuisance behaviour 15
4.1.4 Compliance with leash laws 15
4.1.5 Current situation 15
4.2 Why dogs need access to public open space 16
4.2.1 The popularity of dog ownership 16
4.2.2 Acceptable behaviour at home and in the public realm 16
4.2.3 Benefits for humans 16
4.2.4 Urban consolidation means greater demand for public open space 17
4.2.5 Compliance with by-laws 17
4.3 Summary 17
5.0 TOWARDS A MODEL FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE BY DOGS:
ESTABLISHING THE PRINCIPLES 18
5.1 Recognition of the legitimacy of dogs and their owners 18
5.2 Evaluation of needs 18
5.2.1 Needs of dogs 18
5.2.2 Needs of dog owners 18
5.3 Integration not separation 19
5.4 Adopt a Strategic needs based approach 19
5.5 Summary 19
6.0 ASSESSING THE OPTIONS AND ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK 20
6.1 Assessing the options 20
6.1.1 On-leash areas 20
6.1.2 Free running areas 21
6.1.3 Banning dogs from parks 22
6.1.4 Different zones in one park 23
6.1.5 Time-share arrangements 24
6.2 Establishing a municipal-wide framework 25
6.3 A hypothetical example; “Anytown” 25
6.4 Implementation 26
6.5 Summary 27
7.0 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE SELECTION, DESIGN AND
MANAGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL PARKS 28
Location and accessibility 28
Form and layout 28
Surrounding land use 29
Designing parks with dogs in mind 30
Fencing 31
Paving and surfaces 31
Removing faeces 31
Other support facilities 32
Signage 33
8.0 CONCLUSION 33
REFERENCES 341.2 OBJECTIVES AND It includes both on and off leash access
1.0 INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF THE STUDY unless specifically clarified in the text.
1.1 BACKGROUND ACOs or Animal Control Officers are
The aims of this study are as follows: officers responsible for domestic animal
Public open space management in Aus- 1 To clarify the needs of dogs and their management in a particular area. They are
tralia has changed dramatically in the last owners for access to public open space. usually employed by the local authority.
twenty years. The range of recreation ac- 2 To improve understanding of the bene-
tivities pursued has expanded while budgets fits of access to public open space by 1.4 METHODOLOGY
and resources have contracted, particularly dogs and their owners taking into ac-
in the last decade. There is now much more count the diverse needs of all members The study was undertaken over an 18
emphasis on efficiency and improved man- of the community. month period in 1994-1995 by Harlock
agement. At the same time, conflict in pub- 3 To develop principles for accommodat- Jackson Pty Ltd, Planning and Develop-
lic parks appears to have increased al- ing dogs and their owners in public ment Consultants in association with Asso-
though not necessarily because of a higher open space taking into account the di- ciate Professor Judith K. Blackshaw, Ani-
incidence of problems. Dog owners have verse needs of all members of the mal Behaviour and Welfare of the Univer-
not been immune from these changes. In- community. sity of Queensland and Jane Marriott,
creasing restrictions have been imposed on 4 To recommend improved techniques of Landscape Architect.
their use of public open space either by planning and design, to improve the The study involved the following pro-
requiring dogs to remain leashed or by out- quality of the experience for dogs and cedures.
right banning. The restrictions have been their owners and to minimise potential 1 Review of relevant literature - both
imposed because of the seemingly intracta- conflicts. urban animal management and recrea-
ble nature of the problems posed by dogs 5 To present the findings in a format that tion/open space planning.
using public parks and reserves. will assist local government and other 2 Discussion with Animal Control Offi-
Many local authorities are acting posi- park management authorities to assess cers (ACO's) in metropolitan councils
tively to address these dilemmas. However their own requirements for accommo- from all Australian states about preva-
in most cases they are reacting to political dating the needs of both dog owners lent issues, problems and solutions
demands rather than addressing needs and and non-dog owners using public open tried.
problems in a systematic way. A lot of space. 3 Tour of parks in several states.
good design and management ideas were 4 Inspections and research into similar
uncovered during the course of this Study Our principal concern is with planning issues in Los Angeles, USA.
but they are often based on unproven as- at the area or municipal-wide level, al- 5 Workshop attended by the Study Team
sumptions and principles. Part of the prob- though we provide guidance and sugges- and PIAS staff to establish principles.
