Letter: MidCoast Council urged to decline Hawks Nest dog park

DEAR News Of The Area,

I AM writing to formally object to the proposed establishment of a fenced dog park in Hawks Nest.

While fenced dog parks may appear convenient, they are widely recognised as presenting significant safety, behavioural, and management problems, particularly when introduced into small communities without the scale, infrastructure, or demonstrated demand to support them.

From a safety and animal welfare perspective, dog parks are inherently high-risk environments. Dogs of different sizes, temperaments, ages, and training levels are placed together in confined spaces, often resulting in aggression, injuries, and long-term behavioural issues. Poorly socialised, fearful, or reactive dogs are frequently brought to dog parks to “fix” behavioural problems, which can escalate conflict rather than resolve it.

Equally concerning is the reliance on constant and competent owner supervision, which in practice is often lacking. Inattentive owners distracted by phones or social interaction frequently fail to recognise early stress or aggression signals, allowing situations to escalate before intervention occurs. Once a fight begins, serious injury can occur within seconds.

There are also well-documented public health concerns. Dog parks increase the transmission risk of disease and parasites, including kennel cough, parvovirus, giardia, and fleas.

Compliance with vaccination requirements cannot be effectively enforced, and shared facilities such as water bowls further increase exposure risks.

Ongoing management of waste, rubbish, and hygiene also presents a continuing burden on Council resources.

From a behavioural standpoint, dog parks often reinforce poor habits rather than responsible control. Dogs can learn to ignore recall, engage in bullying behaviour, or normalise rough and inappropriate play.

Overcrowding and overstimulation in fenced areas frequently result in heightened stress, reactivity, or shutdown behaviour, particularly for shy, elderly, or previously reactive dogs.

Size-segregated areas, where provided, do not reliably mitigate risk. Larger dogs can unintentionally injure smaller dogs during play, and resource guarding of toys, water, or even owners is a common trigger for serious incidents. Fencing itself creates a false sense of security; gates are often left open, and the assumption that “all dogs here must be friendly” is demonstrably incorrect.

Importantly, there is no demonstrated strategic need for a dog park in Hawks Nest. I have spoken with numerous local dog owners, and not one has indicated they would use such a facility.

Experience elsewhere in NSW shows that dog parks are frequently under-utilised, poorly managed, and ultimately lead to increased restrictions, including areas that were once informally used by dog walkers becoming permanently signed “NO DOGS ALLOWED.”

Could there be a commitment by MidCoast Council that this wouldn’t happen here?

More appropriate alternatives exist, including structured on-lead walking areas, small, supervised playgroups, and shared open spaces that support calm, controlled dog exercise without introducing the risks associated with fenced dog parks.

For these reasons, I believe the proposal is poorly justified, poses unnecessary safety and management risks, and is incompatible with the scale and character of the local community.

I urge Council to refuse this proposal.

 

Regards,

Adrienne Ingram,

Tea Gardens.