Questions about the qualifications of the animal behavior expert witness

By Richard Polsky, Ph.D. – Animal Behaviorist and Dog Bite Expert

In today’s legal landscape, there is growing reliance on expert testimony in dog bite litigation. However, not all who claim the title “animal behavior expert” are genuinely qualified to speak on the science of canine behavior. In my professional opinion, this is not just a problem—it’s a serious flaw that threatens the integrity of the justice system.

The truth is, most so-called animal behavior experts who offer their services as witnesses lack rigorous academic training in animal behavior science—formally known as ethology or applied animal behavior. Instead of having graduate-level education focused on behavioral principles, many of these individuals come from adjacent fields such as veterinary medicine or dog training—disciplines that, while valuable in their own right, do not provide the scientific depth or specialization needed to accurately analyze complex behavioral issues, especially those involving aggression and bite risk.

Let’s take veterinarians, for example. While they are highly trained professionals, their primary focus is on physiology, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions—not behavior. Veterinary curricula dedicate limited hours to behavioral science, and the majority of that training is superficial or focused on pharmacological interventions. A veterinarian may know how to prescribe fluoxetine for anxiety, but that does not mean they are equipped to interpret the functional causes of aggression, conduct behavioral assessments, or evaluate environmental and learning history influences. These are areas that fall squarely within the domain of the professional behaviorist, not the general practitioner.

The same applies to dog trainers. Many dog trainers are self-taught, rely on outdated or unscientific training theories, and have no formal education in behavioral science. Some may be highly skilled in obedience training or handling, but practical experience alone does not translate into expertise in behavior analysis. In legal settings, where the stakes are high and the scrutiny is intense, that distinction matters. The ability to teach a dog to sit or walk nicely on a leash does not qualify someone to offer expert opinion on the antecedents, motivations, or psychological mechanisms behind a dog’s aggression.

This disconnect between claimed expertise and actual qualification is a disservice to the court. It invites unqualified testimony that misrepresents behavioral science, misleads juries, and ultimately weakens the legal process. I am aware of at least one such individual in California who has built a lucrative niche for himself by overstating his credentials for years—misleading attorneys and courts alike. His testimony has repeatedly revealed a lack of understanding of even the most basic behavioral principles. These individuals, to borrow a phrase, don’t know what they don’t know—and that’s exactly what makes their input so dangerous.

When a self-proclaimed expert lacks foundational knowledge, their opinions about canine aggression often veer into the absurd. For example, they may attribute a dog’s attack to a vague notion of “dominance” or blame the victim without any scientific basis. Juries, more often than not, can see through this. Laypeople may not know behavioral terminology, but they can recognize when an explanation doesn’t pass the smell test. When testimony is built on shaky ground, it can backfire—and rightly so.

This is why dog bite attorneys must be vigilant when selecting an expert witness. A poorly qualified animal behavior expert—whether a dog trainer, general practice veterinarian, or self-anointed consultant—will lack the necessary depth to analyze a dog’s behavior in context. They will be unaware of critical concepts such as reinforcement history, threshold levels for aggression, stimulus generalization, fear-based reactivity, and canine communication signals—all of which are essential to understanding why a dog behaves aggressively.

Moreover, attorneys should recognize that poorly credentialed experts are vulnerable to Daubert or Kelly-Frye challenges. Their opinions may not withstand scrutiny if their qualifications and methodologies cannot be defended as scientifically valid. I recently consulted on a case in California where the defense filed a pretrial motion seeking to limit the testimony of an opposing expert on precisely these grounds. The motion argued, convincingly, that the individual in question was not a true animal behaviorist, but rather a standard dog trainer without academic grounding. Although the case ultimately settled before trial, the legal strategy of questioning the expert’s qualifications had merit—and could have succeeded had it gone to a hearing.

The bottom line: expert testimony in dog bite cases should be based on science, not speculation. Attorneys who fail to vet their animal behavior expert thoroughly risk compromising their case. The role of the expert witness is not simply to support a client’s narrative—it is to provide the court with informed, unbiased, scientifically credible analysis.

As someone who has spent decades studying and applying behavioral science, I urge attorneys to scrutinize the background of any proposed expert. Ask hard questions. Demand academic credentials in animal behavior, not medicine or training alone. Review their publications. Insist on transparency. Because in the courtroom, credibility matters—and in the realm of animal behavior, so does scientific rigor.