lem is that the whole area of urban animal tions for design and management of indi- 6 Inter-departmental workshop with staff
management is so new. Councils are grap- vidual parks. of the Shire of Pine Rivers, Queen-
pling with very difficult questions but lack The study is confined to an examination sland to evaluate ideas and discuss
important information and an overall of access to public open space by domestic problems of implementation.
framework to address them in an effective dogs in the company of their owner or other 7 Preparation of the final report.
way. The time has come to re-assess estab- human. While important, the issue of stray
lished practices. This study aims to fill that and unowned dogs is not addressed. The 1.5 CONTENTS OF
gap. study only considers public open space in THE GUIDE
Very little work of a comprehensive large urban centres although the principles
nature has been carried out here or over- are generally applicable everywhere. Section 2 addresses the role and place of
seas. A review of the literature revealed The study emphasises design and man- domestic dogs in the community generally
studies into isolated issues such as aggres- agement solutions. Other components of including the many important benefits of
sion and defecation in the public realm. urban pet management strategies (e.g. edu- domestic pet ownership. The meaning of
There are also a number of studies of indi- cation) are addressed here only where they socially responsible pet ownership is ex-
vidual 'dog parks', which mostly examine relate specifically to public open space and plained as it relates to the owner's responsi-
the political struggles associated with their then only by reference rather than detailed bilities to his or her pet and to minimising
establishment (see for example Wolch and examination. any adverse effects on the wider commu-
Rowe (1992) who detail the background to nity.
a 'dog park' in Los Angeles and provide 1.3 KEY DEFINITIONS Section 3 describes how dog owners
useful suggestions to avoid intense confron- have been affected by open space planning
tation in similar situations). However there Public open space is taken to mean pub- and management. The main policy re-
has been virtually no work that addresses lic parks and reserves. The terms are used sponses to the question of dogs' access are
the needs of all members of a community, interchangeably in this report. identified. Because of the changing man-
including dog owners, at the municipal or The public realm is a broader concept agement environment we now need to plan
regional wide level. Harlock Jackson Pty that includes streets, footpaths and other more systematically for dogs and their use
Ltd in association with Goad Fink and public places as well as public open space. of public open space.
Holmes (1992) considered these dilemmas When we talk of access to public open
in an introductory way and their report space by dogs we are using the term in a
serves as the starting point for this study. general way to distinguish it from banning.
8Section 4 looks first at the problems that 1.7 HOW TO USE THE GUIDE 2.0 THE ROLE AND
tend to be attributed to dogs' use of public
open space and then at why we should con- The guidelines provided are not pre- PLACE OF
tinue to accommodate their needs in the scriptive. We have not specified amounts of DOMESTIC PETS
future. open space that should be available to dogs
Section 5 introduces a series of princi- per household or within a certain distance
IN THE
ples which should form the underlying ba- of each residence, nor have we made defi- COMMUNITY
sis for an access strategy for dogs. nite statements about the types of open
Section 6 assesses the access options on space that should be provided, whether on- There is no question that domestic pet
the basis of the principles outlined in Sec- leash or off-leash. ownership is popular in Australia; the
tion 5. It goes on to conclude that it is the The reason for this is that there is no numbers alone prove that. There are also
combination of options overall that is im- single right way. Every community is dif- many social benefits. This section
portant, not the provisions that exist in any ferent - in its physical development, popu- addresses the role and place of domestic
one park. It recommends that a hierarchy of lation characteristics, pet ownership profile, pets in the community. It outlines the
opportunities be provided for dog owners' political climate and so on. The opportuni- associated emotional, health and social
daily, regular and occasional use. We de- ties and constraints will vary widely, as will benefits and suggests that pet ownership is
velop a hypothetical example of a munici- the balance of community opinion. The important to all household and family
pality to illustrate the principles. Section 6 most important contribution that this guide types. The section concludes with a brief
concludes with implementation sugges- can make is to set out a strategic frame- outline of the new field of urban animal
tions. work to assist local authorities to assess management as it has developed in
Section 7 contains recommendations for their own requirements and choose the Australia.
