Barks Blog

by Niki Tudge

Evaluating Current Legislation, Systemic Loopholes, and the Risks of Premature Oversight

The pet industry landscape for legislation and tool use is very complicated, with many differing opinions on the approach needed to help shape the industry’s future around science, kindness, and oversight.

When we set out to write our first book, Pet Training and Behavior Consulting: A Model for Raising the Bar to Protect Professionals, Pets, and Their People, several years ago, it began as a simple position statement on dog training oversight. But as we dug deeper, we realized we were staring at a Gordian knot- a complex web of interconnected issues- surrounding aversive training tools, philosophical approaches, and the fundamental absence of industry regulation. Edition Two (contributed to by Niki Tudge, Debra Millikan, and Louise Stapleton-Frappell) was published in March 2025 and was retitled Occupational Licensing for Pet Trainers and Behavior Consultants. How To Implement Accountability That Considers Consumer Transparency and Protection for Pets & Their People.

Regardless of opinions about approach and process, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a fundamental difference between advocating to ban aversive tools, methodologies, and approaches, and implementing formal industry legislation and oversight. Thus, the Gordian knot analogy.

Legislative Reform Through Four Lenses

Wanting to ban harmful equipment is a moral and welfare goal—an immediate response to clear evidence of psychological and physical harm caused by coercive methods. Legislative oversight, however, is a complex, structural process.

Passing a law doesn’t automatically create the administrative infrastructure, educational baselines, or enforcement mechanisms needed to monitor a profession.

When we conflate the desire to ban tools with the capacity to govern an industry, we risk pushing for top-down mandates before the legal, educational, and consumer protection frameworks are in place to support them. Banning a tool is a single outcome; effective legislation is the ecosystem that makes that outcome enforceable, sustainable, and legally sound.

Legislating the pet training and care industry is a complex topic, and to move forward, we must examine reform through four distinct lenses:

1. Industry Consensus and Professional Standards:

Before we can ask lawmakers to regulate our field, the force-free community must stand united around foundational concepts. We need to define precisely what constitutes designation as a pet trainer, behavior consultant, groomer, or pet care provider (any professional who serves a pet guardian with pet-related services). Just as many professions have established clear educational baselines and licensing boards, we must define the required scientific knowledge and practical skill sets for pet professionals—whether that competency is built on degree-level education, polytechnic routes, or verified career programs. This process is similar to the one used to develop the accreditation levels via the Pet Professional Accreditation Board. Developing independent credentials is costly but worthwhile for defining and developing the credentialing requirements that will underpin all other oversight goals.

2. Consumer Transparency, Fraudulent Marketing and Public Safety:

Framing reform around consumer protection and public safety is our strongest argument for lawmakers.

Every constituent deserves to know that their family, children, and pets are safe. Because aggression and danger often stem from exposure to punitive methods—where knowledge ends, violence begins—promoting humane training, care, and management directly protects communities. Furthermore, curbing scientifically unfounded claims and fraudulent pet business practices under existing consumer protection laws, alongside strengthening state animal cruelty statutes, offers an immediate, high-impact path toward banning aversive equipment and methods.

Strong consumer protection laws do far more than penalize fraudulent business practices—they serve as a powerful engine for public education. When transparency becomes the legal standard, pet guardians are empowered to recognize the difference between evidence-based, force-free care and coercive, high-risk training methods. As guardians begin to understand what true well-being looks like, their perspective naturally shifts: they stop viewing pets as mere property or functional assets and start treating them as sentient family members whose emotional and physical health matters.

This cultural shift creates powerful market demand.

Educated, discerning consumers begin demanding higher welfare standards across all pet care sectors, effectively starving punitive and misleading practices out of the marketplace. By raising the bar through consumer protection, we don’t just rely on top-down regulations; we mobilize pet guardians themselves to demand a standard of care that prioritizes well-being and treating pets as more than just property!

3. Animal Well-Being and Welfare:

To build a meaningful framework for legislative oversight, we must first establish a firm legal foundation rooted in modern animal welfare science. Currently, animal cruelty laws in many jurisdictions are far too narrow, often reacting only to severe physical neglect or active abuse while ignoring the psychological and emotional harm caused by punitive training tools and coercive methods.

