Professionals Should Exemplify and Promote Anti-Cruelty Statutes

by Niki Tudge

As a population, human beings are all unique. Each one of us is a combination of our genetics and environment. We are shaped by how we filter stimuli and how we think. Our behavior is an output of our own individual experiences, assumptions and perceptions, which are affected and distorted by our own personal values, beliefs, attitudes and expectations within a given location, setting or context. As individuals, we develop our own concepts, ethics and opinions, and this includes animal welfare (Tudge, 2015).

While we are now well into the 21st century, forceful restraint, startling, invoking fear, pain, and punishment are still commonly practiced in the pet care industry, including in day care, boarding, groomers and training facilities, and by owners themselves. However, opinions as to what constitutes cruelty differ vastly depending on who you ask. For some, any behavior or attitude toward an animal that is not deemed productive, helpful or in any way constructional to their physical and mental well-being is cruel or inhumane. For others, there are very specific lines drawn between the animals we nurture in our homes, the animals we farm for food production, and the exotic and wild animals some admire and protect from afar, but that others yearn to hunt.

Cruelty Cases

According to Shelley-Grielen (2019), when cruelty cases appear across social media or in local news outlets, “it is not the everyday but the horrendous incidents that get media attention, e.g. the death of a dog by strangling during a nail trim in San Mateo, California (CBS SF Bay Area, 2016), a dog fatally mauled at a dog day care in Florida (Newby, 2017), multiple summer time deaths from heat stroke in a Florida grooming van (Birch, 2016), 23 dogs dying after being left overnight without cooling or ventilation in an Arizona boarding facility (Mitchell, 2016), abuses such as placing shock collars on dogs without owner knowledge at a Chicago day care to stop barking (Ludwig, 2017), or baked to death at a day care after falling unnoticed under a kiddie pool in South Carolina (Jacobs, 2016). After a covert video exposed a trainer at a Long Island, New York day care repeatedly jabbing a rod into a crated dog to stop him from growling was publicized (among other abusive practices at the site), New York State Senator Todd Kaminsky introduced a bill in late 2016 for licensing requirements for dog trainers.” (At the time of publishing, Kaminsky’s bill had not passed. Meanwhile, in June 2019, a bill sponsored by New Jersey Assembly Members Carol Murphy and Valerie Huttle requiring the licensure of dog trainers was introduced. At the time of publishing, that had not passed either.)

When cases such as these are reported, they are often met with outrage from both local and wider communities. Often, rescue organizations seek donations for help and support in high profile cruelty cases and, in many cases, the outpouring of financial support far surpasses the monetary needs for the individual case. Ultimately, this public outrage for high profile cases often helps fund multiple scenarios and provide much needed resources for rescue groups to support the “less offensive” cases. In the court of public opinion, some may get angry and demand severe punishment for the offenders. Others may take an opposing view, voicing sentiments such as, “it’s just a dog,” or “there are bigger problems in the world,” or simply dismiss the event with no response at all.

According to Arluke (2002, p.421), “…humorous slants on cruelty are plentiful and can be seen in children’s cartoons and comics, as well as in adult advertising and movies and even occasional talk-radio programs.” Examples of cruelty such as blowing up pets, dragging them behind vehicles, or threatening them with weapons such as a baseball bat are commonplace and, in turn, become reflected in real instances of real cruelty in everyday life. It is, or should be, of enormous concern that “[o]ver a million websites offer jokes about animal abuse or cruelty.” (Arluke & Sanders, 1996, p.40).

Public Policy

According to Tudge and Nilson (2019), “[a]s anyone who has ever shared their life with an animal knows, humans and their pets have a special bond. When we look at dogs in particular, the relationship is unique in that, across generations over tens of thousands of years, we have purposefully adapted this one species through natural selection to be more collaborative, more reliant and more functional to support our human needs. This selection process has resulted in hundreds of canine breeds working across multiple functions to support and collaborate with humans (Overall, 2013). Indeed, there are ‘fingerprints in dogs’ DNA that suggest convergence or coevolution with humans in neurochemical patterns.’ (Overall, 2016).”

