Normative Tolerances and Standards for Off Leash Dogs Jerry J. Vaske Maureen P. Donnelly Colorado...

Normative Tolerances and Standards for Off Leash Dogs

Jerry J. VaskeMaureen P. Donnelly

Colorado State University

Study Context

• In response, OSMP implemented a Voice & Sight Tag program

• The presence of off leash dogs at OSMP created potential conflict situations

• This study applied an indicator / standards (norms) model to understand conflicts with off leash dogs

What is an Indicator? Definition – Any measure that describes an experience

Examples Dogs off trail Dogs play chasing another dog Owners repeatedly calling a dog Owners not picking up after their dogs Dogs flushing birds or causing wildlife to flee

Indirecthuman-doginteractions

Dogs approaching a visitor uninvited Dogs jumping on or

sniffing or licking a visitor

Directhuman-doginteractions

The Role of Standards Standards identify the conditions:

Desirable (e.g., Picking up after your dog)

Should not be exceeded (e.g., zero-tolerance for dogs chasing wildlife)

Objective Link management objectives

(type of experience to be provided) To the indicators in quantitative terms

Linking Objectives to Indicators to Standards

Mgmt Objective – Provide quality visitor experiences

Indicator 1 Dog flushes or causes wildlife to fleeStandard 1 0% tolerance

Indicator 2 Owner repeatedly calls the dogStandard 2 < 10% of visitors experience situation

Indicator 3 Dog makes physical contact with a visitor

Standard 3 < 5% of visitors experience situation

Indicator 4 Owners not picking up after their dogStandard 4 < 10% of visitors experience situation

Structural Characteristics of Norms

10 3 5 7 9 15 20 25 100

Number of Encounters

0

1

2

3

4

-1

-2

-3

-4

Acc

epta

bili

ty

Inte

nsi

ty

Acceptable range

Concensus

Norm curve

Standard Deviation orPotential Conflict Index (PCI2)

Methods

• On-site Survey at Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks (OSMP)

• 951 completed surveys

• Response rate = 93%

Survey Questions

• Perceived problems with dog/owner behaviors

• Normative tolerances– Frequency of observing specific dog/owner behaviors

– Acceptability of dog/owner behaviors

– Maximum tolerances for dog/owner behaviors

• Dog ownershipNo: n = 431, 46%Yes: n = 509, 54%

Dogs sniffing visitor

-2

-1

0

1

2

Social Norm curves: Direct human-dog interactions

VeryAcceptable

Neither

VeryUnacceptable

A

ccep

tabi

lity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Times Observed

Dogs pawing visitor

Dogs jumping on visitor

Dogs licking visitor

Dogs approaching uninvited

Social norm curves:Indirect human-dog interactions

VeryAcceptable

Neither

VeryUnacceptable

A

ccep

tabi

lity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Times Observed

Dogs flushing birds

Dogs causing wildlife to flee

Owners repeatedly calling

Owners not picking up

Dogs off trail

Dogs play chasing

-2

-1

0

1

2

Social Norm ConsensusDirect Human-Dog Interaction

VeryAcceptable

Neither

VeryUnacceptable

A

ccep

tabi

lity

Dogs Dogs Dogs Dogs Dogs Jumping Pawing Licking Approach Sniffing Visitor Visitor Visitor Uninvited Visitor

Non-owners

0.18

0.27

0.380.33

0.50.39

0.3

0.18

0.23

-2

-1

0

1

2

Dog owners

0.07

0.09

0.210.24

0.38

0.54 0.43

0.12

0.35

0.41

0.2 0.19

0.26

-2

-1

0

1

2

Social Norm ConsensusIndirect Human-Dog Interaction

VeryAcceptable

Neither

VeryUnacceptable

A

ccep

tabi

lity

Owners Dogs Dogs Owners Dogs Dogs Not Causing Flushing Repeatedly Off Play Picking Wildlife Birds Calling Trail Chasing Up to Flee

Non-owners Dog-owners

Personal Norm Tolerances

Indirect human-dog interactionOwners not picking up 50

Owners repeatedly calling 28

Dogs off trail 28

Dogs play chasing 18

Dogs causing wildlife to flee 17

Dogs flushing birds 13

Direct human-dog interaction

Dogs approaching uninvited 35

Dogs sniffing visitor 27

Dogs jumping on visitor 27

Dogs licking visitor 19

Dogs pawing visitor 17

% of TimePersonal Norm

Exceeded

Summary of Key Findings

9 of 11 indicators reflected “no tolerance” norms(i.e., should never occur)

A “single tolerance” norm was observed for:– dogs play chasing (exceeded 28%)– dogs off trail (exceeded 18%)

Statistical differences between:dog owners and non-owners were minimal

Most serious norm violations:– owners not picking up (exceeded 50%)

– dogs approaching uninvited (exceeded 35%)

Recommendations

Given visitors’ “no tolerance” norms, management std. of:“no more than 0% of visitors should have their norms exceeded”

could be recommended

BUT this mgmt std. not realistic given current conditions

Consistent with other OSMP standards, recommend:“no more than 10% of visitors should

have their norms exceeded”

10% mgmt. std. currently always exceededBUT Voice & Sight Dog Tag Program is new

Questions