It is really easy to blame the self-centred entitled boneheads who choose to take their dogs into the no-go areas on the beach.
And I do. There is nothing so certain as to ruin my daily sojourn to the beach than confronting these precious beasts about their boundaries. Or not confronting them, and wondering if I should. Or trying not to look aghast at the common lame excuses for environmental vandalism like ‘my dogs don’t chase birds’ or ‘it’s only one’ or ‘she’s old’.
Some, very few, have no idea or miss the signs and have transgressed by accident. The aggro alternatives ‘what’s it to you?’ or ‘fuck off!’ show the true colours of some dolts.
I’ve diligently followed the suggested approaches from Echo letter writers over the years including this gem: ‘There’s a ranger down there booking people for dog offences. Just letting you know’. The problem is that occasionally the pet and the petulant then take off into the bush to avoid the mythical ranger making things worse.
But the more I’ve thought about doggy don’ts from a criminological perspective, the key culpable mob is the trifecta of authorities tasked with policing this: National Parks, Council rangers and the police. Where are they when the dogs are frolicking with glee around nests and chasing wallabies? All can write tickets. All can prosecute. All are generally missing in action. Warnings, education, leads, tsk, tsk, tsk are utterly useless.
Here is a well-accepted criminological theory – if a law is not enforced and a perpetrator believes there is little or no chance of being caught, then the crime will be committed more often.
Here is a second theory – if you name, shame and heavily penalise a few offenders, it acts as a deterrence to others. Testing these theories on myself for example, I conclude that if I could use my mobile phone while driving without any prospect of being caught, I probably would. If there were phone detection cameras all over the place and the fine was a million dollars and loss of licence for ten years, I probably wouldn’t. If there was no risk of getting caught I might just claim a few extras on my dismal tax deduction list. Theory proven.
Remember the nude swimming/pervert/Tyagarah outrage a few years ago?
A combination of education, enforcement, exemplification, general and specific deterrence and community engagement largely worked.
Since then, the absence of frantic rutting in the sandhills has been notable. And genitals generally don’t kill wildlife. Well, not often.
So, here’s a lesson in criminal law policy 101 to reduce the problem of dogs in protected areas.
First have a meeting between the prosecuting agencies and work out a cooperative approach on timing, areas and joint patrols. Nothing like three different uniforms bearing down on you. There are different areas of jurisdiction and attention needed from Wooyung in the north to Broken Head in the south, so planning is essential.
Second, the investigation. I know that a hurdle is getting people’s names and addresses.
The solution is called a camera. The three authorities could collectively set up a Facebook page seeking information based on the photos taken where they can’t identify the perps or mutts. The community would identify the dogs, owners and walkers in no time by private message. Once that information is received, the identity is confirmed by a wee home visit, and bingo!
Third, stop with the softly softly – maybe a ticket or a bit of education and other warning mush. Prosecute in court in, say, ten really strong cases each year for each of Council, police and National Parks.
They have the discretion to do that instead of a ticket. The fines in court are potentially huge. The original ticket amount is irrelevant. The defendants will have to front up to court. They will be photographed and shamed and fined or bonded and have costs awarded against them.
Press releases and advertisements will be placed, highlighting the successful prosecution. They will be plastered all over social media. Environmental vandals! Bird/turtle/wallaby killers! Narcissists! Tabloid shock-jock bliss.
Fourth, harness your best friends in this – that is, the vast majority of dog owners who do the right thing. They are your greatest allies because they sacrifice their ball throwing, desire for quiet, bit more walk north/south, always carry black bag, lead etc for the environment every single day.
They are responsible canine lovers, just like the responsible nude bathers, and they have every incentive to help pull into line the refusers.
I love my shore birds. I adore watching the marsupials lick the salt off the sand. I want to swim without dogs pissing on my towel. Or barking in my meditation. Or sniffing me when doing a downface dog. Eka Hasta Vrksasanav in sand is hard enough, without my elbow being humped.
There are children and adults who’ve had shocking experiences with dogs who just want to relax without them.
I have a mobile phone with a camera that I never use in the car. Now, is that going to be a tax deduction after this column?
♦ David Heilpern is a former magistrate and is Dean of Law at SCU.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