Hunter and Brisbin (2016, p.17) define cruelty as the “infliction of suffering or pain by a perpetrator on an undeserving subject.” In the companion animal relationship, humans are the perpetrators. How each of us chooses to treat pets is a voluntary decision but does vary due to our political and cultural diversity. Arluke (2006) discusses how the term cruelty may be minimized and glossed over as well as the school of thought that “abuse is done deliberately, while neglect is unintentional or even accidental.” Arluke (2006) also discuss opinions such as those maintaining that abuse results in tragic injury to animals, while neglect “only” creates hardship for them. Rowan (1993) suggests that the term cruelty should only be used in cases where the offender is in some way satisfied from the harm they cause. Regardless of where one stands on this point, however, and irrespective of the motives of the perpetrator and whether the cruelty be sadistic or negligent, no pet intentionally seeks to be punished and no pet deserves to be the victim of cruelty (Hunter & Brisbin, 2016).

As a result of political pressure applied by constituents to local governments, fueled by the general growth of the Animal Welfare Movement from the early 20th century onwards, where, “[b]y the end of the 1980s, membership in animal advocacy organizations had reached 10 million people in the United States,” (, 2019), anticruelty laws have become more commonplace and fines increased. Nevertheless, “in many countries, states and counties, laws are woefully inadequate to protect the lives of dogs…Where such laws do exist, they are often weak, poorly written and/or not well-enforced, leaving gaping loopholes for perpetrators of animal crimes.” (Steinker, 2018).

According to the Humane Society of the United States (2019), a majority of anticruelty laws are “limited to cases involving aggravated cruelty, torture or cruelty to companion animals.” All in all, 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have laws making certain types of animal cruelty a felony offense. (Note: North Dakota classifies it a Class A misdemeanor and South Dakota as a Class 1 misdemeanor.) While 46 of 50 states’ felony provisions are first-offense provisions, some state laws allow felony charges “only if the perpetrator has a previous animal cruelty conviction…Four states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Mississippi) have laws that apply felony charges only to subsequent offenses.” However, “only a fraction of animal cruelty acts are ever reported or successfully prosecuted.” (Humane Society of the United States, 2019).

In recent developments, in April 2019, Indiana State Senator Jon Ford authored Senate Bill 474, which moves to “establish a mandatory condition of probation and parole that would not allow any person convicted of animal abuse to own, harbor, or train a ‘companion animal.’” The bill was passed in the Indiana House by a unanimous vote and has since moved to Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb (Essex, 2019). Also in 2019, a bill signed by Virginia Governor Ralph Northam was set to ensure anyone found guilty of abusing dogs and cats would face stiffer punishments than previously: “Dubbed ‘Tommie’s Law,’ after a pit bull who was tied to a fence and intentionally set on fire…the bill elevates cruel and unnecessary ‘beating, maiming, mutilating, or killing a dog or cat’ to a Class 6 felony charge. Earlier legislation had stipulated an animal had to die because of abuse to be considered a felony offense in the state.” (Mosbergen, 2019). (Note: Information correct at the time of publication.)

According to Antolec (2018), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “takes animal abuse so seriously it began tracking the crime in 2014 and uses the data to help identify serial killers.” In 2016, the Bureau added animal cruelty to its list of Class A felonies, alongside homicide and arson. According to Ferry (2016), of the FBI’s Criminal Statistics Management Unit, “[s]ome studies say that cruelty to animals is a precursor to larger crime.” (qtd. in FBI, 2016). The National Sheriffs’ Association, meanwhile, has for a number of years cited studies linking animal abuse and other types of crimes, highlighting the “overlap animal abuse has with domestic violence and child abuse.” (FBI, 2016). States Thompson (2016), deputy executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association: “If somebody is harming an animal, there is a good chance they also are hurting a human…[animal cruelty] is a crime against society.” (qtd. in FBI, 2016).

Normative Behavior Toward Pets

Hunter and Brisbin (2016) present a scale of normative behavior toward pets commencing with sadistic behavior and ending with empathy. The scale addresses whether cruelty is defined by motivation or hardship suffered and can be summarized as follows:

