The following statements reflect the opinion of the Association of Professional Dog Trainers.

The Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT) supports the adoption or enforcement of a program for the control of nuisance dogs that is fair, non-discriminatory and addresses dogs that are shown to be a nuisance by their actions.  The APDT also supports the adoption or enforcement of laws for the maintenance of a minimum of care for a dog’s existence.

As an organization comprised of dog trainers, dog behaviorists and other animal professionals, the APDT is fully aware that a single dog can be as much of a nuisance as a group of dogs.  Whether a dog is considered a nuisance or not is dependent on the owner’s commitment level, living arrangement, and the dog’s level of training or lack of training, not by the number of pets an individual owns.

Likewise, a single dog can be housed in sub-standard living conditions as well as a group of dogs.  The quality of a dog’s care is dependent on the owner’s commitment level, available time and other lifestyle factors, not by the number of pets an individual owns.

Approved 2001

PDF Version

PDF Version with FAQs

APDT POSITION STATEMENT ON SERVICE ANIMALS

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) defines “service animal” as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.”[i]

The APDT supports this definition of “service animal,” including the requirements that the individual have a disability recognized under the ADA and that the dog be trained to work or perform tasks directly related to that disability.  We also support the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) decision to limit “service animals” to dogs, and in some cases miniature horses.

We advocate for the careful selection of service animals, and urge that service animals be provided humane and responsible care throughout the animals’ working life and into retirement.

The APDT applauds the DOJ’s refusal to impose breed restrictions on service dogs.  However, we note that at times some dogs may be inappropriate for certain tasks.  For example, a small breed dog is not an appropriate candidate for mobility and stability assistance.  The APDT also commends the DOJ for its focus on the individual animal and circumstances, requiring that the animal be under control and calm while working, and allowing exclusion of an animal for issues such as aggression and soiling.

We agree with the DOJ’s refusal to impose requirements regarding sourcing, training, and documentation that may have the unintended consequence of restricting access to service animals.  However, the APDT finds great value in private organizations setting standards for their specific organization, which may also serve to guide others in training service animals.  Additionally, while we agree that the law should not impose specific training and certification requirements for service animals, the APDT strongly encourages individuals to work with a professional trainer who is knowledgeable and experienced with service animal training.  In keeping with APDT’s Code of Ethics for companion dogs, APDT supports the use of humane methods, using a Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (“LIMA”) approach, to train service animals.

The APDT agrees that service animals should be granted broad access in our society, in contrast with emotional support animals, who are not required to be trained to perform tasks related to a disability.  While emotional support animals can serve a crucial purpose in housing and transportation settings, those animals should not have the same broad level of access as service animals.

The APDT supports penalizing and/or criminalizing an individual who fraudulently represents that an animal is a service animal.  We also maintain that trainers have a higher ethical obligation to avoid making such a fraudulent representation, or encouraging or aiding others to do so.

[i] Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, §35.104 and §36.104, 104 Stat. 328 (1990).

Adopted:  August 1, 2017

Revised:  March 12, 2019

PDF Version

The Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT) recognizes the need to protect the public from dangerous dogs, and that the public safety goal can be achieved in a way that respects all parties involved – from the person or animal who was attacked, to the dog owners and dogs who are the subject of dangerous dog or reckless owner proceedings.

Dangerous dog laws must focus on the actual behavior of a dog in a particular incident.  Laws that discriminate based on breed or breed type, rather than the behavior of the individual dog, are neither effective nor reasonable.  Studies have shown that breed discriminatory laws do not reduce the incidence of dog bites.[i]  Given this evidence, APDT takes the position that dangerous dog laws must be breed neutral.[ii]  Additionally, dangerous dog laws in the form of statewide statutes (rather than ordinances that vary from locality to locality) provide more consistency.

