Opinion: When leash rules are ignored, shared spaces stop feeling safe

A simple routine afternoon walk with my two-year-old toy poodle, Bonnie, ended in seconds when she was attacked by another dog off-lead in a clearly designated on-lead area. What should have been a controlled public space quickly escalated into an unpredictable and frightening environment. For me, the incident raised a larger question about why leash rules in shared public spaces are so often ignored when the safety of both dogs and owners is at stake.

Relaxing walks have been replaced by the need for constant vigilance after Bonnie's attack. Photo: Miranda Stahl

Leash rules and on-lead areas exist for a reason and have a valid purpose. According to Victorian local government regulations, leashes are designed to provide effective control in public spaces where interactions cannot always be safely anticipated. Even in the off-lead areas, owners are expected to maintain effective control and recall. Dog trainers continuously emphasize how dogs can be unpredictable in unfamiliar or stimulating environments, whether due to excitement, anxiety, reactivity, or simple distraction, making consistent adherence to leash rules essential.

Incidents like these are rarely about ‘bad dogs’.  More often than not they reflect a growing number of owners who increasingly underestimate how unpredictable their dog can be in a busy environment such as a park.

Dog ownership is on the rise across Melbourne following COVID-19 lockdowns, making this tension more visible. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare around 40% of Australian households have a dog, equating to a total of about 5.1 million dogs nationwide. As a result, the City of Melbourne is planning to expand its network of off-lead areas to accommodate growing demand. But this alone is unlikely to solve the problem, if owners’ behaviour does not follow at the same pace.

Too often the phrase “my dog is friendly” is used across parks as justification for letting dogs off lead, with many owners truly believing their dogs are well-trained or unlikely to cause harm. It’s in these moments that leash rules start to feel flexible and optional.

Bonnie, the two-year-old toy poodle that was involved in an attack that prompted renewed concerns around leash rule compliance in Melbourne parks. Photo:Miranda Stahl

In Bonnie’s case, we were fortunate to walk away with only minor injuries and scratches and a pair of ripped trousers. But for the 4882 Australians hospitalised between 2023 and 2024 after being bitten or struck by a dog, the consequences are far more serious. In fact, data from the Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit (VISU) shows an increase in emergency dog bite presentations, with 3583 recorded presentations in 2019/20, climbing to 4882 in 2023/24. With an average of 94 people attending emergency departments for a dog bite injury every week in 2023/24.

Of course, dogs need their freedom, no one is suggesting that they should always be on lead. In fact, organisations such as the RSPCA Australia emphasise the importance of off-lead exercise suggesting it is great for their physical and mental health as it allows them to exercise, socialise and enjoy the fresh air.

However, when owners begin avoiding certain parks, adjusting walking times, or feeling anxious in spaces that were once routine, a broader issue emerges. Shared environments are no longer functioning as intended.

What happened with Bonnie lasted only seconds, but its impact has lasted far longer. It has changed how I approach spaces that were once ordinary. That shift is not just personal; it reflects a broader issue about how shared public environments depend on collective responsibility and consistent adherence to the rules designed to protect them.

 

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

About Dscribe

Dscribe showcases the work of Deakin University’s journalism students. The opinions contained in Dscribe stories are that of the individual, and not Deakin University. If you believe that any of the material on this website infringes on your rights, click here: COPYRIGHT