Establish Objective Criteria for Animal Cruelty in New York
The Issue
Petition to the New York State Legislature
Why This Change Is Needed
When does physical punishment of an animal cross the line into animal cruelty?
New York Agriculture and Markets Law §350 defines animal cruelty to include conduct whereby “unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted.” Section 353 prohibits specified acts of cruelty, including acts tending to produce cruelty.
However, the law does not establish detailed statutory criteria for determining when physical pain or suffering inflicted on an animal is justifiable or unjustifiable.
We are asking New York State to establish objective, evidence-based statutory criteria that identify the specific circumstances under which conduct constitutes unjustifiable pain or suffering, rather than leaving that determination primarily dependent on subjective interpretations of acceptable animal treatment.
The Incident That Prompted This Petition
This petition was prompted by two videos involving an individual and a dog that were reported to the Central New York SPCA. Both videos were preserved through screen recordings of footage originally published on the individual's YouTube channel before the channel was deleted.
The videos show an individual approaching a dog in possession of a bone. The dog displays warning and avoidance behaviors, including freezing, averting her gaze, growling, and attempting to move away. The interactions escalate as the individual continues using physical corrections.
Evidence Video 1: Repeated Physical and Verbal Corrections
Video duration: 2 minutes, 43 seconds
Watch Evidence Video 1 in a larger view on YouTube
The documented corrections occur over approximately 1 minute and 53 seconds (00:14–02:07).
Documented Corrections
- 37 body-displacing leash jerks
- 24 physical corrections to the nose/muzzle, varying in intensity
- 1 backhanded strike to the head
- 1 strike to the hindquarters
- 43 verbal corrections
Total: 106 documented correction actions, including 63 physical corrections.
Every documented leash jerk physically moves the dog's body rather than simply applying leash tension.
The Dog's Responses
Throughout the interaction, the dog repeatedly shifts her weight backward, leans away, turns her head and body away, averts her gaze, licks her lips, holds her ears back, and tucks her tail. She also freezes, shows her teeth, growls, snaps, vocalizes, and attempts to retreat while restrained by the leash or positioned against the couch.
These behaviors occur repeatedly as the individual continues delivering physical and verbal corrections.
Evidence Video 2: Repeated Physical Corrections and Apparent Electronic Shock
Video duration: approximately 1 minute, 7 seconds
Watch Evidence Video 2 in a larger view on YouTube
Documented Corrections
- 15 body-displacing leash corrections
- 3 physical corrections to the face
- 17 verbal corrections
- 2 episodes of screaming associated with apparent electronic shock
Total: 35 documented physical and verbal corrections, including 18 physical corrections, plus 2 episodes of apparent electronic shock.
During several leash corrections, the individual pulls upward on the leash, lifting the dog's front legs off the ground.
A shock collar remote is visible in the individual's hand during portions of the interaction. At approximately 00:30 and 00:47, the dog screams or yelps and attempts to escape during apparent electronic shock use. Delivery of electronic shock at those specific moments has not been independently confirmed.
The Dog's Responses
Throughout the interaction, the dog repeatedly shifts her weight backward, leans away from the individual, lowers and turns her head, averts her gaze, licks her lips, holds her ears back, and tucks her tail.
She also shows her teeth, snaps, vocalizes, and repeatedly attempts to escape while restrained by the short leash. At several points, upward leash tension lifts her front legs off the ground, restricting her ability to move away.
These behaviors occur repeatedly as the individual continues delivering physical and verbal corrections.
The correction totals are based on detailed timestamped observations. Electronic shock delivery at the specified moments has not been independently confirmed.
Why These Videos Matter
Both videos document continued physical force alongside the dog's repeated avoidance behaviors, defensive responses, vocalizations, and attempts to retreat.
Some of the dog's vocalizations and snapping occur immediately following physical corrections. The interactions raise questions about whether the force was justified, whether the individual's actions intensified the dog's responses, and whether the interactions could reasonably have been stopped or safely de-escalated.
An animal showing teeth, growling, or snapping should not automatically justify additional physical force, particularly when those responses occur after punishment or while the animal is restrained and attempting to retreat.
Response From the Central New York SPCA
When I spoke with a representative of the Central New York SPCA, I was informed that the organization had received other complaints involving the same individual and dog and had seen videos of similar conduct.
The representative stated that the conduct shown in the videos they had reviewed was not considered actionable as animal cruelty.
This petition does not ask the Legislature to determine whether this individual committed a crime.
