When the Walk Is for the Owner Too: How Our Beliefs Shape Decisions About Our Dogs

Walking the dog is one of those activities that seems almost universally positive. Dogs need exercise, opportunities to explore, time outside, and chances to sniff and investigate their environment. For many owners, taking the dog for a walk is therefore not simply something they do. It becomes part of what responsible dog ownership means. A good owner walks their dog, and a dog that gets plenty of walks is assumed to be well cared for.

But what happens when a veterinarian recommends changing that routine? More specifically, what happens when the recommendation is to walk less?

A recent study published in Animals examined exactly this question. The results are interesting because they show that decisions about dog walking are not determined only by what may benefit the dog. They are also influenced by what owners believe about walking, what the walk provides for them personally, and whether the reason for changing the routine feels convincing.

Would owners follow veterinary advice?

The researchers surveyed 1,590 dog owners from several countries. Participants were presented with hypothetical situations in which a veterinarian recommended changing how much their dog was walked. In some scenarios, the advice was to reduce walking; in others, it was to increase it. The researchers also varied the reason for the recommendation.

For example, an owner might be told to reduce their dog’s walking because the dog had osteoarthritis or another physical problem. Alternatively, the veterinarian might recommend reducing walking because the dog showed fear or aggression towards something frequently encountered during walks. Other scenarios involved increasing exercise because the dog was overweight or because greater activity was considered beneficial for the dog’s mental well-being.

The researchers then asked owners how likely they would be to follow the veterinary recommendation. Importantly, this study measured owners’ stated intentions in hypothetical situations. It did not follow owners after a real veterinary consultation to determine whether they actually changed their walking routines. Nevertheless, the differences between the scenarios reveal something important about how owners think about walking.

Behavioural advice was harder to accept

Owners were not equally willing to follow all four recommendations. In particular, they were more willing to reduce walking for a physical health problem than for a behavioural problem.

That distinction is clinically important. If an owner is told that a dog with osteoarthritis needs shorter or less frequent walks, the reasoning may feel immediately understandable. The dog has a physical condition, exercise may aggravate discomfort, and reducing activity becomes part of medical management.

Behavioural recommendations may be interpreted differently. If a dog is frightened of other dogs, repeatedly becomes highly aroused on walks, or shows aggression towards something commonly encountered outside, an owner may find it much harder to understand why less walking could be beneficial. The recommendation can seem to conflict with another strongly held belief: dogs need walks, and therefore reducing them must somehow be depriving the dog.

The problem is that we can’t judge an activity’s value simply by whether it’s normally considered beneficial. We also have to consider what the individual dog is experiencing while doing it.

A walk is not automatically a positive experience

For one dog, a 45-minute walk may provide relaxed exploration, sniffing, movement, and enjoyable interaction with the owner. For another dog, exactly the same walk may involve constant scanning, repeated frightening encounters, pulling, barking, lunging, freezing, avoidance, or difficulty recovering after each trigger.

Both dogs have technically been “walked for 45 minutes,” but those 45 minutes may have produced very different welfare outcomes.

This is particularly relevant for dogs with fear, frustration, excessive arousal, or aggression associated with the outside environment. Repeatedly exposing a dog to situations that produce intense negative emotional responses does not automatically teach the dog to cope with those situations. Sometimes repeated uncontrolled exposure can maintain or worsen the response.

In some cases, reducing certain walks, shortening them, changing the location, choosing quieter times, or temporarily replacing some outdoor activity with other forms of enrichment can be an appropriate part of treatment. The objective is not to deprive the dog of exercise or environmental opportunities. It is to reduce repeated exposure to experiences the dog currently cannot manage successfully while creating better conditions for treatment and learning.

Owners bring their own beliefs to the decision

One of the most interesting aspects of the study was that owners’ responses were associated with their beliefs about dog walking. This should not be surprising. None of us approaches animal care as a completely neutral decision-maker. We develop ideas about what dogs need, what responsible ownership looks like, and what activities are essential to a good life.

Many of these beliefs are generally helpful. Believing that dogs need exercise, outdoor opportunities, and interaction with their environment encourages owners to provide activities that can substantially improve welfare. Problems arise when a general principle becomes an absolute rule.

“Dogs benefit from walking” can gradually become “more walking is always better.”