  1. Sadistic Behavior: This includes acts of intentional murder and the pleasurable sense of excitement perpetrators experience when inflicting pain. Displays are exhibited by audiences at dog fights and individuals who inflict torture on pets motivated by a sick sense of curiosity.
  2. Passive Cruelty: This speaks to ignorance, apathy and a generally immature sense of empathy as the perpetrator has feelings of disgust for or an ambivalence toward a pet, perhaps viewing them as a commodity only. The moral consequence is that persons displaying passive cruelty “unsee” the suffering of animals (Hunter & Brisbin, 2016, p.17). Passively cruel behaviors are not always considered illegal or pathological like sadistic behavior. Examples include chaining a dog for 24 hours, social isolation, mental and physical deprivation, harsh and unyielding punishment, and/or mental intimidation of the family pet.
  3. Neglectful Behavior: Although far from ideal, this can sometimes be remedied through local laws. It differs from passive cruelty as it is an involuntary lack of due care and may not be aimed at causing the pet to suffer. This encompasses owners who overlook necessary and important veterinarian treatment.
  4. Empathy: This is shown by people who consider it their moral duty to protect animals from cruelty. They have emotional intelligence and the ability to understand and share the feelings of the pet and expect society to treat pets as they themselves would like to be treated.

As stated earlier, examples of extreme incidents of dogs being killed or sustaining serious injuries at the hands of pet professionals have been, and continue to be, reported in the media. Such incidents have occurred at the hands of professional groomers, dog trainers and/or boarding kennels, the very professionals engaged and compensated by pet owners to care for their pets. It is important to note here that in the United States (and elsewhere) the pet training industry is “entirely unregulated, meaning that anyone can say they are a trainer or behavior consultant,” regardless of education, experience, skill, or knowledge – or lack thereof (Pet Professional Guild, 2016). Of the European Union, Masson et al. (2018) note that dog training is also “largely unregulated…so there is a risk that many trainers do not have a proper education in canine ethology and learning theory, both dense, complicated fields.” We will come back to these issues in later chapters.

Truth in Training

In November 2017, Hillsborough County Commissioners in Tampa, Florida, voted five to two in favor of a groundbreaking ordinance that regulates the dog training industry in their county. It was the first of its kind in the nation. The bill was named Truth in Training but is commonly known as Sarge’s Law. It came about when puppy Sarge, who weighed just 8 pounds, died after a physical altercation with a dog trainer that took place in full view of his owner. As reported by the Dogington Post (2017): “Sarge was a happy, healthy Shih Tzu/Pekingese puppy whose loving parents sent him to doggy day care each day as part of their efforts to give him the best life possible. Sarge’s owner, Lorie Childers, opted to use the day care’s training services to teach her little dog to walk nicely on a leash.”

Says Childers: “I picked Sarge up from day care on the day he died. We began to work with the trainer on teaching him how to heel next to me. Sarge was so happy to see me and just wanted to play. That’s when the trainer grabbed him – clamped his hand over his mouth and held it closed, and grabbed his neck with his other hand. Sarge thrashed and collapsed. His eyes were glazed over and his tongue was hanging out. It was stiff, and it had turned white. I knew something was horribly wrong…I picked Sarge up and rushed him to the nearest animal hospital…As I was driving, Sarge was crying, struggling to breathe, and was unable to hold his head up. As I picked him up to carry him into the vet, I saw there was blood both on me and on the car seat. Just as we approached the door of the hospital, I felt Sarge’s heartbeat starting to fade. He died in my arms as I crossed through the doorway. Our puppy, Sarge, died on May 1, 2015 at just 3½ months old.” (Steinker, 2018).

Steinker (2018) reports on further cases of abuse, negligence and death of dogs in training, day care or boarding in Hillsborough County, including Blue (taken off property from a boarding kennel without his owner’s consent, slipped his leash and was hit by a car – his owner later found out kennel staff had used a frayed slip leash); Finn (died in a board and train facility – he had bruising around his neck and blood in his nostrils, leading the vet who conducted the necropsy to suspect he had been strangled); Gunner (died two days after his stay at a board and train facility – he had open sores on his legs, fluid coming from his mouth and appeared to have difficulty moving when his owners collected him); and Max (helicoptered four times and punched by a trainer).

Crucially, however, the Truth in Training bill does not provide any oversight on the methods or tools employed in the training, management and/or care of pets. It simply states that professional trainers must inform their clients how they intend to train a dog by way of a written training plan and a transparency document that must be signed by both parties.