APDT believes the following components make for a well-crafted dangerous dog statute:

1. Due process protections: Dangerous dog laws must provide due process protections to ensure that dog owners receive fair notice and the opportunity to be heard. The best dangerous dog laws provide a judicial proceeding rather than an administrative hearing, and treat the matters as civil proceedings, but with the due process and procedural protections found in criminal cases.[iii]  Some of these protections include a heightened standard of proof[iv] and the right to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence and witnesses in the dog owner’s defense.  The law should also allow animal control to assess whether the owner can ensure the safety of the community pending trial, and if so, allow the dog to remain in the home pending trial.[v]

1. Clear definition of “dangerous”: Dangerous dog statutes must provide a clear and unambiguous definition of “dangerous.”  The definition of “dangerous” must avoid vague terms such as “attack” or “vicious propensities”[vi], and should require a certain level of contact.  For bites to a human to be considered “dangerous,” APDT recommends that the bite at a minimum punctures the skin, as described in Level 3 in Dr. Ian Dunbar’s Dog Bite Scale (https://apdt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ian-dunbar-dog-bite-scale.pdf).  For bites to a dog to be considered “dangerous,” APDT recommends that the bite at a minimum results in serious injury to the dog, as described in Level 5 in Cara Shannon’s Dog to Dog Bite Hierarchy (https://raisingcanine.com/Bite_Hierarchy_Charts.pdf).

1. Clear defenses and exemptions: Not every bite lacks justification, and dangerous dog laws should provide defenses and exemptions accordingly.  Examples of defenses that are appropriate include when the animal acts in response to pain or provocation, or if defending him/herself or the dog’s offspring, owner or owner’s property.  Examples of exemptions include: a working dog engaged in official duties at the time of the act; a dog bite to the dog’s owner or another animal in the household; and a dog bite to another animal who comes on the dog’s own property.

1. Allowance for expert testimony and evidence: Dangerous dog statutes and courts should allow for expert testimony and evidence on assessing and understanding the level of injury, the circumstances of the incident, and canine behavior.  These experts can weigh in on important aspects of a dangerous dog case, such as whether the dog was responding to provocation, whether the dog’s actions were reasonable or justified under the circumstances, and what behavior modification and training follow up is appropriate for the dog and owner.[vii]  This is an area where certified applied animal behaviorists, board certified veterinary behaviorists, behavior consultants, and trainers can contribute.  However, these experts should have experience and competency in dog bite cases and should adhere to LIMA principles.  (Refer to APDT’s Position Statement on LIMA for further information.)  Behavior consultants and trainers should also at a minimum have a behavior certification such as “Certified Dog Behavior Consultant” (CDBC) through the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants or “Certified Behavior Consultant Canine – Knowledge Assessed” (CBCC-KA) through the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers.

1. Fair consequences upon finding of dangerous: Upon a finding that the dog is dangerous, statutes should impose fair conditions that focus on public safety, which may include: requiring the dog to be licensed, microchipped, and spayed or neutered; restitution for medical and veterinary bills that were actually incurred; requiring the owner to carry liability insurance that covers dog bites; having a proper enclosure or fence on the owner’s property; muzzling the dog when off the property; and requiring the owner to register the dog and to notify the court of any change in ownership, change in address, or further bite incidents.  To the extent possible, courts should have the flexibility to impose individualized conditions, such as attending reactive dog classes, requiring a behavior modification and training program, and/or consulting with a veterinary behaviorist.  In less egregious cases, courts should have the ability to continue the case without a dangerous finding, impose relevant conditions on the owner, and dismiss the case upon compliance.

APDT points to the dangerous dog laws in Illinois and Virginia as examples of well-crafted dangerous dog laws that contain most if not all of the above components:

• Illinois: 510 Ill.L.C.S. 5/15.1:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1704&ChapterID=41


• Virginia: Virginia Code Section 3.2-6540:  https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title3.2/chapter65/section3.2-6540/

Dangerous dog laws are only one aspect of the issue.  Dangerous dog cases often involve dogs with behavior issues.  However, even the “best” dog may be placed in an unfair scenario due to the actions or inactions of his or her owner or handler.  “Reckless owner” laws target individuals who are more likely to place dogs in unsafe circumstances, and allow courts to restrict or even prohibit ownership and possession of companion animals.  Most commonly, these restrictions or prohibitions are imposed upon conviction of certain felonies[viii], animal cruelty[ix] or animal fighting[x], or a finding of repetitive negligence[xi].  These “reckless owner” laws complement dangerous dog laws by targeting individuals whose actions or inactions can put even the “best” dog in a scenario that could lead to a dangerous dog proceeding.

