1 / 16

Study Context

Normative Tolerances and Standards for Off Leash Dogs Jerry J. Vaske Maureen P. Donnelly Colorado State University. Study Context. The presence of off leash dogs at OSMP created potential conflict situations. In response, OSMP implemented a Voice & Sight Tag program.

harrel
Download Presentation

Study Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Normative Tolerances and Standards for Off Leash DogsJerry J. VaskeMaureen P. DonnellyColorado State University

  2. Study Context • The presence of off leash dogs at OSMP created potential conflict situations • In response, OSMP implemented a Voice & Sight Tag program • This study applied an indicator / standards (norms) model to understand conflicts with off leash dogs

  3. Dogs approaching a visitor uninvited • Dogs jumping on orsniffing or licking a visitor Directhuman-doginteractions 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

  4. 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

  5. Linking Objectives to Indicators to Standards Mgmt Objective – Provide quality visitor experiences Indicator 1 Dog flushes or causes wildlife to flee Standard 1 0% tolerance Indicator 2 Owner repeatedly calls the dog Standard 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 dog Standard 4 < 10% of visitors experience situation

  6. 4 Norm curve 3 2 Intensity 1 Acceptability 0 Concensus -1 Acceptable range -2 -3 -4 0 1 3 5 7 9 15 20 25 100 Number of Encounters Structural Characteristics of Norms Standard Deviation orPotential Conflict Index (PCI2)

  7. On-site Survey at Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks (OSMP) 951 completed surveys Response rate = 93% Methods

  8. 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%

  9. Very Acceptable Neither Very Unacceptable Dogs sniffing visitor Dogs approaching uninvited Dogs licking visitor Dogs pawing visitor Acceptability Dogs jumping on visitor Social Norm curves: Direct human-dog interactions 2 1 0 -1 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Times Observed

  10. Dogs play chasing Very Acceptable Neither Very Unacceptable Dogs off trail Acceptability Social norm curves:Indirect human-dog interactions Owners repeatedly calling Dogs flushing birds Dogs causing wildlife to flee 2 Owners not picking up 1 0 -1 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Times Observed

  11. Very Acceptable Neither Very Unacceptable Acceptability 0.3 0.5 0.38 0.39 0.33 0.23 0.27 0.07 0.18 0.18 Non-owners Dog owners Social Norm ConsensusDirect Human-Dog Interaction 2 1 0 -1 -2 Dogs Dogs Dogs Dogs Dogs Jumping Pawing Licking Approach Sniffing Visitor Visitor Visitor Uninvited Visitor

  12. Very Acceptable Neither Very Unacceptable Acceptability Non-owners Dog-owners Social Norm ConsensusIndirect Human-Dog Interaction Owners Dogs Dogs Owners Dogs Dogs Not Causing Flushing Repeatedly Off Play Picking Wildlife Birds Calling Trail Chasing Up to Flee

  13. % of TimePersonal NormExceeded Personal Norm Tolerances Indirect human-dog interaction Owners 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

  14. 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%)

  15. 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

  16. Questions

More Related