Dog trainers who use punishment based approaches and equipment designed to work by causing fear and/or pain commonly market themselves under a variety of verbiage and marketing slogans such as “balanced,” “positive relationship,” “natural methods,” “relationship building,” “positive only,” and “no food necessary.” These are all taglines that are bandied around but mislead unsuspecting owners who are looking for humane ways to train their pets. Meanwhile, the terminology used may be carefully crafted to appeal to pet guardians who may not always understand the various training methods available, or the fallout and unintended consequences of making the wrong choice. Such trainers are thus not providing consumers the necessary autonomy to make ethical decisions on behalf of their pets, nor do they provide any kind of consumer protection. This, compounded with the inability of a pet to offer informed consent, further questions the ethics of such training practices given that the foundation for anyone working in behavioral sciences must surely be to do no harm (Pet Professional Guild, 2016).

Over 2,000 years ago, referring to the medical profession, Hippocrates (400 B.C.) wrote: “The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future—must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm.” Working with animals, whether in the veterinary field or any other capacity, the moral and ethical obligation to do no harm is surely just as meaningful. (See also

Abusive Training Practices

Listed below are just some of the abusive practices still seen across the dog training industry:

  • Hanging – the dog is raised off the floor by his collar or a leash, in some cases until he loses consciousness.
  • Swinging – the dog is swung around with his feet off the floor by his collar or leash.
  • Slamming – the dog is lifted up and slammed into the floor or wall
  • Shocking – electric shock is administered through a collar around the dog’s neck, stomach or genital area.
  • Multiple shocking – more than one electric shock collar is attached to a dog around the neck, stomach and/or genitalia.
  • Alpha roll – the dog is purposefully rolled onto his back as a means to control and intimidate, often paired with harsh, loud, and offensive verbiage.
  • Kicking, hitting, prodding – the dog is physically assaulted with a human body part or a prod-type instrument.

In recent years, much creditable scientific study has been given to dog training and behavior modification methods and their respective efficacy and consequences. The preponderance of the evidence shown by current research indicates that the implementation of training and/or behavior modification protocols predicated upon “dominance theory” and social structures (“alpha,” or “pack leader”), and/or the implementation of physical or psychological intimidation, threats, coercion, or fear are empirically less effective and risk creating problematic consequences, including “fallout” behaviors that may be dangerous to the human and animal involved such as growling, snapping and biting.

Defining Dominance Theory

According to DogNostics Education (2018), dominance theory is used within the same species to predict the winner of a conflict when fighting over a specific, context-oriented resource. Scientifically, dominance only applies to two beings of the same species, thus a human cannot be dominant over a pet nor can a pet be dominant over a human. In a wolf pack the dominant beings are the wolf pups; however, wolf researchers have moved away from alpha terminology and are now using terms that correspond with the role of the particular pet in the family unit.

Using dominance theory to train dogs is today considered to be outdated and obsolete, with current scientific knowledge recanting the findings of previous studies that promote the implementation of alpha rolls and so-called dominance training. Leading expert and board certified veterinary behaviorist, Dr. Karen Overall (2016) states: “Dominance theory has shut off scientific research and has crept into medicine to the point where we think we can do things to animals whereby we are asking them to ‘submit.’ In pop psychology, dominance theory is insidious and has crept into everything we do with dogs and it’s wrong. It has gotten in the way of modern science and I’ve just about had it. Every single thing we do with dogs hurts them because we don’t see them as individuals or cognitive partners…Unfortunately, the dominance, discipline and coercion approach has affected every aspect of how we interact with dogs from basic training to treating troubled dogs. We must abandon these cruel, scientifically unsupported labels and approaches and replace them with a humane, scientifically-based approach that is dog-centric and attempts to understand situations from the viewpoint of the dog.”

People may think that to work in the pet industry one must love animals, yet, in reality, how can this be possible given the varied topography of pet care? In addition to the examples of cruelty, abuse and neglect highlighted earlier, we must also consider pet professionals who still rely on outdated training practices and cultural myths while ignoring the growing body of science that proposes specific, humane methods and approaches. Is this really so different to a public policy that accepts the use by a medical professional of alcohol as an anesthetic, or leather arm cuffs as restraints as standard operating procedures? We are now in a position to know better. In fact, in most professions that involve counseling, mental health, education, or training, there is a professional expectation and, indeed, a legal mandate that, no matter what the field, a professional must practice according to the best, most reliable and up-to-date scientific research available.

Professionals and Cruelty

There are two important questions we can ask here:

  1. What causes people and, in particular, pet professionals, to be cruel to the pets in their care?
  2. How do said professionals accommodate the consequences of their behavior?

