Fences, Cameras, Canines and Common Sense

In a world increasingly obsessed with symbolism over substance, it’s worth revisiting the unglamorous tools that actually protect people. Not hashtags, not diversity panels, not community roundtables by teal politicians promising to curb crime with cuddles, but fences, cameras, canines, and common sense. That’s the real toolkit. That’s what separates a safe site from a vulnerable one. And that’s what too many decision-makers ignore until after the incident report is filed.

Let’s begin with the fence, perhaps the oldest form of physical deterrence in human history. A good fence or barrier isn’t just about marking territory. It’s a declaration, this space is monitored, controlled, and protected. Criminals, like all opportunists, look for the path of least resistance. A site without a fence, or with a decorative one that doesn’t lock, is not a secure space. It’s an invitation.

But even a fence is only as strong as its reinforcement. That’s where cameras come in. Not the cheap kind that record into oblivion, but properly installed, properly maintained systems monitored in real time with AI notifications, for the home owners  or by staff with the authority to act. Cameras don’t prevent crime by capturing it, they prevent crime by advertising risk. A known surveillance area introduces friction into the offender’s cost-benefit analysis. And that hesitation is often the margin that saves a life or prevents a loss.

Then there’s the canine, a force multiplier that no criminal, no matter how desperate, wants to encounter. Dogs don’t bluff. They don’t negotiate. They don’t sit through conflict de-escalation seminars. They communicate one simple fact, this space is protected by something faster than you, stronger than you, and more committed to the task than any outsourced contractor. A visible canine unit doesn’t just prevent trespassing, it restores psychological dominance over the space.

But perhaps most important of all, and most lacking, is common sense.

Common sense is what reminds you that no “community engagement plan” ever deterred a meth addict with a crowbar. That a 2 a.m. loiterer isn’t a misunderstood philosopher, he’s casing the joint. That motion lighting deters more crime than motivational posters in the breakroom. That staff need radios, not workshops. And that responsibility lies not in slogans, but in actionable presence.

Yet in today's bureaucratised safety culture, decision-makers often prioritise theory over implementation. They spend more on printing mission statements than on fixing locks. They hire consultants to write risk assessments but never follow through on security upgrades. And worst of all, they send their security personnel into high-risk environments without the tools, or authority, to intervene.

This isn't just inefficient. It’s dangerous.

The job of security is not to empathise with offenders. It is to interrupt them. It is to deter, detect, deny, and, if necessary, detain. You cannot do that with policy memos and positive affirmations. You do it with barriers, eyes, teeth, and judgment.

Statistically, environments with hard perimeter control, active surveillance, and rapid response capacity suffer fewer incidents and recover more quickly from those that do occur. This isn’t theory, it’s field data compiled across retail districts, critical infrastructure, and public precincts. The patterns are universal, where there is visible resistance, there is less opportunistic crime.

We’ve seen it in shopping centres where fencing off blind spots, even with temporary barriers and positioning canine units led to an 80% reduction in assaults over 12 month period (Nightcliff – Arafura incident data). We’ve seen it in housing complexes where installing monitored CCTV deterred gang-related vandalism overnight. And we’ve seen it in industrial zones where simply enforcing access protocols and maintaining clear sightlines made entire security rosters more effective.

The lesson is clear, soft targets invite hard consequences. But hardening a site doesn’t require military spending. It requires strategic investment in fundamentals.

So, the next time an external training organisation, a board member or public administrator suggests a workshop on “inclusive safety environments,” ask them if the fence is intact, the cameras are monitored, and whether anyone on the team can respond to a threat faster than an online complaint.

Because while they’re focused on feelings, some of us are focused on facts.

And the fact is, fences, cameras, canines, and common sense work. From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.