the selection, design and management of right combination of options in a balanced 2.1 THE POPULARITY
individual parks. and informed manner. It provides the back- OF PET OWNERSHIP IN
ground and supporting information required AUSTRALIA
1.6 WHO SHOULD USE and a framework for Councils to initiate a
THE GUIDE process in their own communities - the Owning pets has always been popular in
more detailed planning can then be done at Australia and it has become more popular
The guide has been designed to be used in a the local level. over time. In 1966 when market research
range of different circumstances: figures were first collected, the total
number of owned dogs in Australia was
• For the local authority looking to better estimated to be 1.3 million. By 1988 there
accommodate the needs of dog owning were an estimated 3.04 million. From 1978
households. “Nearly every Australian to 1988, the number of dog owning
• For the local authority dealing with con- household either has a households increased from 1.74 million to
flicting demands of dog owners and pet, has had a pet, or 2.13 million households (Morgan Research
non-dog owners over access to public 1988).
open space.
intends to have a pet in A recent survey conducted by Reark
the future.” Research provides the most up-to-date
• For local authorities developing com- figures. Table 1 presents the results. In
prehensive pet management strategies 1994, there were 3.8 million dogs and 2.9
for their area. million cats in Australia. Fifty-seven per
• For interested groups and individuals cent of households own dogs or cats. Forty-
two per cent of households own a dog and
trying to influence their local authority
31% own a cat (Reark Research 1995).
to improve access to public open space
Another recent Australian survey
for all members of the community.
sampled attitudes from both pet owners and
• For the recreation professional as a non-pet owners. The results revealed that
means of incorporating the needs of nearly every Australian household either
dogs owners into open space planning has a pet, has had a pet, or intends to have a
and management. pet in the future. Eighty-nine per cent of
present pet owners and 83% of non-pet
• For the town planner preparing Outline
owners had had pets in the family during
Development Plans for newly develop- their childhood. Fifty-three % of non-dog
ing suburbs on the urban fringe. owners surveyed would, in the future, like
one (McHarg, Baldock, Heady and
Of course it must be remembered that in Robinson 1995).
many parts of Australia, there is no dis-
cernible problem associated with dogs' use McHarg et al. (1995) conclude that
of parks. In these cases it would be point- 'our involvement with pets, in par-
less imposing unnecessary restrictions on ticular dogs, expands and contracts
park users. as we move through phases of the
life cycle. This is not just related to
9the presence or otherwise of chil- emerging pattern of attitudes in the Austra- also reported better physical and mental
dren in a household but also to ac- lian community which favours increased health than non dog-owners. They go to the
commodation type and tenure and pet ownership and a stronger commitment doctor less often. Fewer take medication for
the presence of someone at home to the care of pets. He sees the Australian high blood pressure, sleeping difficulties,
to care for the pet' way of life being re-defined as part of a high cholesterol or a heart problem. They
(McHarg et al. 1995, 6). process of social, cultural, economic, po- also report greater satisfaction with their
litical and technological change that began physical fitness (McHarg et al. 1995, 19).
TABLE 1: more than 20 years ago: In Melbourne, the Joint Advisory
Committee on Pets in Society (JACOPIS)
PET POPULATION ESTIMATES "Pet ownership fits in with a strong documented the introduction of a 'pet in
IN AUSTRALIA (1994) emerging theme in the socio-cultural residence' at Caulfield hospital. A former
evolution of Australia in the nineties. guide dog named 'Honey' was introduced
TOTAL POPULATION Increasingly, Australians are talking into two long-term care wards which ac-
about the need to 'get back to ba- commodated 60 frail and elderly patients.
Dogs 3.8 million sics'; to get closer to nature, to sim- The Study showed that Honey's presence in
Cats 2.9 million plify their lives; to pay more attention these wards had a positive effect on a large
Birds 9.7 million to domestic life; to recapture some number of patients in terms of their emo-
Fish 11.9 million 'traditional values' tional well-being (Salmon and Salmon
1983).
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PETS (McCallum Research et al. 1992, p. 30) Pets also help to foster family cohesion.