While there is no complete or consistent explanation as to why people are sadistic or cruel to pets, in those who choose to work with pets as an occupation a commonality would appear to exist in a tendency to view the animals as “other,” or significantly different to people. Hunter and Brisbin (2016) explain that the person may feel in some way threatened by the existence of the pet, whether it be emotionally, egotistically, or physically. Under such circumstances, any cruel behavior is seen to be “justified” as “teaching the pet a lesson,” and/or there may be a motivation to nullify the “other” by inflicting suffering. Hunter and Brisbin (2016, p.19) conclude that cruelty “in its various forms is thus a human emotional and cognitive response to perceptions or predictions of unpleasant contacts with companion animals.” Meanwhile, from an animal’s perspective, it is in no way in his best interests to intentionally set out to be what a human may perceive to be “annoying” or “frustrating,” or to inflict pain on his caregivers, yet how many times do we hear a pet owner or professional say a dog is being “stubborn” or “naughty?”

In reality, applying labels to behavior that have nothing to do with the animal’s actual emotional state or motivation is anthropomorphic at best and, at worst, runs the risk of complete misinterpretation. While anthropomorphism has its uses, Patel (2019) emphasizes the importance of getting a measure on what is observable when analyzing behavior, which “allows us to put numbers on what we actually see occur rather than create a story in our heads.” All behavior “has a function and can produce a number of functional outcomes: The organism is always correct; they are just functioning on the conditions available to them.” (Patel, 2019). Frightening or aversive environmental stimuli, including punitive pet training methods and scary techniques, are, more often than not, the cause of aggression from pets directed to people. But, states Patel (2019): “If you listen to the whispers, your dog has no reason to shout or scream.”

One might argue that passive cruelty or neglect tend to manifest from convenience or function. For example, professional groomers or dog trainers may be motivated by a need or desire to get results at whatever cost to the pet. Economically, they may be motivated by profit and the need for expeditious business transactions. These practices may include pinning down a dog to trim his nails or applying physical punishment, such as a leash jerk, to prevent a dog from pulling on the leash.

Returning to our second question, for those who elect to inflict cruelty on the animals in their care, how do they accommodate the consequences of their behavior? How does a dog trainer justify to themselves that hanging a dog until he almost chokes, shocking a dog to the point where he is so fearful he loses control of his bowels, or physically hitting a dog, is acceptable on any scale?

We might ask the same of the groomer who physically pins a dog on the grooming table if he does not immediately comply and stand in the required position for the perfect haircut. Bear in mind in a situation such as this, no time may have been taken to train the dog to stand in said position or create a positive association for him, as opposed to presenting an aversive situation that he would now prefer to escape from or avoid altogether. States Martiya (2016): “If you have ever worked in a grooming salon, this scenario is probably familiar to you: The dog is on the table with a noose around his neck attached to the grooming arm above. He is moving about while the groomer is trying to scissor some part of his body. Frustrated by his movement, the groomer raises the grooming arm. The dog struggles, so the groomer raises the grooming arm some more. Now the dog stops struggling, but it is not because he has ‘learned to behave.’ He has stopped struggling because he is effectively being hung from the grooming arm and must devote all of his energy just to breathing.”

Adds Shelley-Grielen (2019): “Dog trainers, groomers and pet sitters often learn handling techniques by trial, error and guesswork with no guarantee that their intuition is correct or welfare focused…Individuals wanting to learn dog grooming at an actual brick and mortar school can complete a two- or three-month private school training course. However, due to the brevity of the training and lack of instruction on stress free restraint methodologies or handling protocols there is a resulting over-reliance on restraint such as muzzles, ties and aversive handling. Stress of this sort may cause a dog to submit to a grooming session but will cause more defensive resistance on successive grooming sessions.”

We may also ask the question of the dog walker who drags and chokes a dog to mandate that he walks at a specific and very unnatural pace. States Chamings (2018): “Training in this way gives a dog no choice at all; he is complying because he is avoiding discomfort.” Yet these are all examples of practices that some individuals – who have chosen to make their living training and caring for pets – find completely acceptable.

Arluke’s (2006) ethnographic study of animal control officers, animal hoarders and shelter workers “illustrated how an individual’s identification of animals interacts with emotions, professional standards and practices, willingness to obey authority and personal identity.” (Hunter & Brisbin, 2016, p.19). These components along with early childhood socialization and experiences can create a social confusion regarding the ethical treatment of animals (Hunter & Brisbin, 2016).