Real reform requires us to strengthen these statutes by embedding globally recognized welfare standards—specifically the Five Freedoms and the expanded Five Domains model—directly into law. By legally recognizing that true well-being requires positive physical, environmental, and mental states, we create an enforceable standard of care. Strengthening animal welfare and cruelty laws isn’t just an ethical imperative; it provides the essential legal baseline required before we can effectively introduce formal licensing, ban aversive equipment, and hold pet professionals accountable to the communities they serve.

4. Formal Legislative Oversight and Licensing:

Mandating state licensing and regulatory oversight is a vital final step. However, it can only succeed once we have established professional standards and leveraged consumer protection laws. 

While the urge to pass sweeping legislation and mandatory licensing is understandable, rushing into the legislative arena before establishing industry standards and legal baselines is a dangerous strategy. When lawmakers step into a vacuum without a clear, unified definition of force-free professional standards, the resulting statutes are often crafted by political compromise, heavy-handed lobbying, and deeply flawed assumptions about animal behavior. In short: if we rush legislation, we may end up terrified of the law we actually get—one that codifies outdated practices and protects bad actors through broad exemptions.

Licensing is also associated with industry restrictions for those practicing. A report prepared by the Department of the Treasury Office of Economic Policy, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Department of Labor (2015) suggests that occupational licensing encourages individuals to professionalize and creates career pathways, incorporating education and skill training requirements. However, a review of the literature and research in the same report shows, in fact, that the opposite may occur, and that occupational licensing may increase overheads, accelerate a decline in innovation and research and restrict worker mobility across state lines.

Crucially, once a flawed law is written into state code, reforming or repealing it is an uphill battle that can take decades fraught with legal and political gridlock. Taking the time to build a strong foundation through professional consensus, modernized welfare definitions, and consumer protection laws isn’t about slowing down reform; it’s about ensuring that when legislation finally passes, it actually protects pets, consumers, and the integrity of our profession.

Shaping a Sustainable Industry

In this first installment, we examine where dog training legislation stands today. We will map out current state-level bills moving through state houses, analyze the specific exemptions and grandfathering clauses written into these proposals, and break down why these concessions often undermine the very protection they aim to create.

​In Part Two, we will explore what a practical process for building industry consensus and professional standards actually looks like on the ground. We will examine the critical importance of consumer transparency and detail the vital role each of us plays in ensuring that pet industry marketing is clear, ethical, and honest—equipping advocates with the tools to spot and expose fraudulent business practices. Furthermore, we will break down how modernizing animal welfare, well-being, and cruelty laws creates the indispensable foundation for effective regulation. Finally, we will provide a comprehensive model and strategic plan for what we believe fair, enforceable, and force-free legislative oversight and licensing should look like.

Ethical Pet Industry Practices

Our aforementioned book, Occupational Licensing for Pet Trainers and Behavior Consultants, is a comprehensive exploration of several topics that, when combined, establish the conditions for ensuring ethical and honest practices across the pet industry. If you want a FREE copy of this book, please click here and use code Industry2026. The book contains what we believe is the outline for a model most appropriate for industry oversight.

However, I will add that we don’t believe we are quite ready for oversight and legislation at this time. The industry cannot yet agree on what a dog trainer or behavior consultant is and what knowledge and skills they should possess. Nor has there ever been a definitive agreement on pet care service providers and the skill and knowledge they should possess. Without this consensus, how can we create oversight models and support legislation? What exactly are we overseeing and to what standard?

In the book, we emphasize the lack of consumer protection and transparency in the marketing and operations platforms of many pet service businesses. We also address the inherent challenges of legally classifying pets and the lack of reported and enforced animal cruelty laws.

These issues mean there is insufficient protection for pets and their guardians, and professionals are not held accountable for their marketing, methodology, approach, and philosophy. 

Our exploration delves into examples of fraudulent marketing and illegal practices from pet industry players, comparing these to other industries where legal action has been sought and won. This comparison aims to prevent statements and unfounded guarantees that deceive pet guardians and set up dangerous situations for two-legged and four-legged clients alike. 

Pet Industry Legislation – Where Are We?

What Legislation Has Been Introduced?

During the 2025–2026 legislative session, a few key states have actively introduced, debated, or advanced legislation aiming to regulate the dog training and behavior industry.*

The most prominent state-level bills moving through committees or receiving hearings focus heavily on mandating non-aversive/positive-reinforcement methods and establishing state regulatory boards.