PER HOUSEHOLD OWNING McCallum Research Pty Ltd et al. consid-
EACH PET 2.2 BENEFITS OF OWNING ered this question in light of the greater
PETS complexity of family relationships arising
Dogs 1.5 from divorce, the blending of families, the
Cats 1.5 The human-animal bond literature is exten-
sive. We now know that in addition to the pressures on working mothers or con-
Birds 7.0 versely of unemployment. They argue that
Fish 11.9 long recognised companionship, caring,
sharing and security aspects, pet ownership these pressures add enormously to the diffi-
can have a very positive health effect. The culties and complexities of modern day life
PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS and conclude that "the undemanding sim-
WITH PETS following discussion highlights only some
of the studies that have been conducted plicity of the love offered or required by a
relying where possible on the most recent pet can be a welcome contrast to this."
Dogs 42% (McCallum Research et al. 1992, p. 8)
Cats 31% Australian work.
Dogs or cats 57% Fitness, health and mental health Pets as companions and social lu-
Birds 22% bricants
Fish 16% The health benefits of pet ownership are
Dogs or cats increasingly being recognised. There is Pets can act as emotional substitutes for
Or birds or fish 66% something soothing about stroking and pet- spouses, romantic partners and children.
ting an animal. They are uncomplaining, Albert and Bulcroft's 1986 survey of 436
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF unvengeful and unjudging in their relation- people in the Rhode Island metropolitan
HOUSEHOLDS WITH PETS ship with their owner and are now sug- area (USA) is just one study that supports
gested as a drug free way of coping with this popular view. They found that the peo-
Dogs 2.6 million stress. Dogs also encourage owners to exer- ple who felt closer to their pets tended to be
Cats 1.9 million cise. McHarg et al. found that dog owners those without a present spouse or romantic
Dogs or cats 3.5 million are more physically active than the rest of partner, who have no children or have no
Birds 1.4 million the population (1995, 19). children present in the home. They found
Fish 1.0 million Proof of the therapeutic benefit of pets that widows, single people and empty nest-
Dogs or cats becomes stronger every day as more studies ers are more likely to emphasise the com-
Or birds or fish 4.1 million and case histories become available. The panionship qualities of pets. In the McHarg
seminal work by Dr. Warwick Anderson of et al. survey, 79% of pet owners find it
Source: the Baker Medical Institute in Melbourne comforting to be with their pet when things
Reark Research 1995 showed that pet owners had significantly go wrong and 91% feel very close to their
lower risk factors for cardiovascular disease pet.
The reasons why people own pets relate than non-owners. Some 5,741 people par- The McHarg et al. survey also revealed
mostly to companionship and pleasure (see ticipated in the study that revealed a benefi- that 58% of pet owners said they got to
for example, Albert and Bulcroft 1986, cial effect of pet ownership on several of know people and made friends through
McHarg et al. 1995). Security also figures the classical factors for coronary heart dis- having pets, while 62% said that having a
prominently but more often as a secondary ease. Heart related diseases are the biggest pet around when people visit makes it eas-
reason people give for obtaining pets. cause of death among adults in Australia ier to get into conversation and create a
In his commentary on social change and (Anderson with Reid and Jennings 1992). friendly atmosphere.
pet ownership, Hugh Mackay notes an Dog owners in the McHarg et al. survey
10Pets helping to teach children • The Selectapet program which suggests 3.0 OPEN SPACE
breeds of dog and cat that might be suit-
Pets are often obtained to help children able to prospective pet owners' lifestyles PLANNING AND
learn responsibility and how to share. They and expectations. MANAGEMENT
show that if affection is given it will be • Many media outlets which present regu- IN AUSTRALIA
returned. McCallum Research Pty Ltd et al. lar information on the care of pets and
confirmed the significance of the teaching pet ownership.
An important initial step is to examine
role when they concluded: • Canine Good Citizen - a short obedi- how Australian dogs and their owners have
"Some parents feel they would be ence course designed to make dogs bet- been affected by open space planning and
failing in their responsibilities as ter members of the community. management. This section describes the
parents if they 'deprived' their chil- • Puppy pre-school - an education and planning and management environment and
dren of pets and that what they socialisation process for puppies and concludes by listing the main management
learn from pets makes them better their owners. responses to the issue of dogs' access to
human beings." public open space. Each response is later
These are only some of the initiatives evaluated in more depth in Section 6: As-
(McCallum Research et al. 1992, p. 16) that have been introduced in recent years in sessing the Options.