It asks for objective statutory criteria that identify when conduct constitutes unjustifiable pain or suffering, so comparable conduct can be evaluated consistently using established evidence rather than differing interpretations of acceptable treatment.
The Legislative Change We Are Requesting
We respectfully request that the New York State Legislature amend Agriculture and Markets Law §350 and related or successor provisions to establish objective statutory criteria that specify which factual findings are sufficient to determine that physical pain or suffering inflicted on an animal was unjustifiable.
1. Clearly Define Unjustifiable Conduct
The law should identify specific, objectively verifiable circumstances sufficient to establish unjustifiable pain or suffering, including:
- Lack of justification: Conduct causes pain or suffering without an identifiable circumstance that objectively justifies the particular actions taken. Having a reason to intervene with an animal does not automatically justify the specific force used.
- Excessive conduct: An intervention is warranted, but the force used causes pain or suffering that exceeds what the identifiable circumstances justify, considering its intensity, duration, repetition, or escalation.
- Unjustifiable continuation: Conduct causing pain or suffering continues, repeats, or escalates after the circumstances warranting it no longer exist, or when the interaction could reasonably have been stopped, reduced, or safely de-escalated without creating an identifiable risk of physical injury or interfering with necessary animal care.
The legislation should specify when these objectively established circumstances are sufficient to determine that pain or suffering was unjustifiable, rather than leaving that conclusion to an individual assessment of whether the treatment was acceptable.
These criteria should expressly address repeated or continued physical force despite observable suffering when no objectively supported need justifies that conduct, while preserving existing protections against other forms of cruelty.
2. Establish Objective Criteria for Evaluating Evidence
The law should require consistent evaluation of observable and verifiable evidence, including:
- The circumstances prompting the intervention.
- The specific actions taken, including their intensity, duration, and repetition.
- The animal's observable responses.
- Whether the person's actions caused or intensified those responses.
- Whether an identifiable safety or animal-care need justified the particular actions taken.
- Whether the interaction could reasonably have been stopped, reduced, or safely ended.
An animal's responses must be considered in context. Showing teeth, snapping, or otherwise responding defensively should not automatically justify the use of additional force.
Likewise, the absence of visible injuries or particular behavioral responses should not automatically establish that suffering did not occur.
The law must go beyond identifying factors to consider. It should establish which combinations of objectively verified findings are sufficient to satisfy the legal threshold for unjustifiable pain or suffering, subject to existing legal defenses.
For example, the legislation should expressly address situations in which physical force causes suffering, the animal displays observable distress, and that force continues despite the absence of an identifiable need preventing the interaction from being safely stopped or de-escalated.
3. Prevent Unsupported Claims of Justification
A stated purpose of training, discipline, punishment, or obtaining compliance should not, by itself, justify conduct causing physical pain or suffering.
The legality of a tool or piece of equipment, professional credentials, or the common acceptance of a training technique should not automatically establish that its use in a particular situation was justified.
Justification must be determined by the actual circumstances, the specific actions taken, and the resulting pain or suffering, rather than solely by the person's stated purpose or explanation.
4. Preserve Necessary Safety and Animal-Care Interventions
The law should continue to permit interventions reasonably necessary to address an identifiable risk of physical injury, provide necessary veterinary or animal care, remove an animal from danger, or safely handle and transport an animal.
However, a claimed safety or animal-care need must be supported by the circumstances and should not automatically justify the particular force used or its continuation.
The proposed changes should preserve existing legal defenses without creating broad exceptions that permit unjustifiable suffering.
Requested Legislative Action
We ask the New York State Legislature to enact objective, enforceable statutory criteria that establish when physical pain or suffering is unjustifiable, including when repeated or continued physical force or electronic shock crosses the legal threshold for animal cruelty.
These criteria must identify the factual findings sufficient to establish unjustifiable conduct, require consistent evaluation of evidence, prevent unsupported claims of justification, and preserve necessary safety and animal-care interventions.
Conduct meeting the clarified criteria must be capable of prosecution under New York law.
The changes must preserve existing protections against acts tending to produce cruelty and should not introduce additional requirements for visible injury, permanent harm, or proof of intent beyond those already applicable to an offense.
The Legislature should define the objective criteria, while courts retain responsibility for determining whether those criteria have been met in individual cases.
Statement of Support
By signing this petition, I support amending New York's animal cruelty laws to establish objective, evidence-based statutory criteria that define the circumstances under which physical pain or suffering inflicted on an animal is unjustifiable.
Please sign and share this petition to urge New York lawmakers to establish objective, enforceable criteria for animal cruelty.