1. New Jersey: Senate Bill 3814 (Active 2025–2026)

New Jersey remains the primary battleground state for mandatory dog trainer licensing.

• The Bill: NJ S3814 establishes a formal Dog Training Licensing Board under the Division of Consumer Affairs.
• Key Provisions: The bill mandates that the board create an evidence-based, humane code of practice that precludes the use of aversive training methods (specifically defining them as devices, tools, or practices that deliberately cause pain, injury, or distress). It features a one-year grandfather clause for existing trainers.
• Status: It was referred to the Senate Economic Growth Committee. It has faced intense pushback from “balanced” trainers, sporting groups, and working dog organizations, but it remains an active topic of discussion in their legislative cycle.

2. New York: Senate Bill S7723 / Assembly Bill A6985 (Active 2025–2026)

New York has introduced a dual-track licensing push targeting basic obedience and canine training.

• The Bill: NY S7723 / A6985 directs the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets to create official licensing and educational standards for individuals providing training to non-service and non-police dogs.
• Key Provisions: Similar to New Jersey, the language explicitly requires that these state-mandated standards utilize “non-aversive, evidence-based, and positive reinforcement techniques.” It also bars anyone with past animal cruelty convictions from holding a license.
• Status: The state’s legislative landscape is split. While the Senate version (S7723) remains active and sitting in the Senate Agriculture Committee, the companion Assembly bill (A6985) was officially stricken from consideration on February 20, 2026. This indicates that while the Senate is keeping the conversation alive, it is facing heavy friction on the Assembly floor.

3. Massachusetts: House Bill 2342 / Senate Bill 1459 (Active 2025–2026)

While Massachusetts has not filed a blanket “all trainers must be licensed by the state” bill, it is moving toward votes on legislation that codifies and restricts which training methodologies can legally be used in specific behavioral scenarios.

• The Bill: HB 2342 / SB 1459 addresses dangerous and vicious dog protocols.
• Key Provisions: If a dog is deemed dangerous, the law requires the owner to work with a professional (trainer or behaviorist) to develop a behavior modification plan. Crucially, the bill mandates that the professional solely employ evidence-based positive training techniques that do not cause pain, fear, or anxiety, and explicitly bans the use of prong or choke collars for these cases.
• Status: This bill is moving closer to a floor vote than many others. Despite pushback from working dog communities, HB 2342 was reported favorably out of committee and was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, where it is currently pending final review before moving forward.

*Please note this information is current as of time of writing.

Key Takeaway on Current Momentum

Legislators across these states are facing highly organized opposition from trade groups like the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) and the American Kennel Club (AKC). Because of this fierce division over “methodology” and “tool bans,” lawmakers are finding it incredibly difficult to push these bills all the way to a governor’s desk. They tend to stall in committee because defining what makes someone a “good” or “bad” trainer via state statute is a political minefield. This correlates directly back to lens #1, Industry Consensus and Professional Standards, and the need to define this foundation to support and accommodate lawmakers, future oversight, and legislation.

State Exemptions & Grandfathering

Each of these three states handles exemptions, grandfathering, and the scope of who is impacted, differently. Because putting people out of business or interfering with government operations is a legislative nonstarter, the bills use very specific carve-outs to protect certain groups.

1. New Jersey (Senate Bill 3814)

New Jersey’s bill contains the most traditional “grandfather clause” and explicit professional exemptions to avoid disrupting existing businesses and public safety operations.

• The One-Year Grandfather Clause: To protect current small business owners from being suddenly disenfranchised, the bill includes a direct exemption from the new educational and experiential licensing requirements for anyone who can prove they have continuously provided dog training services in the state for at least one year prior to the bill taking effect.
• Government & Law Enforcement Exemption: The licensing requirements explicitly do not apply to anyone training police dogs or dogs intended for use by federal or state agencies to protect the public.
• The Board Composition (Built-in Representation): When the board is first created, the bill mandates that the first two dog trainers appointed to the seven-member regulatory board must be from businesses that have operated in New Jersey for at least one year, ensuring current traditional operators have a legal voice in shaping the initial rules.

2. New York (Senate Bill S7723)

New York avoids a lot of legal friction by strictly limiting the types of dogs—and therefore the types of trainers—that fall under the law’s jurisdiction.