Australia. Overseas, an extensive number
2.3 RESPONSIBLE PET of programs are being trialed and imple-
OWNERSHIP 3.1 PLANNING FOR PUBLIC
mented constantly and the results of these OPEN SPACE
studies will eventually make their way to
Owning pets implies responsibilities this country. It all reflects increased com-
that people are increasingly being called Australian cities are reasonably well
munity, professional and academic interest provided with parks and open space owing
upon to meet, especially in urban areas. in urban animal management. We now have
These responsibilities include: to their later development and conscious
a broader and more soundly based body of attempts at town planning. The open space
• Attending to their pet's emotional and knowledge on which to make judgements plans were often based on grand visions
social needs. about managing domestic pets as well as that did not necessarily cater for people's
• Attending to their pet's health and wel- more effective ways of disseminating new needs but we are nevertheless fortunate
fare including exercise, training and en- ideas and knowledge both to pet owners today in the amounts that were provided.
vironmental enrichment as appropriate and those working in the field, e.g. through In more recent years, developers of new
to the breed. the work of the Urban Animal Management subdivisions have been required to set aside
• Confining dogs within the perimeter of Group of the Australian Veterinary Asso- a specified percentage of land as public
the home property to prevent wander- ciation and through various professional open space for future residents (say 5%).
and academic journals. A multi-faceted This has been criticised as a tool for provid-
ing.
approach such as this has the most promise
• Minimising any adverse effects on ing open space for the following reasons:
for achieving worthwhile results.
neighbours, e.g. from excessive barking.
• Complying with relevant by-laws (i.e. • The open space that has been provided
leash laws, removal of faecal deposits in is not necessarily well distributed or ac-
the public realm, keeping dogs under ef- cessible to all members of the commu-
fective control etc.). nity. Much of it is also of poor quality.
• It is a gross standard that doesn't take
Collectively, these responsibilities have into account different types of recrea-
come to be known as socially responsible tion activities undertaken. Today we
pet ownership which has two components: have a much wider diversity of recrea-
• The knowledge of the owner of his or tion activities to accommodate than ever
her responsibilities; and before - some interests, such as sporting
• His or her efforts to meet these respon- groups, are better served than others.
sibilities. • People seem less willing to tolerate con-
flicts with other users than they were
Both components of responsible pet previously and are more concerned
ownership are promoted through informa- about environmental impacts.
tion, education, legislation and enforce-
ment. Those involved include local coun- Urban planners now prepare Structure
cils, animal behaviourists, veterinarians, Plans for newly developing suburbs in an
animal welfare organisations, the various attempt to achieve a better distribution of
interest groups and interested individuals. land uses. However the level of detail is not
Some of the education programs cur- sufficient to produce really effective out-
rently available include: comes for public open space provision or
• The Australian Veterinary Association's indeed for specific user groups. A view has
primary school education program tended to prevail that once the standard
called Pet Pep.
11requirement is met, the planner's obliga- officials tend to view dog owners' needs as 1. Access allowed on-leash
tions have been fulfilled. a local responsibility while some local 2. Free-running areas (i.e. unleashed
A needs-based approach to recreation authorities view it as a regional access providing dogs remain un-
planning is said to counter these responsibility that should lie with the state der 'effective control')
deficiencies by looking at the activities in government. 3. Banning
which people participate. Essentially it 4. Different zones in one park
seeks to ensure the amount and location of 5. Time-share arrangements
open space and recreation facilities is
consistent with population trends and “As far as we are aware, Seasonal variations have also been used
changing recreation needs rather than although mainly on beaches, e.g. dogs
relying on gross standards. It provides the dog owners’ needs have banned from November to April.
