Skip to content

Poll of Wisconsin Voters

January 20, 2026

New polling from RABA Research shows Wisconsin voters expressing overwhelming support for judicial intervention to protect dogs from alleged mistreatment, even when awareness of a specific facility is low. Voters hold strong, deeply rooted beliefs about dogs’ right to humane treatment and the role courts should play when existing enforcement fails. The poll included 509 interviews among voters in Wisconsin and was conducted January 16-17, 2026 via an online survey.

There is a broad public mandate for courts to act decisively in serious animal cruelty cases, including removing dogs from harmful conditions and appointing independent oversight.

Wisconsin residents overwhelmingly believe dogs deserve legal protection from cruelty and strongly support court intervention when animals face ongoing harm. Across multiple legal remedies—removal, independent guardians, and adapted proceedings—large majorities favor decisive judicial action to prevent animal suffering.

Key Findings

Universal Agreement on Protection from Cruelty

  • 94% agree dogs have a right to be free from cruelty (83% strongly agree)
  • Only 3% disagree

Strong Support for Judicial Intervention

  • 86% believe courts should act to prevent ongoing suffering when enforcement fails
  • Only 4% oppose

Overwhelming Support for Removal from Harm

  • 90% support removing dogs from harmful conditions (77% strongly)
  • Just 4% oppose

Support for Independent Oversight

  • 84% favor court-appointed guardians or special masters in serious cases
  • Only 9% oppose

Dogs Seen as More Than Property

  • 82% agree dogs should be treated like family members in legal contexts
  • Only 11% disagree

Receptivity to Adapted Legal Tools

  • 78% support custody-style proceedings to protect dogs
  • 14% oppose

Wisconsin voters provide a clear mandate for courts to intervene when dogs face cruelty. Support is not marginal but intense, reflecting deeply held values that align with treating dogs as family members rather than mere property. Courts acting to protect animals have strong public legitimacy.