Provides that dogs engaged in hunting and training as authorized by the environmental conservation law, shall not be deemed to be running at large in violation of any local law or ordinance.
Summary
This bill amends the Agriculture and Markets Law to create a specific exception for “hunting dogs” that are being used for hunting or training in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law. Under the bill, a dog used for hunting or training would not be considered to be “running at large” if, at the time it is recovered or seized, the owner, trainer, or handler is on property where hunting is permitted, the dog was released there for hunting, and the person can show they are licensed to hunt with dogs. The dog must also be wearing a tag, collar, or other device with contact information and otherwise comply with existing dog-control requirements.
The bill also preserves enforcement authority: if a dog control officer, peace officer, or police officer authorized by a municipality determines that the owner, trainer, handler, or dog is not in compliance with the new conditions, the person may still be charged under applicable local dog-control laws. The measure takes effect immediately and is intended to clarify that properly used hunting dogs are not subject to local running-at-large restrictions in the same way as ordinary roaming dogs.
Impact
The bill would modify state law governing dogs running at large by adding a statutory definition and exemption for hunting dogs under Agriculture and Markets Law section 122. It would limit the application of local ordinances and enforcement actions against dogs used for lawful hunting or training, while still allowing municipalities to enforce dog-control laws when the statutory conditions are not met. The bill affects dog owners, trainers, handlers, local animal control authorities, and municipalities with leash or running-at-large rules, and it ties the exemption to hunting authorization under the Environmental Conservation Law.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate broad support or opposition. Based on the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears to be a targeted clarification sought by hunting interests to protect lawful field use of dogs from being treated as a dog-control violation. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests the bill was introduced as a narrow regulatory adjustment rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between hunting practices and local dog-control enforcement. Supporters would favor an exemption for licensed hunters and trainers who use dogs on permitted hunting property, arguing that hunting dogs should not be treated as strays when working as intended. Potential opponents, including animal control officials, municipalities, or residents concerned about roaming dogs, may worry that the exemption could make enforcement harder or create ambiguity if a dog is found off-property or without clear proof of compliance. The bill addresses that concern by requiring identification, lawful hunting authorization, and allowing penalties when those conditions are not met.
Provides that dogs engaged in hunting and training as authorized by the environmental conservation law, shall not be deemed to be running at large in violation of any local law or ordinance.
Prevents individuals from being denied standing in private actions alleging violations of the environmental quality review provisions of the environmental conservation law solely on the basis that the injury alleged by such individual does not differ in kind or degree from the injury that would be suffered by the public at large.
Prevents individuals from being denied standing in private actions alleging violations of the environmental quality review provisions of the environmental conservation law solely on the basis that the injury alleged by such individual does not differ in kind or degree from the injury that would be suffered by the public at large.
Enacts "Penny's law" to create the offenses of negligent handling of a dog and reckless handling of a dog; codifies the requirement that dogs be restrained in New York city; requires signage in parks that all dogs must be restrained.
Enacts "Penny's law" to create the offenses of negligent handling of a dog and reckless handling of a dog; codifies the requirement that dogs be restrained in New York city; requires signage in parks that all dogs must be restrained.