230
The Issue
Petition to the New York State Legislature
Why This Change Is Needed
When does physical punishment of an animal cross the line into animal cruelty?
New York Agriculture and Markets Law §350 defines animal cruelty to include conduct whereby “unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted.” Section 353 prohibits specified acts of cruelty, including acts tending to produce cruelty.
However, the law does not establish detailed statutory criteria for determining when physical pain or suffering inflicted on an animal is justifiable or unjustifiable.
We are asking New York State to establish objective, evidence-based statutory criteria that identify the specific circumstances under which conduct constitutes unjustifiable pain or suffering, rather than leaving that determination primarily dependent on subjective interpretations of acceptable animal treatment.
The Incident That Prompted This Petition
This petition was prompted by two videos involving an individual and a dog that were reported to the Central New York SPCA. Both videos were preserved through screen recordings of footage originally published on the individual's YouTube channel before the channel was deleted.
The videos show an individual approaching a dog in possession of a bone. The dog displays warning and avoidance behaviors, including freezing, averting her gaze, growling, and attempting to move away. The interactions escalate as the individual continues using physical corrections.
Evidence Video 1: Repeated Physical and Verbal Corrections
Video duration: 2 minutes, 43 seconds
Watch Evidence Video 1 in a larger view on YouTube
The documented corrections occur over approximately 1 minute and 53 seconds (00:14–02:07).
Documented Corrections
- 37 body-displacing leash jerks
- 24 physical corrections to the nose/muzzle, varying in intensity
- 1 backhanded strike to the head
- 1 strike to the hindquarters
- 43 verbal corrections
Total: 106 documented correction actions, including 63 physical corrections.
Every documented leash jerk physically moves the dog's body rather than simply applying leash tension.
The Dog's Responses
Throughout the interaction, the dog repeatedly shifts her weight backward, leans away, turns her head and body away, averts her gaze, licks her lips, holds her ears back, and tucks her tail. She also freezes, shows her teeth, growls, snaps, vocalizes, and attempts to retreat while restrained by the leash or positioned against the couch.
These behaviors occur repeatedly as the individual continues delivering physical and verbal corrections.
Evidence Video 2: Repeated Physical Corrections and Apparent Electronic Shock
Video duration: approximately 1 minute, 7 seconds
Watch Evidence Video 2 in a larger view on YouTube
Documented Corrections
- 15 body-displacing leash corrections
- 3 physical corrections to the face
- 17 verbal corrections
- 2 episodes of screaming associated with apparent electronic shock
Total: 35 documented physical and verbal corrections, including 18 physical corrections, plus 2 episodes of apparent electronic shock.
During several leash corrections, the individual pulls upward on the leash, lifting the dog's front legs off the ground.
A shock collar remote is visible in the individual's hand during portions of the interaction. At approximately 00:30 and 00:47, the dog screams or yelps and attempts to escape during apparent electronic shock use. Delivery of electronic shock at those specific moments has not been independently confirmed.
The Dog's Responses
Throughout the interaction, the dog repeatedly shifts her weight backward, leans away from the individual, lowers and turns her head, averts her gaze, licks her lips, holds her ears back, and tucks her tail.
She also shows her teeth, snaps, vocalizes, and repeatedly attempts to escape while restrained by the short leash. At several points, upward leash tension lifts her front legs off the ground, restricting her ability to move away.
These behaviors occur repeatedly as the individual continues delivering physical and verbal corrections.
The correction totals are based on detailed timestamped observations. Electronic shock delivery at the specified moments has not been independently confirmed.
Why These Videos Matter
Both videos document continued physical force alongside the dog's repeated avoidance behaviors, defensive responses, vocalizations, and attempts to retreat.
Some of the dog's vocalizations and snapping occur immediately following physical corrections. The interactions raise questions about whether the force was justified, whether the individual's actions intensified the dog's responses, and whether the interactions could reasonably have been stopped or safely de-escalated.
An animal showing teeth, growling, or snapping should not automatically justify additional physical force, particularly when those responses occur after punishment or while the animal is restrained and attempting to retreat.
Response From the Central New York SPCA
When I spoke with a representative of the Central New York SPCA, I was informed that the organization had received other complaints involving the same individual and dog and had seen videos of similar conduct.
The representative stated that the conduct shown in the videos they had reviewed was not considered actionable as animal cruelty.
This petition does not ask the Legislature to determine whether this individual committed a crime.