Hunter and Brisbin (2016) also reference other studies that indicate a desire for power, social background, or other demographic factors may have an influence on individuals in terms of whether they may display passive cruelty or neglect toward animals. Alternatively, it may just be that cruelty is influenced by the direct visibility of the act or differing interpretations of cruelty toward different species. As noted by Hunter and Brisbin (2016), O’Sullivan argues that animal cruelty is impacted by the visibility of the harm to the animal versus the normative assessments of cruelty and the current legislation to protect the animal.

When sadistic behavior, passive cruelty or neglect have taken place, pet owners may resort to moral disengagement to justify this. As such, the offender may be able to reconstruct or reframe their behavior as acceptable without feeling the need to change either their moral standards or their behavior: “Moral disengagement is behavior designed to avoid censure for injurious conduct.” (Hunter and Brisbin, 2016, p.20).

Vollum, Buffington-Vollum and Longmire (2004) surveyed Texas residents to gauge the perceived severity of numerous violent acts against nonhuman animals as well as the preferred criminal justice response and indicated their surprise as the “findings lend some (albeit limited) support for an important theory of animal abuse (Agnew, 1998), as well as Bandura’s (1990, 1999) compelling theory of moral disengagement.”

According to Bandura (2002), however, disengagement does not instantly transform an individual from being kind and considerate to being cruel, but is a more gradual process as said individual is exposed to more and more, for them, uncomfortable situations. In the case of a dog trainer or pet groomer, the individual may have started out by using aversive practices on pets and found that they paid off, thus making them able to tolerate the acts because of the benefit associated with them. These might involve saving a groomer time thanks to the ease of working with a dog who is pinned to the table, or, in the case of a dog trainer, expediting compliance via the use of electric shock while suppressing potentially irritating but normal canine behaviors such as wandering, sniffing, or lack of focus. Situations such as these may apply in pet care or training environment for the professional who is on a time schedule, lacks knowledge, or has little empathy for the pet in their care.

Progressive Disengagement

Over time, “progressive disengagement of self-censure” occurs and “the level of ruthlessness increases, until eventually acts originally regarded as abhorrent can be performed with little anguish or self-censure. Inhumane practices become thoughtlessly routinized.” (Bandura, 2002, p.110). It should, then, and, indeed, must be of great concern to public policy makers that when a person inflicts cruel actions on a pet and undertakes moral disengagement such as this, “the continuing interplay between moral thought, affect, action and its social reception is personally transformative. People may not even recognize the changes they have undergone as a moral self.” (Bandura, 2002, p 110). Consequently, this should also be enormously concerning to pet owners given that pet professionals, more often than not, avoid being held accountable for any cruelty toward the pets in their care, pets who have little or no say in their own well-being and welfare.

Ultimately, all parties involved need to exercise moral agency. This has the dual purpose of being both inhibitive and proactive. The inhibitive form embodies the power to refrain from behaving inhumanely whereas the proactive form is expressed in the power to behave humanely. Therefore, people who practice higher order morality do good things, as well as refrain from doing bad things (Bandura, 1999).


The findings by Vollum et al. (2004) showed that people are “concerned about the social problem of animal cruelty and believe that it should be taken seriously by the criminal justice system.” In 2019, the Animal League Defense Fund, the United States’ leading legal advocacy group for animals, released its 12th annual year-end report and ranked the animal protection laws of all 50 states under a three-tier system. According to the report, the five top states for animals are:

  1. Illinois
  2. Oregon
  3. Maine
  4. Colorado
  5. Massachusetts

While the five worst states are:

  1. New Mexico
  2. Wyoming
  3. Iowa
  4. Mississippi
  5. Kentucky

States the Animal League Defense Fund (2019): “The disparity in various jurisdictions’ animal protection laws demonstrates the unfortunate reality that, in many places, the law significantly underrepresents animals’ interests.” On a brighter note, the Rankings Report “also presents an opportunity to improve laws everywhere.” (Animal League Defense Fund, 2019).