• Service & Police Dog Exemption: The proposed educational and licensing standards explicitly apply only to those providing basic obedience to non-service and non-police dogs. If you train guide dogs, mobility assistance dogs, or working K9s for law enforcement, you are entirely exempt from this framework.
• The “Anti-Exemption” (Animal Cruelty Restriction): While the bill seeks to regulate the industry gently, it features a strict barrier for entry: absolutely no grandfathering or licensing is permitted for any individual who has a past conviction on their record for animal cruelty or animal fighting violations.

3. Massachusetts (House Bill 2342)

Massachusetts handles things entirely differently because HB 2342 is not a general business licensing bill—it is a public safety and animal control mandate. Because of this, it does not feature a standard business grandfather clause.

• Trigger-Based Scope (The Ultimate Exemption): If you are a standard dog trainer teaching puppy socialization, agility, or basic household manners, this law does not apply to you or your business at all. The law is strictly triggered only when a local municipality officially deems a specific dog “dangerous” (typically after a formal complaint where a dog bit and broke the skin of a human or domestic animal).
• No Grandfathering for Aversives: If a trainer chooses to take on one of these legally designated “dangerous dog” cases, there are zero exemptions regarding methodology. The bill strictly mandates that the behavior modification plan must exclusively use techniques that do not cause pain, fear, or anxiety, and explicitly bans choke, prong, or electronic collars.
• The Educational Mandate: Rather than checking for a state license, the state defers to major behavioral organizations. Anyone working on these cases—whether a veterinarian, behaviorist, or trainer—must employ methods that adhere to the scientific principles of the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) and the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB).

Summary of the Strategies

• New Jersey aims to protect constituents by saying: “If you’ve been a trainer here for a year, you can keep training, but new people have to meet the new standard.”
• New York aims to protect constituents by saying: “We are only looking at everyday pet obedience; working and service dog trainers are completely untouched.”
• Massachusetts aims to protect constituents by saying: “Your day-to-day business is untouched, but if you take a court-ordered dangerous dog case, you must follow strict scientific, non-aversive protocols.”

Why Exemption and Grandfathering Clauses Are Harmful

Grandfathering

The introduction of grandfather clauses into dog training legislation presents a profound ethical and systemic dilemma for the force-free and science-based community. While grandfathering is a pragmatic tool used by legislators to avoid economic displacement and legal challenges, its inclusion in animal welfare legislation introduces several deeply problematic concerns.

Here is a breakdown of why grandfathering outdated, punitive methods into law is so troubling to the force-free and animal welfare communities:

1. The Institutional Legitimization of Harm

The core goal of licensing legislation supported by the force-free community is to establish a modern standard of safety that protects animals from psychological and physical trauma. When a bill includes a grandfather clause that permits existing trainers to bypass new humane standards, the state effectively legitimizes the continued use of aversive methods.

By granting a state license to a trainer utilizing high-force techniques—simply because they have been in business for a set period—the government stamps its approval on practices that modern behavioral science has explicitly condemned as harmful. This creates a confusing and dangerous double standard for consumers, who naturally trust that a state-licensed professional practices safe, humane methods.

2. Prioritizing Human Commerce Over Animal Welfare

To the force-free community, the “First, Do No Harm” ethic should be nonnegotiable when dealing with sentient beings. Grandfather clauses fundamentally flip this priority by placing a human’s historical economic right to operate a business above the immediate physical and psychological safety of the animals in their care.

Unlike other professions where grandfathering poses minimal risk, dog training involves vulnerable animals who cannot advocate for themselves. Allowing an uncredentialed, punitive trainer to keep operating under a state banner means a generation of dogs will continue to subjectively experience fear, pain, and anxiety under the “protection” of the law.

3. Undermining Public Safety and Consumer Protection

One of the most significant behavioral concerns with punitive training is the high risk of fallout—specifically, suppressed behavior that later manifests as aggression. When the law grandfathers in trainers who rely on intimidation or pain-inducing tools, it will directly undermine the public safety goals the legislation was meant to achieve.

Furthermore, consumers seeking professional help for a reactive or fearful dog may unknowingly hire a grandfathered trainer, assuming the new law protects them from outdated practices. If that training results in severe behavioral deterioration or fallout, the consumer is left without recourse, and the community is left with a more dangerous animal.