It asks for objective statutory criteria that identify when conduct constitutes unjustifiable pain or suffering, so comparable conduct can be evaluated consistently using established evidence rather than differing interpretations of acceptable treatment.
The Legislative Change We Are Requesting
We respectfully request that the New York State Legislature amend Agriculture and Markets Law §350 and related or successor provisions to establish objective statutory criteria that specify which factual findings are sufficient to determine that physical pain or suffering inflicted on an animal was unjustifiable.
1. Clearly Define Unjustifiable Conduct
The law should identify specific, objectively verifiable circumstances sufficient to establish unjustifiable pain or suffering, including:
- Lack of justification: Conduct causes pain or suffering without an identifiable circumstance that objectively justifies the particular actions taken. Having a reason to intervene with an animal does not automatically justify the specific force used.
- Excessive conduct: An intervention is warranted, but the force used causes pain or suffering that exceeds what the identifiable circumstances justify, considering its intensity, duration, repetition, or escalation.
- Unjustifiable continuation: Conduct causing pain or suffering continues, repeats, or escalates after the circumstances warranting it no longer exist, or when the interaction could reasonably have been stopped, reduced, or safely de-escalated without creating an identifiable risk of physical injury or interfering with necessary animal care.
The legislation should specify when these objectively established circumstances are sufficient to determine that pain or suffering was unjustifiable, rather than leaving that conclusion to an individual assessment of whether the treatment was acceptable.
These criteria should expressly address repeated or continued physical force despite observable suffering when no objectively supported need justifies that conduct, while preserving existing protections against other forms of cruelty.
2. Establish Objective Criteria for Evaluating Evidence
The law should require consistent evaluation of observable and verifiable evidence, including:
- The circumstances prompting the intervention.
- The specific actions taken, including their intensity, duration, and repetition.
- The animal's observable responses.
- Whether the person's actions caused or intensified those responses.
- Whether an identifiable safety or animal-care need justified the particular actions taken.
- Whether the interaction could reasonably have been stopped, reduced, or safely ended.
An animal's responses must be considered in context. Showing teeth, snapping, or otherwise responding defensively should not automatically justify the use of additional force.
Likewise, the absence of visible injuries or particular behavioral responses should not automatically establish that suffering did not occur.
The law must go beyond identifying factors to consider. It should establish which combinations of objectively verified findings are sufficient to satisfy the legal threshold for unjustifiable pain or suffering, subject to existing legal defenses.
For example, the legislation should expressly address situations in which physical force causes suffering, the animal displays observable distress, and that force continues despite the absence of an identifiable need preventing the interaction from being safely stopped or de-escalated.
3. Prevent Unsupported Claims of Justification
A stated purpose of training, discipline, punishment, or obtaining compliance should not, by itself, justify conduct causing physical pain or suffering.
The legality of a tool or piece of equipment, professional credentials, or the common acceptance of a training technique should not automatically establish that its use in a particular situation was justified.
Justification must be determined by the actual circumstances, the specific actions taken, and the resulting pain or suffering, rather than solely by the person's stated purpose or explanation.
4. Preserve Necessary Safety and Animal-Care Interventions
The law should continue to permit interventions reasonably necessary to address an identifiable risk of physical injury, provide necessary veterinary or animal care, remove an animal from danger, or safely handle and transport an animal.
However, a claimed safety or animal-care need must be supported by the circumstances and should not automatically justify the particular force used or its continuation.
The proposed changes should preserve existing legal defenses without creating broad exceptions that permit unjustifiable suffering.
Requested Legislative Action
We ask the New York State Legislature to enact objective, enforceable statutory criteria that establish when physical pain or suffering is unjustifiable, including when repeated or continued physical force or electronic shock crosses the legal threshold for animal cruelty.
These criteria must identify the factual findings sufficient to establish unjustifiable conduct, require consistent evaluation of evidence, prevent unsupported claims of justification, and preserve necessary safety and animal-care interventions.
Conduct meeting the clarified criteria must be capable of prosecution under New York law.
The changes must preserve existing protections against acts tending to produce cruelty and should not introduce additional requirements for visible injury, permanent harm, or proof of intent beyond those already applicable to an offense.
The Legislature should define the objective criteria, while courts retain responsibility for determining whether those criteria have been met in individual cases.
Statement of Support
By signing this petition, I support amending New York's animal cruelty laws to establish objective, evidence-based statutory criteria that define the circumstances under which physical pain or suffering inflicted on an animal is unjustifiable.
Please sign and share this petition to urge New York lawmakers to establish objective, enforceable criteria for animal cruelty.
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on October 26, 2026