strategic area-wide focus against which not been considered in There are advantages and disadvantages
detailed planning and management of with each response and each has its place in
individual parks can be undertaken. This is
any needs-based an overall strategy. What is important is not
usually carried out by recreation planners recreation planning whether dogs are excluded in a particular
and open space professionals although few exercises.” park but the number and quality of oppor-
municipalities actually prepare strategic tunities available within a wider area. In too
open space plans. As far as we are aware many municipalities there is an over-
dog owners' needs have not been reliance on Option 1 (free running) in com-
considered in any needs- based recreation Some parks, especially state and na- bination with Option 3 (banning). In part
planning exercises. tional parks, are now managed in accor- this reflects a dominant cultural belief that
Some state governments, e.g. Victoria, dance with approved management plans because dogs are different and because
have prepared metropolitan wide open that aim to better manage conflicts, particu- some people are anti-dog they need to be
space plans to identify broad gaps in larly environmental ones. Management separated from humans. It also reflects a
opportunities, especially of activities with tools include restrictions on human access misunderstanding of the benefits of on-
regional catchments, and to better match or establishing different zones in the one leash areas. In the following sections we
regional resources to major population park, e.g. an environmental protection em- show clearly why a separation philosophy
growth corridors. phasis in some parts of a park and a human is inappropriate for dogs, their owners,
Overall the input of ACO's in the recreation emphasis in other parts. Dogs other parks users and the authorities trying
planning for public open space has been tend to be excluded from parks/zones with to manage public parks.
negligible. It would seem that the needs of an environmental emphasis and as a conse- Each of these responses is examined in
dog owners aren't perceived to warrant quence need to co-exist with other users in Section 6 along with suggestions about the
separate consideration - their needs are the reduced areas set aside for human rec- circumstances in which they are best used.
assumed to be part of broad passive and reation. This probably aggravates conflicts As we stress repeatedly in this report, more
informal recreation needs. Ideally, this is as because of the reduced areas available for restrictive access policies may be appropri-
it should be, except that in practice dogs are human recreation and could be leading to ate providing they are based on a balanced
being restricted as part of the park greater exclusion of dogs altogether (on the and correct assessment of the issues at hand
management stage explained below. It is basis that accommodating dog owners' (and not as a hasty political response) and
because of this gap that we now need to needs are a local responsibility). This is on an area wide approach which recognises
plan for dogs and their access to public mostly only a potential threat at this stage the legitimacy of dog owners' to access
open space. and should not be overstated. However it certain parks. Widespread banning is ineq-
could become a future reality and needs to uitable and inappropriate.
3.2 MANAGEMENT OF be clearly understood.
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE At the local level, the management of 3.3 SUMMARY
parks faces the same issues although usu-
Management of public open space is ally with less emphasis on conservation The design and management of parks
spread mostly between local government, concerns. Being closer to the community, was much simpler thirty years ago. There
state government and some statutory park managers (and ACO's) deal with very was generally less sensitivity to the envi-
authorities. Local government has vocal demands of different groups. In many ronment and other contextual issues. Parks
responsibility for most open space and has municipalities dogs' use of parks is not a were typically one-dimensional focusing
a higher profile at the local level. State and problem. In others however, attitudes are around a single activity with little consid-
national parks tend to fall under the polarised between pro-dog and anti-dog eration of community issues or specific
auspices of state governments because of viewpoints and difficult decisions are being needs. The public concern for the environ-
their regional and/or conservation faced regarding dogs' access. Because the ment which surfaced in the seventies and
significance. process is politicised, reactive solutions at eighties and the intense competition for
Fragmentation of responsibility between the political level are common and more resources served as a wake-up call for
different levels of government and between restrictive access requirements are being Councils to start addressing the needs of
different local authorities has led to imposed on dog owners. different groups in more systematic ways.
duplication of resources for some activities Broadly there are five main policy re- Dogs' owners have not been considered
and gaps in provision for others. For dogs it sponses to the issue of dogs using public separately by open space planners - their
may be leading to gaps - state government open space: needs have been assumed to be part of the
12overall need for passive open space. This is 4.0 DOMESTIC Conflict is a matter of degree with its
probably as it should be and worked well in impacts ranging from threats to safety, to
the past. The difficulty has emerged with DOGS IN THE detracting from the quality of the recreation
the changing management environment PUBLIC REALM: experience, to more simple annoyance.