4. The Structural Paradox: Diluting the Enforceability of the Law

From a purely operational standpoint, grandfathering complicates the long-term enforcement of a progressive animal welfare law.

• Enforcement Blind Spots: If a state licensing board receives an abuse complaint about a trainer using an electronic or prong collar, but that trainer is legally grandfathered under an older operational framework, the board’s hands are politically and legally tied.
• Slowing the Evolution of the Industry: Grandfathering allows outdated practices to be prolonged for decades. Rather than driving an immediate industry-wide shift toward modern learning theory, it creates a slow, generational attrition, leaving dogs exposed to harmful techniques for the duration of those trainers’ careers.

The Force-Free Consensus: While the political reality of grandfathering is understood as a necessary evil to get bills introduced, it represents a deep moral compromise. To the force-free community, an exemption that permits the continuation of harmful practices directly contradicts the scientific and ethical progress the profession has worked for and desperately needs.

Military, Police Dog & Service Animal Exemptions

The legal exemption of police, military, and service dog trainers from humane, force-free legislation presents an equally profound contradiction for the science-based behavior community. While these carve-outs are designed by lawmakers to preserve national security and public safety frameworks, their inclusion introduces critical systemic concerns.

Here is a breakdown of why exempting state-sanctioned, punitive working dog training is so deeply problematic to the force-free community:

1. The Institutional Validation of Aversive Methods

The primary goal of force-free legislative advocacy is to establish that pain, fear, and coercion are scientifically unnecessary and ethically unacceptable tools for changing behavior. When a government explicitly exempts its own canine assets from these protections, the state sends a powerful message that aversive tools are a functional necessity for high-stakes work. This implicit endorsement provides traditional trainers and the public with a convenient rhetorical shield, allowing them to argue that if a shock or prong collar is required to ensure a police dog performs in a crisis, it must be the most effective way to manage a powerful pet.

2. Compromising Public Safety Through Behavioral Fallout

Applied behavior science demonstrates that a dog’s learning mechanisms and nervous system do not alter based on the uniform the handler wears. Relying on punitive stimuli introduces an inherent risk of behavioral fallout, including heightened baseline anxiety, defensive reactivity, and sudden behavioral shutdown. For a working dog operating in highly volatile, unpredictable public settings, these side effects are incredibly dangerous. By legally protecting outdated, high-force training methodologies under the guise of tactical necessity, the state risks deploying animals who are more unstable and prone to unpredictable aggression, thereby compromising public safety rather than enhancing it.

3. Creating a Lower Standard of Welfare for High-Risk Animals

To the force-free community, an animal’s vulnerability and exposure to stress should dictate a higher standard of ethical care, not a lower one. Police and military dogs are routinely subjected to traumatic, high-stress environments that test the limits of their resilience. Denying these animals the protections of modern, force-free, and low-stress handling guidelines effectively codifies a lesser standard of welfare for the very dogs facing the highest risk of occupational trauma. This creates a heartbreaking paradox where the state’s most dedicated canine civil servants are legally barred from the compassionate care mandated for the average household pet.

4. The Structural Paradox: Undermining the Legal Integrity of the Legislation

From an enforcement and policy standpoint, shielding government entities completely dilutes the authority of the law.

• Eviscerating the “Science-Based” Argument: When advocates lobby for licensing, they present a mountain of peer-reviewed data proving that positive reinforcement builds more reliable, resilient behavior. By allowing a military or law enforcement exemption, legislators essentially signal that they only believe the science applies when the stakes are low—fundamentally undermining the baseline argument for the entire bill.
• Avenues for Professional Loopholes: In practical application, broad exemptions for “military and police trainers” can create regulatory blind spots. Private security companies, contract tactical trainers, or retired service personnel transitioning into the private sector can exploit these definitions, complicating enforcement for state licensing boards tasked with overseeing the industry.

The Force-Free Consensus: While the political weight of law enforcement lobbies makes these exemptions incredibly common, they represent a significant moral and scientific compromise. To the force-free community, a law cannot truly claim to prioritize animal welfare or public safety if it willfully excludes the state’s own animals or service animals from the protections of modern behavioral science.

How Do PPG’s Positions Currently Impact Legislators?