“Dogs need exercise” can become “reducing exercise must be harmful.”

“A responsible owner walks the dog every day” can become “if I do not complete the normal walk, I am failing my dog.”

The individual dog can then disappear behind the rule.

Good behavioural medicine requires us to return to the animal in front of us. What is this dog experiencing? What happens before, during, and after the walk? Is the activity producing exploration and engagement, or repeated fear and excessive arousal? Can the dog recover from challenging events? Does changing the route or time improve the experience? The answers matter more than a predetermined number of minutes or kilometres.

The walk also belongs to the owner

Dog walking is also unusual because it rarely benefits only one member of the relationship. Owners often walk for their own physical activity, routine, enjoyment of nature, relaxation, and social contact. Regular walking routes may help owners build friendships with neighbours and other dog owners. The walk may be one of the most enjoyable parts of an owner’s day.

The study found that beliefs relating to these owner benefits were associated with willingness to follow veterinary walking advice. That matters because recommending a change to a dog’s walking routine may also ask the owner to give up something important to them.

This does not mean owners are selfish or unconcerned about their dogs. It means veterinary recommendations operate within real human lives. Advice that ignores this reality may be scientifically reasonable but practically unsuccessful.

A recent study of 240 dog owners in Singapore provides a useful parallel. Researchers used the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model to examine engagement in welfare-enhancing dog-care practices. Capability, opportunity, and motivation were all associated with welfare-related caregiving, but opportunity showed the strongest effect. In other words, knowing what to do and wanting to do it were not the only factors. Owners also needed the time, resources, support, and practical circumstances that made the behaviour possible.

Veterinary advice therefore needs an explanation

Simply telling an owner to “walk the dog less” may not be enough. If the recommendation directly contradicts the owner’s beliefs about responsible care, the veterinarian needs to explain the reasoning.

For a dog who repeatedly encounters frightening triggers outside, I may recommend temporarily reducing those encounters while we establish a treatment plan. That does not necessarily mean eliminating walks. We may change when the dog walks, where the dog goes, how long the outing lasts, or what the owner does when a trigger appears. We may replace some physical exercise with searching activities, food enrichment, training, play, sensory exploration, or other appropriate activities.

The important part is explaining the objective. We are not reducing an activity because walking is undesirable. We modify the activity because, under the current circumstances, some aspects of that experience contribute to the problem we are trying to treat.

That explanation also gives owners the opportunity to tell us what the walk means to them. If an owner relies on the morning walk for their own exercise or social contact, that is useful information. A successful treatment plan can then look for alternatives rather than assuming the owner can abandon an established routine.

More is not a measure of better

Dog care is filled with quantities. How many walks? How many minutes? How many kilometres? How much exercise? Numbers are attractive because they make recommendations appear objective, but they can distract us from the quality of the experience.

A shorter walk in a quiet environment, during which a dog can sniff, explore, respond to the owner, and recover easily from unexpected events, may provide better welfare than a much longer walk involving repeated fear or conflict. For another dog, a long hike may be an excellent activity. Neither recommendation is universally correct.

The same principle applies beyond walking. Enrichment, social interaction, training, play, and exercise are not beneficial simply because we provide more of them. Their value depends on the individual animal, the context, and the animal’s response.

This study therefore tells us something broader than whether owners follow advice about walks. It shows how strongly our own beliefs can shape decisions we make on behalf of animals. Those beliefs are not necessarily wrong, but they need to remain flexible enough to accommodate the individual dog.

Walking is important for many dogs. It can provide exercise, exploration, sensory opportunities, and valuable time with their owners. But the goal should never be to accumulate minutes or kilometres simply because we believe good owners are supposed to.

The better question is not, “Did I walk my dog enough today?”

It is, “Was this activity good for my dog today?”

References

Bollaert BE, Mills DS, Ley JM, Zulch HE. Compliance with Veterinary Advice on Dog Walking Is Influenced by Owners’ Beliefs. Animals. 2026;16(19):2975. DOI: 10.3390/ani16192975

Lam SQY, Jessiman LJ, Naydani CJ. Understanding Singaporean dog owners’ caregiving behaviour towards enhancing dog welfare using the COM-B framework. Animal Welfare. 2026;35. DOI: 10.1017/awf.2026.10111