Most people in the UK do not fully understand the country’s dog laws and routinely assume stronger protections are in place than actually exist, according to new research from the University of Stirling.
The study, which surveyed more than 1,700 people across the UK, found that participants consistently overestimated the level of legal protection afforded to dogs. It also found that dog owners were more confident than non-owners when answering questions about the law, but no more accurate.
The research was led by Sarah Weir of the University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences (pictured below) and examined how shifting attitudes towards dogs are reshaping public expectations and knowledge of dog law.
“These findings challenge common assumptions about legal awareness and responsible ownership, showing that while dog owners are often expected to understand and comply with the law, they are no more accurate in their knowledge than non-owners,” said Ms Weir, a psychologist.
“This raises concerns about how legal understanding can be improved when people are unaware their knowledge is inaccurate.”
Researchers surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,758 adults, testing knowledge of 22 current, nation-specific and hypothetical dog laws. Responses were analysed using multinomial statistical models, a method that compares different response categories such as correct, incorrect or unsure, to identify patterns across demographic groups.
While most respondents were familiar with high-profile measures such as dog fouling rules and banned breeds, significant misconceptions remained. Some 85 per cent believed aversive training methods were already banned, and only 16 per cent correctly understood that no legislation explicitly prohibits the euthanasia of healthy dogs.
More than half were unaware that strict bans on shock collars apply only in Wales and not elsewhere in the UK. Fewer than half knew of nationwide laws making it illegal for a dog to cause fear or apprehension in another person in a private home.
Ms Weir said the findings pointed to deeper social change. “The research also suggested that differences in legal knowledge may be linked to broader social change. Younger participants were more likely to assume that stronger legal protections for dogs and owners already existed, which may reflect the increasingly elevated status of dogs in society.
“Many people nowadays increasingly view their dogs as more like family members or children than was historically the case.
“In some cases, people who had never owned a dog were also more likely to assume that laws providing greater protection for dogs, particularly those that placed additional responsibilities on owners, already existed.
“This suggests that expectations about dog welfare and regulation are not limited to dog owners but may instead reflect wider societal views about how dogs should be treated. If future generations continue to view dogs differently, public expectations of dog law may continue to change.”
Exploring Public Knowledge of Dog Law in the UK: Evidence of Poor Legal Knowledge in a Nationally Representative Sample was published in the journal Animals.
Images courtesy of University of Stirling.