The Pet Professional Guild (PPG) currently influences legislative bills by acting as both a scientific blueprint and grassroots engine for lawmakers pushing for a force-free, modern standard of pet care. Because government bodies rarely have in-house professional experts, they often rely on established organizations to define what “competency” and “humane care” look like on paper.

PPG actively shapes and moves the needle on these specific bills in a few distinct ways:

1. Handing Lawmakers the Technical Language (Position Statements)

When a legislator drafts a bill like New Jersey’s S3814 or New York’s S7723 and includes phrases like “precludes the use of aversive training methods,” they didn’t invent that language out of thin air. They pull directly from peer-reviewed behavioral science and the comprehensive Position Statements published by PPG.

• PPG’s formal documentation against the use of shock, prong, and choke collars gives lawmakers the precise legal definitions and empirical data they need to justify a non-aversive mandate to their legislative committees.
• PPG documentation and position statements were key in the recent Shock Collar lawsuit in California. While $1.9 million is a settlement, rather than a direct court-ordered ban, it establishes a massive financial risk for manufacturers selling aversive devices. When marketing an electric shock device as “harmless” or “safe” exposes a corporation to multi-million-dollar class actions, marketing departments are forced to reconsider how—or if—they can promote those products. The lawsuit did not try to convince a judge to ban shock collars under vague ethics or emotional appeals. Instead, it attacked the issue through consumer protection laws, false advertising, and unfair trade practices.

2. Providing a Ready-Made Alternative (PPAB Accreditation)

Two of the biggest arguments opponents use against licensing is: “You can’t prove positive reinforcement works for severe behavior cases, and there’s no objective way to test a trainer’s skills.”

• PPG counters this narrative through the Pet Professional Accreditation Board (PPAB). By offering independent, multitiered credentials (like the CTT-A, PCT-A, and PCBC-A, and for felines, the PFT-A and PFBC-A) that require rigorous academic testing, case studies, and live video skill assessments, PPG provides a real-world proof of concept.
• Lawmakers can look at the PPAB framework and see that a strict, verifiable, and non-aversive testing standard for both knowledge and skills already exists and can be easily adapted into state licensing requirements.

3. Serving as Expert Witnesses

When a bill goes to a committee hearing, legislators invite stakeholders to testify. Prominent industry leaders can function as key institutional authorities.

The Big Picture: Without organizations like PPG providing an organized, science-backed framework, legislators trying to regulate the industry would hear only from traditional trade groups or the sporting dog lobby. PPG gives lawmakers the political and scientific cover they need to say, “Modern, humane standards are measurable, practical, and backed by the industry’s top professionals.”

4. Passionate Membership Body: A passionate membership body like the Pet Professional Guild (PPG) can support legislation and oversight by serving as a unified voice, educational authority, and policy driver for humane, science-based pet care standards. In particular, they can monitor legislation and advocacy, help establish self-regulation and professional oversight, and educate lawmakers on animal welfare science and consumer protection, building public trust.

Part One Summary – Proposed Legislation

Areas of concern and things to consider before we move into Part Two (Laying the Legal Bedrock):

1. Exemptions for Government, Military, or Working Dogs and Service Animals

The inclusion of working dog/service dog exemptions is one of the critical flaws in current model bills, and a progressive framework must aim and work to reject them.

• The Problem with the “Expert” Pedestal: The general population heavily replicates what they see from military, law enforcement, and service dog handlers. The public often views these institutions as the definitive, credible source of “elite” training updates, news, and expertise. When the state permits these agencies to continue using punitive methods, it inadvertently tells the public that force is a necessary component of high-level training.
• The Behavioral Reality: A dog’s nervous system, cognitive learning mechanisms, and capacity to experience fear or pain do not change because they are wearing a tactical vest. Allowing state-sanctioned professionals to bypass modern science undermines the entire legal and ethical argument for a force-free baseline.
• True Legal Integrity: A modern bill must enforce a single, universal standard of welfare: if a method or tool is deemed psychologically or physically harmful to a household pet, it must be legally recognized as harmful to a working K9 or an assistance or service dog, other categories often exempt from oversight proposals.

2. Setting an Uncompromising Definition of Minimum Care Standards

Instead of building a bill that simply regulates who can collect money for dog training, the legislation must be anchored by a nonnegotiable definition of humane practice.