Animal League Defense Fund. (2019). 2018 U.S. Animal Protection Laws State Rankings. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Antolec, D. (2018, July). Living in Fear. BARKS from the Guild (31) 54-66. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from

Arluke, A. (2002). Animal Abuse as Dirty Play. Symbolic Interaction (25) 4 405–430. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Arluke, A. (2006). Just a Dog: Understanding Animal Cruelty and Ourselves. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press

Arluke, A., & Sanders, C. (1996). Regarding animals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press

Arnold, B. (2017, November 15). Tampa Becomes First-in-Nation to Pass Groundbreaking Dog Training Ordinance. The Dogington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review [Special Issue on Evil and Violence] 3 193– 209. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education (31) 2. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Birch, J. (2016, May 11). 3 dogs die at Miramar groomer, pet owner demands answers. Local 10 ABC News. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

CBS SF Bay Area. (2016, November 22). Pet Dachshund Owners Sue PetSmart After Dog Dies During Grooming. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

Chamings, S.R. (2018, January). But Does It Work? BARKS from the Guild (28) 28-30. Retrieved May 15, 2019, from

DogNostics Career Center. (2018). A Practical Lexicon for Pet Trainers & Behavior Consultants! The Language You Need to Know. (n.p.): Authors (2019). Animal Rights. Retrieved February 2, 2019, from

Essex, C. (2019). Indiana Animal Abuse Bill Set To Head To Governor’s Desk. WTHI-TV10. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from

FBI. (2016). Tracking Animal Cruelty. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from

Hippocrates. (400 B.C.). Of the Epidemics (Book 1, Section II). Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

Humane Society of the United States. (2019). Animal cruelty facts and stats. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from

Humane Society of the United States. (2019). State Animal Cruelty Chart. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from

Hunter, S., & Brisbin, R.A. (2016). Pet Politics. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press

Jacobs, H. (2016, May 3). Owner claims pet ’baked’ at doggy daycare, no laws regulating S.C. facilities. Live5News. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

Ludwig, H. (2017, March 23). Dog Day Care Put A Shock Collar on My Dog Without Permission, Owner Says. DNA Info Chicago. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

Masson, S., La Vega, S., Gazzano, A., Mariti, C., Da Graça Pereira, G., Halsberghe, C.,…Schoening, B. (2018). Electronic training devices: Discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology. Journal of Veterinary Behavior 25 71-75. Retrieved May 28, from

Martiya, M. (2016, July). Grooming Restraints. BARKS from the Guild (19) 38-39. Retrieved May 15, 2019, from

Mitchell, G. (2016, July 1). Green Acre kennel owners accept plea deal in deaths of 23 dogs in Gilbert area. AZ Central. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

Mosbergen, D. (2019). Animal Cruelty Now A Felony Offense In Virginia. Huff Post. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from

Newby, J. (2017, November 30). Woman wants justice after dog mauled at Gulf Breeze boarder. Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from

Patel, C. (2019, April). Functionally Analyzing Aggression! Paper presented at Pet Professional Guild Canine Aggression and Bite Prevention Seminar, Portland, OR

Pet Professional Guild. (2016). Open Letter to Veterinarians on Referrals to Training and Behavior Professionals. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Rowan, A. (1992). The Dark Side of the “Force”. Anthrozoös (5) 1 4–5. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Shelley-Grielen, F. (2019, January). Room for Improvement. BARKS from the Guild (34) 40-43. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

Shelley-Grielen, F. (2019). Understanding and Accomplishing Animal Welfare. Retrieved May 29, 2019, from

State of New Jersey 218th Legislature. (2018). Assembly Bill 4066: Requires licensure of dog trainers. Retrieved May 29, from

Steinker, A. (2018, March). The Dark Side of Dog Training and Pet Care. BARKS from the Guild (29) 14-21. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from

The New York State Senate. (2016). Senate Bill S8219: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to requiring the commissioner of agriculture and markets to establish licensing and educational standards for individuals providing canine training for non-service and non-police dogs. Retrieved May 29, from


Tudge, N.J. (2015). People Training Skills for Pet Professionals. Tampa, FL: The DogSmith

Tudge, N.J. & Nilson, S.J. (2019, January). The Case for Scientifically-Informed, Kind Practices. BARKS from the Guild (34) 18-26. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from


Vollum, S., Buffington-Vollum, J., & Longmire, D. (2004). Moral Disengagement and Attitudes about Violence toward Animals. Society and Animals 12 209-235. Retrieved December 31, 2018, from