Two petitions are currently circulating in New York, both calling for changes to how animal cruelty is defined and evaluated. While both seek to protect dogs from abuse, their approaches differ, and those differences could have important implications for professional dog trainers.

As an organization committed to animal welfare, ethical training practices, and protecting the rights of canine professionals, IACP believes our members should understand what each petition proposes and how those proposals align with our legislative priorities.

READ BOTH PETITIONS AND STAY INFORMED

Petition 1: Protect Dogs in New York – Demand Better Animal Cruelty Laws

Petition 2: Establish Objective Criteria for Animal Cruelty in New York

PETITION 1: Protect Dogs in New York – Demand Better Animal Cruelty Laws

This petition emphasizes the importance of distinguishing legitimate, responsible dog training from actual animal cruelty.

It calls for:

• Evaluating training practices within the full context of the dog’s behavior, history, and circumstances.
• Recognizing that the use of an aversive or a particular training tool does not automatically constitute abuse.
• Including qualified professionals representing diverse training methodologies when developing legislation.
• Protecting responsible trainers from overly broad or subjective interpretations of animal cruelty laws.
• Maintaining meaningful animal welfare protections while ensuring fairness and due process.

PETITION 2: Establish Objective Criteria for Animal Cruelty in New York

This petition seeks to establish more specific legal criteria for determining when an animal has experienced unjustifiable pain or suffering.

It calls for:

• Greater emphasis on observable signs of distress, including avoidance, freezing, and defensive behaviors.
• Evaluating the intensity, duration, repetition, and necessity of physical corrections.
• Establishing clearer standards for determining when an intervention crosses the line into animal cruelty.
• Ensuring that the legality of a training tool or a trainer’s professional credentials does not automatically justify its use.

Although this petition does not explicitly call for banning electronic collars, prong collars, or balanced training, concerns can be raised about how its proposed criteria could ultimately be written into law and applied to professional trainers.

WHY IS PETITION 1 MORE CONSISTENT WITH IACP’S ESTABLISHED LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES?

IACP has consistently advocated for reasonable, enforceable animal welfare laws that protect dogs without unnecessarily restricting responsible training methods, equipment, or professional judgment.

Petition 1 more directly reflects those priorities in several ways.

1. Protecting the Lawful Use of Training Tools

IACP has long opposed legislation that restricts or prohibits training equipment based solely on the type of tool being used rather than how it is applied. We believe electronic collars, prong collars, slip leads, and other lawful training tools should be evaluated based on their application, proportionality, and impact on the dog. The revised language being developed for Petition 2 now addresses this concern more directly, which we consider a positive step.

2. Preserving Professional Judgment and Methodological Diversity

IACP represents professionals using a variety of training approaches, including positive reinforcement, balanced training, and individualized behavior modification. We oppose legislation that effectively establishes one training philosophy as the only legally acceptable approach. Responsible training must be evaluated within the context of the individual dog, its behavioral history, the circumstances, and the objectives of the training.

3. Supporting Evidence-Based Animal Welfare Legislation

Animal welfare legislation should be grounded in sound science and a comprehensive understanding of canine learning and behavior. Petition 1 specifically calls for multidisciplinary input, including qualified trainers representing different methodologies, veterinary behaviorists, researchers, animal welfare professionals, and legal experts. The involvement of balanced trainers in the revision of Petition 2 is a welcome development and reinforces the importance of including diverse professional perspectives. No single training philosophy or certifying organization should have exclusive influence over laws affecting the entire profession.

4. Preventing the Unintended Criminalization of Responsible Trainers

Dogs communicate through a variety of behaviors, including avoidance, freezing, vocalization, and other stress-related responses. These behaviors can indicate genuine welfare concerns and should never be dismissed. However, their presence alone does not necessarily establish that animal cruelty has occurred. Behavior must be evaluated within the full context of the situation, including the dog’s history, the circumstances surrounding the intervention, and the methods being used. Both petitions now appear to recognize the importance of contextual evaluation, although the precise language and legal implications of Petition 2’s revisions remain under discussion.

5. Maintaining Strong Animal Cruelty Protections While Preserving Due Process

IACP does not oppose animal cruelty legislation. Protecting dogs from genuine abuse is fundamental to our commitment to humane and ethical training. However, laws must be clearly written, consistently enforced, and sufficiently precise to distinguish abusive conduct from legitimate training interventions. We support fair investigations, appropriate professional expertise, and safeguards against overly broad interpretations that could expose responsible trainers to criminal liability.

WHERE DOES IACP STAND?

Our position remains straightforward: Animal abuse should never be tolerated, and responsible, humane dog training should not be criminalized.

We support animal welfare legislation that is evidence-based, method-neutral, reasonable, and enforceable. We oppose laws that automatically equate the use of lawful training tools or appropriate corrections with animal cruelty. We also believe that legitimate training objectives extend beyond responding to immediate emergencies and include developing reliable behaviors that help prevent future harm. Most importantly, we believe qualified professionals representing diverse training methodologies must have a voice in developing legislation that affects our profession.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: PETITION 2 IS BEING REVISED

We want our members to be aware that Petition 2 is currently in the process of being rewritten with input from several well-respected balanced trainers, some of whom are IACP members, as well as, in small part, the IACP Legislative Committee.

This is an encouraging development and an important example of why open communication and professional involvement matter when discussing legislation that could affect our industry.

The revisions being considered address several concerns raised about the original language. We appreciate the willingness of those involved to consider different perspectives and work toward language that protects animal welfare without unnecessarily restricting responsible dog training.

The participation of individual IACP members in these discussions should not be interpreted as a formal endorsement of the petition by IACP.

We encourage members to read both petitions, remain informed, and recognize the value of constructive dialogue among professionals with different perspectives. Protecting animal welfare and protecting the rights of responsible dog trainers are not mutually exclusive goals. We can, and should, advocate for both.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Neither petition is legislation, and neither changes New York law simply by gathering signatures.

Petition 1 remains more directly aligned with IACP’s established legislative priorities. However, the ongoing revisions to Petition 2 are encouraging, and we believe it is important to evaluate the revised language fairly rather than judge the proposal solely by its original wording.

Our focus is not on choosing sides between petition organizers. It is on ensuring that any legislation resulting from these efforts protects dogs while respecting responsible, humane training practices.

The IACP Legislative Committee will continue monitoring these developments and advocating for fair, scientifically informed animal welfare legislation that recognizes the diversity of responsible training practices.