[i] See ASPCA Position Statement on Breed Specific Legislation and cited references at https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-breed-specific-legislation.

[ii] For a good example of breed neutral language in a state dangerous dog code, refer to Va. Code § 3.2-6540(G): “No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited.”

[iii] As an example, see Va. Code § 3.2-6540(F) (stating that dangerous dog proceedings are governed by procedure for appeal and trial as provided for criminal misdemeanors, including allowing for trial by jury).

[iv] See Va. Code § 3.2-6540(F) (applying beyond a reasonable doubt standard to civil dangerous dog proceedings).

[v] As an example, see Va. Code § 3.2-6540(C) (“If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered.”)

[vi] For example, see Helmers v. City of Des Moines, No. 17-0794 in the Court of Appeals of Iowa, filed April 4, 2018 (finding undefined phrase “vicious propensities” unconstitutionally vague).

[vii] For example, see 510 Ill.L.C.S. 5/15, §15(a), and 510 Ill. L.C.S. 5/15.1, §15.1(a), allowing for testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, board certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert as relevant to the court’s determination of whether the dog’s behavior was justified, and 510 Ill.L.C.S. 5/15.1, §15.1(d)(1), allowing for an evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist, board certified veterinary behaviorist, or other recognized expert in the field, and completion of training or other treatment.

[viii] For examples, refer to 20 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-36 (restricts felons from owning unsterilized dogs); 510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5 et seq. (making it a misdemeanor for those convicted of forcible felonies, felony gun violations, drug violations, or felony violations of the Humane Care for Animals Act to own an unsterilized dog or a dog previously declared “vicious”).

[ix] See Va. Code §3.2-6570(G).

[x] See Va. Code §3.2-6571(D).

[xi] See Tacoma, Washington “Problem Pet Owner” ordinance (Section 17.01.010 through 17.06.050) that allows for a declaration of an individual as a “problem pet owner” if the individual commits three or more animal control violations in a twenty-four month period and allows animal control to seize the individual’s companion animals.

Adopted:  March 12, 2019

PDF Version

APDT POSITION STATEMENT ON LICENSURE OF DOG TRAINERS

Recent allegations of animal abuse against two individuals have spawned proposed legislation on a statewide level in New York and in Hillsborough County, Florida.  As with any issue, APDT cautions against reactive legislation, and encourages a careful and in-depth consideration of the pros and cons of imposing a licensing requirement on dog trainers.

In order to allow full and fair consideration of the necessity and pros and cons of licensing, APDT strongly recommends that states or localities establish a study group or work group that will elicit public comment and input from professionals and stakeholders and public comments prior to adopting legislation that would require dog trainers to be licensed.

Some of the benefits to requiring dog trainers to be licensed include:

• Imposing standards for dog training that will protect public, consumers and animals
• Identifying trainers for the public
• Identifying disqualifying conditions for trainers, which should include convictions for animal related offenses


Some of the cons of requiring dog trainers to be licensed include:

• Licensing may give dog owners the impression that a particular trainer is competent when that may not be the case
• Inadvertently detracting from the need to zealously prosecute abuse or neglect, or other animal related offenses
• Added expense to state or locality, trainers, and the public
• Risk that licensing is seen as a revenue resource for the state or locality without achieving the goals of welfare, health and safety
• Allowing easy identification of trainers for improper purposes, including for spamming and blast marketing efforts

If a state or locality carefully weighs these pros and cons and decides that licensing of the dog training profession is appropriate, APDT sees the following as vital components of a successful licensing structure:

• Implementation and oversight by a proper state or local agency with experience in licensing of other professions and trades (for instance, the New York Department of Education, which is the agency that oversees licensing for other professions, rather than the New York Department of Agriculture)
• Ethical standards, including adherence to Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA) methods of training
• Minimum education and training to qualify for licensing
• Continuing education and training requirements
• Disciplinary system
• Legal prohibition from practicing dog training without meeting the licensing requirement
• Legal prohibition from eligibility for a license (or revocation of the license if already licensed) for individuals convicted of cruelty, neglect or abuse of humans and/or animals, as well as other animal related offenses including abandonment and animal fighting.
• Protection of the identity of licensees to protect companies and individuals using identity and contact information for improper purposes, such as exemptions from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and similar laws.