• The Nonnegotiable Standard: Statutory language must clearly preclude the use of aversive training methods, explicitly defining them as any device, tool, or practice that deliberately relies on pain, force, fear, or compulsion to change behavior.
• Deferring to Modern Learning Theory: The criteria for licensing or state competence should be built around peer-reviewed behavioral science, applied behavior analysis, and established ethical frameworks that support well-being.  
• Fully Inclusionary: The regulations must apply universally to all individuals offering behavioral modification services—regardless of specific job titles, organizational affiliations, or experience levels—ensuring no practitioner operates outside statutory oversight. The credentialing process must accommodate diverse educational backgrounds and practical experience, recognizing multiple accredited certifications to prevent equitable, qualified trainers from being arbitrarily excluded from practicing.

3. Minimizing the Impact of Grandfathering (The Pragmatic Compromise):

While advocates accept that legislators use grandfather clauses to avoid immediately shutting down local businesses, the professional community should work to heavily restrict these clauses so they do not permanently dilute the law.

• Accepting the Process, Not the Standard: Grandfathering should only serve as an administrative runway, not a permanent lifetime pass to utilize punitive techniques.
• Tightening the Reins: If a trainer is grandfathered in to protect their economic right to operate, they must still be legally bound to the new Code of Conduct. The law should require that all practicing professionals—regardless of how they entered the system—adhere to the non-aversive standards of practice, rendering tools that cause pain or distress illegal across the board.
• Time-Limited Progression: Rather than an open-ended pass, grandfathered individuals and businesses should be given a strict multi-year window to achieve objective, modern competencies or continuing education credits to maintain their state-sanctioned status.

The Ultimate Goal: Legislation must treat pet training and care as a matter of public safety and animal welfare, not just business administration. By removing working and service dog exemptions and tightly restricting grandfathering, appropriate legislation would create a unified, science-based standard that protects all dogs, increases public safety around dogs, and provides the public with a truly trustworthy baseline of professional expertise.

Welfare, Well-Being & Ethics Cannot Be Compromised

When a legislative process compromises its ethical baseline just to appease special-interest groups, raise corporate money, or secure votes, it ceases to be a consumer-protection bill and becomes a market-protection bill.

From this standpoint, the foundational legislative argument rests on three uncompromising pillars:

• Welfare and Well-Being are Not Bargaining Chips: The moment a bill allows grandfathered trainers to continue using punitive methods or exempts military, police, and service/assistance dog handlers, the state is actively trading real animal suffering for political expediency. You cannot claim a law protects dogs if it legally sanctions the continuation of inflicting fear and pain.
• A “Pay-to-Play” Illusion: If licensing simply becomes a bureaucratic checklist—where people pay their fees, get their state-approved stamp, but keep using harmful methods—the government is just creating a revenue stream for itself. It forces professionals to pay into a system that protects commercial industries rather than protecting the community it was supposed to protect.
• The Loss of Moral Authority: When a state licensing board validates grandfathered or exempted trainers who ignore modern behavioral science, it loses all ethical credibility. It leaves the public utterly confused, giving state protection to the exact harmful practices the force-free science-based community has spent decades trying to eradicate.

In short, if a licensing bill requires the profession to compromise on its core ethical obligations to the animal just to get the law passed, then the process has failed its true purpose. Public safety and the emotional and physical well-being of pets should never be the cost of doing business with legislators.

---

­­­­About the Author

Niki Tudge – MBA, PCBC-A, CABC, CDBC

As the founder and President of The Pet Professional Guild, DogNostics Education, and The DogSmith, Niki Tudge brings substantial leadership experience to the pet industry. She has published numerous articles on dog training and behavior, and her businesses have been featured in publications such as the New York Times.

Niki’s professional credentials include AABP-Professional Dog Trainer, AABP-Professional Dog Behavior Consultant, and both PCBC-A and PCT-A accreditation through the Pet Professional Accreditation Board. She also holds diplomas in Animal Behavior Technology and Canine Behavior Science & Technology from the Companion Animal Science Institute.

Combining her industry expertise with a strong business foundation, Niki holds a business degree and an MBA from Oxford Brookes University. She is also a certified Six Sigma Black Belt, an HCITB TS1, TS2 & TS3 certified people trainer, a Certified Facilitator, a Certified Transformation Specialist, and a Project Manager.

---

Shaping a Sustainable Pet Industry – Part One: Mapping the Legislative Landscape: