Petition to the New York State Legislature:

Animal cruelty should never be tolerated. But responsible animal training should not be criminalized through poorly defined legislation.

These objectives are not mutually exclusive.

A recent Change.org petition, “Establish Objective Criteria for Animal Cruelty in New York,” calls for amendments to New York's animal cruelty laws that could have far-reaching consequences for dog owners, professional trainers, and other animal care professionals.

Although its stated objective of protecting animals is commendable, the proposed framework raises serious concerns about how legitimate animal training could be distinguished from criminal abuse.

New York Law already defines animal cruelty to include unjustifiable physical pain and suffering (§350) and establishes criminal penalties for prohibited acts of cruelty (§353).

The question is not whether animals deserve legal protection. They unquestionably do.

The question is whether the proposed legal standards would accurately distinguish unjustifiable suffering from legitimate, proportionate training and handling.

We believe the existing petition's proposed criteria require substantial revision before they should form any basis for legislation. And we oppose legislation that fails to adequately distinguish between these fundamentally different circumstances.

1. Animal Welfare Requires Deep Understanding, Not Simplified Behavioral Assumptions

Dogs communicate through complex combinations of posture, movement, vocalization, avoidance, approach, and physiological responses. Behaviors such as lip licking, lowered posture, retreating, vocalizing, freezing, and other displacement or avoidance responses can provide important information about an animal's emotional and physiological state.

However, these behaviors do not possess a single, universally applicable interpretation.

Their significance depends on the animal's history, the environment, the circumstances preceding the behavior, and the broader interaction in which they occur.

Conversely, the absence of conspicuous distress or physical injury does not establish that an animal has been treated humanely. Legislation must recognize both principles.

The original petition correctly acknowledges that an animal's responses must be considered in context. Our concern is not with this principle, but with the proposal to establish predetermined combinations of observable findings as "sufficient" to establish unjustifiable suffering, without clearly defining how the broader behavioral context would be weighed in making that determination.

Observable distress, correction counts, and intervention duration may constitute important evidence, but they cannot independently establish whether an intervention was unreasonable, disproportionate, or legally unjustifiable.

An objective observation is not an objective legal conclusion.

Animal welfare legislation must evaluate the totality of the circumstances rather than rely on isolated behavioral indicators as substitutes for a comprehensive welfare assessment. It cannot reduce complex behavioral assessments to predetermined legal presumptions.

2. Aversives In Training and Animal Cruelty Are Not Synonymous

Animal learning is influenced by several factors, including but not limited to: genetics, environment, reinforcement, punishment, motivation, contingencies, etc. 

Similarly, animal training can involve a multitude of different approaches, tools, and methodologies. Aversive interventions also vary substantially in their application, intensity, duration, purpose, and welfare implications.

These differences matter.

Research has identified meaningful welfare risks associated with the use of aversives. Those findings deserve serious consideration and should inform responsible professional practice.

Nevertheless, establishing that a training method carries risks is not the same as establishing that every application of that method constitutes criminal cruelty. The presence of a particular training tool, correction, or behavioral response cannot independently determine whether an individual act was justified.

Training is not a blanket defense against cruelty. But the presence of an aversive or specific behavioral response should not, without an adequate contextual assessment, become a presumption of criminal abuse.

The law must be capable of recognizing this distinction.

3. Legitimate Training Is Not Limited to Immediate Emergencies

The original petition emphasizes identifiable physical safety risks and necessary animal care when evaluating whether continued intervention is justified. These considerations are important, but they cannot represent the entire range of legitimate behavioral objectives.

Training frequently addresses long-term safety, behavioral reliability, impulse control, and the prevention of foreseeable risks. A dog does not need to be actively running into traffic for reliable obedience around roads to serve a legitimate safety purpose.

This does not mean that every training objective justifies the use of physical force. The intervention itself must still be reasonable, proportionate, and evaluated for its welfare consequences.

However, the absence of an immediate emergency should not automatically eliminate the possibility of a legitimate training justification.

Legislation must recognize the difference between an unnecessary intervention and one serving a legitimate behavioral objective.

4. Objective Evidence Must Not Become Oversimplified Legal Presumptions

The original petition seeks a combination of observable findings to be sufficient for establishing unjustifiable suffering.

Consistency in enforcement is desirable. However, legal standards must distinguish between objectively documenting conduct and determining its legal significance.

The number of corrections, an animal's visible reactions, and the duration of an interaction are measurable observations. They are not, however, complete assessments of necessity, proportionality, behavioral function, or welfare consequences on their own.

Repeated or escalating force, particularly when an animal attempts to escape, can provide compelling evidence warranting investigation. But whether such intervention was unjustifiable should not overlook the complexities of animal behavior and learning.

The law must consistently require a comprehensive evaluation of what happened, the circumstances that prompted the intervention, the animal's relevant learning & behavioral history, the proportionality of the actions taken, and whether any suffering was justifiable.

Observable distress should constitute relevant evidence, but it cannot independently determine criminal liability.

5. Animal Welfare Legislation Must Be Developed Through Qualified, Independent Review

Laws governing animal behavior and training should be grounded in multidisciplinary expertise, scientific evidence, and clear legal principles.

They should not be shaped primarily by public outrage surrounding an individual case or disagreement between training philosophies.

We therefore call upon New York legislators to:

1. Reject adoption of the framework proposed in “Establish Objective Criteria for Animal Cruelty in New York”  without independent, multi-disciplinary review and safeguards addressing behavioral context, proportionality, and due process.
2. Require contextual assessments of animal welfare, including the intensity, duration, proportionality, and cumulative effects of interventions.
3. Explicitly distinguish legitimate training objectives from unjustifiable physical punishment, without creating exemptions for abusive conduct.
4. Ensure that observable distress, correction counts, or equipment use are not treated as independently conclusive evidence of animal cruelty.
5. Convene an independent panel of veterinary behaviorists, animal learning researchers, qualified trainers representing different methodologies, animal welfare experts, humane law enforcement, and legal professionals.
6. Preserve clear legal definitions, due process, and meaningful enforcement against genuine animal cruelty.

Our Position

Protecting animals and protecting responsible animal professionals are not competing objectives. They go hand in hand.

We support strong animal cruelty laws. We support accountability for abusive treatment. We support holding trainers to high standards of animal welfare.

What we oppose is legislation that risks replacing careful, contextual judgment with overly broad or insufficiently defined legal standards.

An individual can condemn a particular trainer's actions without endorsing legislation that may affect thousands of other professionals and dog owners.

This issue must be evaluated independently of any individual controversy.

We are not asking New York to weaken animal cruelty laws. We are asking lawmakers to make them scientifically defensible, legally precise, and genuinely effective at protecting animals.

By signing this petition, you are calling on the New York State Legislature to protect animals from unjustifiable suffering while ensuring responsible training and handling are not criminalized through ambiguous or oversimplified standards.

Protect dogs. Demand responsible legislation.