Ana Leonardo

Dog tethering persists as a common management practice despite growing evidence of its negative welfare implications and increasing legislative recognition of animal sentience. Yet public support for its criminalization remains understudied. This study assessed public attitudes towards the criminalization of permanent dog tethering in Portugal and identified independent predictors of pro-criminalization attitudes. An anonymous cross-sectional online survey was administered to a sample of Portuguese adults. Of 471 respondents, 41.2% endorsed unconditional criminalization, 48.0% endorsed conditional criminalization, and 10.8% opposed it, with 9 in 10 respondents endorsing some form of legal prohibition. Anger upon witnessing a tethered dog was the dominant independent predictor of pro-criminalization attitude (OR = 81.06, 95% CI 6.56–1001.48) and of unconditional criminalization specifically. Affirming canine sentience independently predicted unconditional criminalization. The association between sex and pro-criminalization attitude was attenuated and became non-significant after controlling for emotional responses, consistent with, though not establishing, a relationship between sex and emotional reactivity. Although 81.7% of respondents considered tethering to constitute animal mistreatment, only 21.0% of the total sample had previously reported or intervened, though this figure rose to 48.1% among the subset of participants with local awareness of tethered dogs. Public support for criminalizing dog tethering was more strongly associated with emotional responses, particularly anger, than with the demographic or cognitive variables included in the models. These findings highlight the role of emotional engagement in shaping public concern for canine welfare and underscore the relevance of the human–animal bond to forensic and legislative responses to tethering.

Background/Objectives: Dog tethering remains a common containment practice in several regions despite increasing concerns about its implications for animal welfare. This study aimed to assess veterinary professionals’ perceptions in Portugal about the impact of dog tethering on canine health, behavior, and welfare, as well as their views on its regulation. Methods: An anonymous, structured questionnaire was distributed online to veterinary professionals to collect data on clinical exposure to chained dogs, observed health and behavioral outcomes, and attitudes toward criminalizing the practice. Results: A total of 331 veterinarians participated, of whom 71.9% reported encountering chained dogs during their professional activities, particularly in rural areas. Most respondents perceived the tethering conditions as inadequate, particularly regarding freedom of movement and the fulfillment of behavioral needs. Frequently reported consequences included alopecia at the restraint site, poor muscle condition, physical injuries, fear-related behaviors, reduced socialization, and increased aggression. Preventing escape was identified as the primary perceived motivation for tethering. The majority of veterinarians supported some degree of criminalization, particularly when welfare impairment was evident. Conclusions: These findings reflect veterinary professionals’ perceptions of the welfare risks associated with prolonged tethering and underscore the need for integrated strategies combining regulation, education, and accessible, humane containment alternatives.