Adopted:  April 10, 2017

PDF Version

APDT POSITION STATEMENT
DOG TRAINING TELEVISION SHOWS

TV shows have rightfully elicited criticism about the lack of a scientific basis for the methods used in those shows. The Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT) would like to take this opportunity to highlight critical facts about dog training and methodology, and the importance of the dog’s welfare during training.

The APDT is unwavering in its support of science-based methods of training and behavior modification, as well as the requirement that the animal’s welfare be paramount during training sessions. The APDT adheres to the concept of LIMA—“Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive”—which requires trainers to use the most humane and effective tactics to achieve behavior change. For more information on this topic, please consult our LIMA Position Statement.

https://nnf.apdt.com/about/position-statements/lima/

Science dictates that dogs learn through operant conditioning and classical conditioning.ⁱ Training “methods” that claim the dog learns by your energy or by your feeling the dog’s energy are simply not based on science. Similarly, training that suggests that you take on the role of a “leader” harkens back to dominance-based theories that have been disproven by research.ⁱⁱ For more information about the myths of dominance and “pack theory,” see our Position Statement on Dominance and Dog Training and the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) Dominance Position Statement.

https://nnf.apdt.com/about/position-statements/dominance/

PDF Version

A red flag with these types of television programs is the disclaimer “Don’t Try This At Home.” Placing animals in situations that are meant to elicit problematic behavior so that the behavior can be “corrected” or “resolved” does not set the animals up for success, and places the animals at serious risk of injury. What’s more, research has shown that exposing an animal to something the animal fears without allowing the animal to move away if uncomfortable (a procedure known as “flooding”) has the potential to make the animal even more fearful or aggressive in the future.ⁱⁱⁱ

Ultimately, these types of shows do not give a realistic view of proper training. They fail to address the need to craft a science-based training plan and implement that training plan in the most humane and effective way. Behavior research in the field of animals, and dog training in particular, has greatly expanded in recent years, and our understanding of behavior continues to grow thanks to continuing scientific studies. Shows of this kind do not reflect the results of that research.

Progressive training and behavior professionals keep up-to-date on the progress in research and science in order to provide the most effective and humane services possible to their clients and the animals in their care. APDT recommends that you choose a trainer who stays current with developments in the field of animal behavior, and who understands and uses operant conditioning and positive reinforcement, classical conditioning, desensitization, and counter conditioning methods to modify behavior.

Adopted: Amended March 4, 2020

---

ⁱ See: (1) M.R., Bailey J.S. 1999. How Dogs Learn. New York, NY: Howell Book House; (2) Yin S. 2004. How to Behave So Your Dog Behaves. Neptune City, NJ: TFH Publications; (3) Chance, P. Learning and Behavior. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Ch. 3 (on classical conditioning), Ch. 5 (on reinforcement), Ch. 8 (on punishment).

ⁱⁱ See AVSAB Dominance Position Statement, citing: (1) Benowitz, E.A. 2001. CliffsQuickReview: Principles of Management. New York: Hungry Minds (scholars in human-related fields of business management and sociology, where leadership is studied extensively, recommend against use of coercion and force to gain leadership); (2) Yin, S. 2007. Dominance Versus Leadership in Dog Training. Compendium Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian, 29:414-432 (leadership is established when an owner consistently sets limits and effectively communicates the rules by immediately rewarding desired behaviors and preventing or removing rewards for undesired behaviors before those behaviors are reinforced or practiced); (3) Yin, S. 2009. Dominance vs. Unruly Behavior. In Low Stress Handling, Restraint and Behavior Modification of Dogs and Cats. 52-73. Davis, Calif.: CattleDog Publishing (emphasizing the ability to influence dogs to perform behaviors willingly, which is one accepted definition of “leadership”). See also website for Dave Mech, at https://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/.

ⁱⁱⁱ See: (1) Overall K. Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. 1 Pap/DVD edition (July 9, 2013); (2) Leitenberg, H. 1990. Handbook of Social and Evaluation Anxiety. Springer. pp. 300-2. ISBN 978-0-306-43438-9. (3) Implosive Therapy. Donald J. Levis. Binghamton University, New York.