That was my first thought. There is a lot of subjectivity in what constitutes walking as well. My second thought was about the kind of laws they will implement to make it possible to enforce this. The tracking/surveillance state is achieved one step at a time and it's always for your safety or for the good of innocent animals. I also see this de-incentivising pet ownership which would be a shame for a lot of pets that might have been claimed and a lot of people who might have benefited from pet ownership. Mostly, I see a weapon people can use to have their neighbour's pets removed by the state if the pets are annoying or if they just don't like their neighbours and want to be a cunt. You can just claim the dogs aren't walked and the state will probably be instructed to believe complaints. Unintended consequences for a law the state has no business creating is trademark government.  What is also interesting about this is that this very same state has just legalised weed. It's interesting where they draw the line at unhealthy lifestyles, policing behaviour in the privacy of your own property, and what is banned.