How fenced off-leash areas are used in practice — and what it means for council planning
As demand for dog-friendly spaces continues to grow, many councils have introduced fenced off-leash areas (often referred to as “dog parks”) to support residents and their pets. These spaces are often viewed as a practical way to provide off-lead exercise opportunities while helping manage dog interactions in public places.
However, experience across many municipalities suggests that fenced off-leash areas can function quite differently from how they were originally envisioned. Understanding how these spaces are actually used — and the behavioural dynamics they create — is critical for councils planning new facilities or reviewing existing ones.
Insights from open space planner Lesley Humphreys (LMH Consulting / Paws4Play), combined with behavioural perspectives from animal behaviour consultant Dr Petra Edwards (City of Charles Sturt Council), highlight several important considerations for councils.
Why terminology matters: “dog park” vs fenced off-leash area
The term dog park is widely used in community discussions, but it can unintentionally shape expectations about what these spaces are designed to provide.
In everyday use, a “dog park” is often understood as a contained area where dogs can be exercised off lead or interact socially, and where dogs and their owners are seen as the primary users. It can also create the impression that dogs are simply allowed to “be dogs”, without sufficient consideration of the level of owner supervision and control still required within these spaces.
In planning contexts, Lesley Humphreys notes that the more accurate term is fenced off-leash area (FOLA). These spaces remain part of the public open-space network that happen to be fenced, and the usual requirements relating to the control and management of dogs within that municipality still apply.
For councils, terminology therefore plays a role not only in public communication but also in shaping how these spaces are used.
Actual use vs intended use
One of the most important planning questions is whether fenced off-leash areas are being used by the wider dog-owning community, or primarily by a smaller subset of users.
As Humphreys notes:
“It could be as low as 12% of dog owners using a fenced off-leash area on any regular basis.”
— Lesley Humphreys, Open Space Planner specialising in Animal Management Services, LMH Consulting / Paws4Play
In the same survey sample, around 55% of dog owners reported that they rarely or never use fenced off-leash areas, while a further 25% indicated they were using them less frequently than they had in the past.
Taken together, these figures suggest that the majority of dog owners may choose not to use these spaces regularly.
At the same time, some of the owners who do seek out fenced off-leash areas, or request more of them, may do so because their dogs have limited recall and they are concerned about them running off. As Lesley Humphreys points out, this can mean that poorly controlled or poorly supervised dogs are being concentrated in a small enclosed space, increasing the likelihood of dog-on-dog or dog-on-human incidents.
For councils, this raises important questions about:
- safety
- equity of access
- distribution of open-space investment
- whether a mix of off-leash opportunities may better serve the broader community
These findings also highlight the value of local surveys and community consultation. Understanding how dog owners in a particular municipality currently exercise their dogs, and why they may seek out or avoid certain spaces, can help councils make decisions based on local need rather than assumption.
Why many owners avoid dog parks
For many owners who choose not to use fenced off-leash areas, the decision is not necessarily about a lack of interest in off-lead exercise. Instead, concerns often relate to the unpredictability of interactions between unfamiliar dogs and uncertainty about how other owners will manage their dogs.
Some owners report avoiding dog parks because they are unsure whether:
- other dogs will be well matched in play style or temperament
- other handlers will recognise when play is escalating
- owners will be able to call their dogs away if needed
Another commonly observed pattern is that some owners enter fenced off-leash areas and then disengage from supervising their dogs. The contained environment can create a perception that the space is inherently safe, leading some handlers to check mobile phones or socialise with other owners while dogs interact freely.
While many interactions may appear friendly, unregulated play between unfamiliar dogs can quickly escalate in arousal, particularly in environments where multiple dogs are interacting simultaneously without active supervision.
Density and behaviour dynamics
From a behavioural perspective, density plays a significant role in how fenced off-leash areas function.
Dr Petra Edwards notes that environments with large numbers of unfamiliar dogs, high movement, and repeated unpredictable approaches can create social pressure for many dogs.
When arousal levels increase, play can become intense or chaotic, particularly when dogs with different play styles interact. Repeated chasing, body slamming, or persistent interactions may develop if owners are not closely monitoring their dogs.
For more socially cautious or sensitive dogs, these environments can be overwhelming. Even where no overt conflict occurs, sustained exposure to highly arousing environments can influence how dogs feel about future interactions with other dogs.
Understanding these behavioural dynamics can help councils better interpret some of the complaints and incidents that arise in fenced off-leash areas.