where park managers have been forced to Even annoyance is a matter of degree -
deal with more intense user conflicts. For
ESTABLISHING what is intolerable to one person may only
dogs, this has meant greater restrictions on THE CASE FOR annoy another and may not even be noticed
access. The emerging gap between plan- CONTINUED by another. Tolerance has been construed
ning and management means that we now as a willingness to accept deviations from
need to address dog owners' needs at the ACCESS preferred or 'ideal' situations (Whittaker
planning level. and Shelby 1988). Sherif and Sherif (1956)
Local authorities have responded in an That dogs should be allowed access to talk of the "range of tolerable behaviour"
infinite variety of ways depending on local public open space is a basic premise of this and this concept has since been evoked in
circumstances and with varying levels of study. As a principle we believe it should the recreation literature.
success. Part of the problem has been a lack be incorporated into both urban animal So how can we say if a conflict exists
of correct information about both the con- management strategies and open and whether it warrants attention by park
flicts and the reasons why dogs need con- space/recreation plans. This is not to say managers? In some cases it is clear, for
tinued access to public parks. We now turn that problems don't exist; only that the example, where one activity poses danger
to both of these. benefits should outweigh the disadvantages for participants of another. However in
and that there is considerable scope for the most situations the definition of conflict
problems to be better managed. depends on a subjective interpretation by
This section looks first at the potential park managers and by different people who
conflicts generated by dogs and their use of may be affected. It is not an either/or situa-
public open space and then at the reasons tion, i.e. that there is or there isn't a conflict,
why we should continue to accommodate but is one of degree. Most authorities rely
them in public open space. on observation and complaints, taking into
account the history of land use and recrea-
4.1 POTENTIAL tion activity in the area.
CONFLICTS Whether a perceived conflict warrants
attention is accordingly problematic. It re-
Conflict is inevitable in urban areas; it is quires judicious assessment of circum-
not confined to park management, nor in- stances, a recognition of the inevitability of
deed to dogs' use of public parks. Some of conflict in urban society and, where dogs
the conflicts found in public open space are are concerned, a recognition of the capacity
set out below. of the issues to be blown out of proportion.
We need to carefully weigh up competing
• Different recreation activities or groups priorities of different groups and look first
may compete for access to the same for ways to better manage conflict - trying
space, e.g. a hockey club and a football to eliminate it altogether can be unrealistic
club. and counter-productive.
• Two incompatible activities might share
one recreation facility, e.g. fishing and
water skiing.
• Conflict may be caused by inappropri- “That dogs should be
ate visitor behaviour. Smith (1990) uses allowed access to public
the term depreciative behaviour to de-
scribe any action that is deemed inap-
open space is a basic
propriate or unacceptable in a given rec- premise of this study”
reation site or facility by the managers
of that facility or by a significant num-
ber of other users. Such visitor- induced At this point it is necessary to be more
impacts may affect other users or reduce specific about the types of conflict gener-
the aesthetic, historic, environmental or ated by dogs when they use public parks.
scientific qualities in a park. The problems generally attributed to dogs
• Adjacent residents may be adversely and their owners in the public realm include
affected, e.g. by noise, litter, property defecation, aggression to humans and other
damage, car parking and traffic prob- animals, barking and other nuisance behav-
lems. iour. A related issue for park managers is
non-compliance with access and leash laws.
We now deal with each of these in turn.
134.1.1 Defecation cartridge could also be placed under the out of proportion needs to be questioned.
bin's lid. We need to understand how the triggers to
The most common complaint about Local authorities require dog owners to aggression vary in different settings and
unremoved faecal deposits is the effect on properly dispose of faecal deposits. En- avoid simplistic management mechanisms.
aesthetics and the unpleasant experience of couraging people to do this is best achieved For example very few dogs that attack live-
dodging droppings on footpaths and in through an integrated dog management stock are dangerous to people. The two
parks. The most serious concerns are health program comprising education, communi- behaviours, although having a similar ex-
related. cation and enforcement. Enforcement is pression have different causes (Jennens
Faeces may be infested with micro- limited by the difficulty of identifying the 1992).
scopic parasitic organisms that can be offending dog (owner). Pressure from other It would seem dog attacks are more
transmitted to and cause disease in humans. park users has also been reported to raise likely to occur in the dog owner's home or
Although the risk to humans is slight, the level of compliance in some parks, al- immediate vicinity than they are in public
roundworm is the most prominent health though there is no specific supporting evi- open space. In one study of aggression in
concern in relation to dog faeces. Round- dence. This last mentioned measure war- dogs it was found that from 65% to 93% of
worm resides in the small intestine of dogs. rants more attention than it has received to dog attacks occurred in or near the dog
Its eggs are passed to the outside environ- date. owner's home (Poderbercek and Black-
ment in the dog's faeces. The eggs take two In recent years, authorities both here shaw, 1990). Similarly, the Victoria Injury
weeks to a month to become infective, so and overseas, have favoured or introduced a Surveillance System (VISS) has issued sev-
there is no risk from fresh faeces. However, range of specific programs to encourage eral reports on injuries caused by animals.
the eggs may remain infective in the soil and make it easier for people to be more As of May, 1989 the VISS database had
for years. responsible, e.g. disposable or reusable recorded a total of 266 injuries. Forty per-
Humans do not develop adult round- 'pooper scoopers' that owners either bring cent of the bites occurred in the home or the
worms, however migration of larvae with them or use on-site, specially designed home yard and another 22% occurred in the
through the tissues and organs can cause dog toilets or 'pooch patches' provided by yard of another home. Sixteen percent oc-
disease. The primary transmission pathway the municipality and so on. There are ad- curred in public places and place of bite
to humans is through contamination of the vantages and disadvantages with each ap- was not stated in 22% of cases. Attacks on
hands by eggs in the soil and accidental proach and programs will be copied and private property frequently happen when a
ingestion. Direct contact between humans improved on in the future as more programs dominant, protective or injured dog is not
and infected dogs does not play a role in are trialed and we learn from experience. adequately supervised with children and
disease transmission. Young children have Section 7 makes a preliminary assessment visitors. These triggers are not present
the greatest risk of exposure. They may of some of the options. when a dog is in the neutral territory of a
inadvertently eat dirt or grass or touch their Unremoved faecal deposits may be public park.
mouths with hands contaminated with old more prevalent in off-leash areas. This
dog faeces containing infective roundworm plausible proposition was borne out from
eggs. People confined to hand-activated our discussions with ACO's around the “People are concerned
wheel chairs and active sports players (i.e. country although there is no empirical evi-
football, hockey, cricket etc.) may also be dence to support it. Certainly it is harder for about dog attacks but the
at risk. owners to retrieve faeces when their dog is extent to which the mass
Preventative measures will reduce the not leashed but the correlation may also
public risks. The roundworm is not present relate to other factors such as concentration
media amplifies isolated
in dogs that are correctly and regularly of dogs and reduced levels of maintenance problems out of
treated for worms and dog owners should in designated off-leash parks. proportion needs to be
be made fully aware of their responsibilities
in this regard. Removal of faeces before the 4.1.2 Aggression towards questioned.”
roundworm eggs become infective is also humans and other animals
important.
The spread of hydatids is another poten- Dog attacks are the most serious poten- Another concern is public liability. Un-
tial health concern associated with dog fae- tial problem and there is always a great deal doubtedly, this is the most far reaching con-
ces. It is a risk in some parts of Australia of interest in the issue. Attacks can occur frontation between park managers and the
but only when the dog has eaten unin- against humans, other dogs and other ani- legal system today, e.g. for injuries or dam-
spected offal from sheep or cattle. This is mals. Most dogs don't bite people or other age that occur on play equipment, from
illegal in Australia and the incidence of dogs. Those that do are either frightened, damaged park infrastructure, because of
hydatids is now extremely low. dominant, protective or possessive. Attacks inadequate park maintenance etc. This is a
Odours are not a persistent or long- against wildlife is part of the predatory in- fact of life with all public facilities and
standing problem and are usually dissipated stinct natural to all dogs. stems from a mentality of injured parties
by wind currents. They are generally not Without wanting to underrate the seri- that "someone will pay".
strongly detectable unless someone is ousness of dog attacks in either the private In relation to dog attacks, it is the owner
within close vicinity of fresh faeces. To home or public open space, they need to be of the offending dog who is mostly liable
help minimise odour problems, refuse bins kept in perspective. People are concerned for any injuries or damage. However the
should be emptied often. An air freshener about dog attacks but the extent to which search for "who is responsible" often ab-
the mass media amplifies isolated problems sorbs a great deal of energy and local au-
14You can also read