Operational and maintenance considerations
From a council perspective, fenced off-leash areas can also present practical operational challenges.
Common issues include:
- turf degradation from concentrated dog activity
- drainage problems and muddy conditions
- fencing repairs
- waste management
- complaints regarding behaviour between dogs
Maintenance staff may also face risks when entering these spaces to carry out work, particularly if unfamiliar dogs remain present during maintenance activities.
These operational factors mean that design and distribution decisions made during planning stages can have lasting impacts on long-term maintenance costs and risk management.
Social dynamics and informal gatekeeping
Another phenomenon observed in some fenced off-leash areas is the development of informal user groups.
Where a relatively small number of regular users frequent a park, they may establish informal expectations around:
- acceptable play styles
- which dogs “belong” in the space
- how the area is used
While this can foster a sense of community among regular users, it can also make the space feel less accessible to others, particularly for owners whose dogs have different social preferences or needs.
Recognising these social dynamics can help councils better understand how these spaces function within the broader community.
Opportunities for community education
Despite these challenges, fenced off-leash areas can also present opportunities for councils to support community education around responsible dog ownership.
Many dog owners have limited experience interpreting canine body language or recognising early signs that their dog may be feeling uncomfortable or overwhelmed.
Councils may wish to consider using these spaces as opportunities to share information about:
- recognising signs of stress in dogs
- appropriate play between dogs
- supervising interactions
- creating space when dogs are no longer coping
When combined with thoughtful design and planning, education initiatives can help support safer and more positive experiences for both dogs and owners.
Planning considerations for councils
When planning new fenced off-leash areas or reviewing existing ones, councils may benefit from taking a broader strategic perspective that considers planning, behavioural, operational and social factors, rather than relying on ad-hoc site development.
Key considerations may include:
Integration with wider open-space planning
Fenced off-leash areas function best when they are considered as one component within a broader network of off-leash opportunities. Linear walking paths, larger open spaces and a range of off-leash opportunities across parks and open spaces can provide alternative exercise options and reduce pressure on individual fenced sites.
Design features that encourage movement, choice and safety
Elements that promote circulation rather than congregation may help reduce sustained crowding and repeated interactions between unfamiliar dogs. Design features such as curved paths, planting, rockeries, or other sight breaks can also help interrupt direct lines of sight between dogs, creating opportunities for interactions to pause and naturally de-escalate.
The size of fenced off-leash areas can also influence how dogs interact. Smaller spaces tend to concentrate dogs and increase the frequency of repeated interactions between unfamiliar animals, which can elevate arousal and reduce opportunities for dogs to move away or disengage.
Entry points can also become behavioural pressure points, with dogs crowding gates and rushing to greet newly arriving dogs. Thoughtful design — including double-gate and multiple entry point systems and sufficient space near entrances — can help reduce these high-arousal interactions.
Councils may also wish to consider whether partially fenced off-leash areas are appropriate in some settings. These spaces can still provide a degree of containment while encouraging owners to remain actively engaged with their dogs, rather than switching off supervision. This may help reduce unregulated, highly arousing interactions and support more responsive owner management.
Local needs assessment
Surveys and community consultation can help councils understand how off-leash spaces are currently used, which barriers exist for non-users, and what mix of off-leash opportunities may best serve the local community.
Community education
Supporting residents to better understand dog behaviour and responsible off-leash etiquette can complement physical infrastructure.
Councils may wish to consider partnering with qualified animal behaviour professionals to support community education initiatives, including resources that help owners recognise canine body language, supervise play appropriately, and make informed decisions about when off-leash environments are suitable for their dogs.
A balanced perspective
Fenced off-leash areas may play a role within a council’s open-space network, but they should not be assumed to be a broadly suitable or equitable solution for all dog owners, all dogs, or all communities.
Understanding how these environments function in practice — including usage patterns, behavioural dynamics and operational impacts — can help councils design spaces that better support both community needs and animal welfare.
By combining thoughtful planning, realistic expectations and targeted education, councils can help ensure that off-leash opportunities contribute positively to the wellbeing of both dogs and the communities that care for them.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Lesley Humphreys (LMH Consulting / Paws4Play) and Dr Petra Edwards (City of Charles Sturt Council) for sharing their insights and expertise on the planning and behavioural considerations associated with fenced off-leash areas.
About AnimalWise Training
AnimalWise Training supports councils and animal professionals with practical education in animal behaviour, body language, and low-stress handling, including resources that help improve community understanding and safety.