Chiropractic Chronicle Archive

Archive of The Chronicle of Chiropractic.

Confusion Over the Future of Animal Chiropractic Education & Regulation

Originally published: 2025-06-06

The Email That Lit the Fuse

On May 24, 2025 an email message from Animal Chiropractic Education Source (ACES) with the subject line: "Animal Chiropractic Recognized as a Specialty!" was sent out to animal‑chiropractic practitioners and others on their mailing list. The email started out by stating:

"I'm reaching out on behalf of Carolyn Longacre, President of the ICA’s Council of Animal Chiropractors, to share an exciting and important update in our profession."

Then purporting to speak “on behalf of Carolyn Longacre” the e‑mail announced—without reservation—that a brand‑new animal chiropractic diplomate program was already underway, that the International Chiropractors Association had crowned the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association’s certificate the profession’s “gold standard,” and that two recent state laws—one in Tennessee, one in New Hampshire—now required AVCA credentials for every doctor who wished to adjust an animal.

The email made several assertions including:

"New Hampshire’s law now requires both professions to receive AVCA certification to practice chiropractic."

"During the annual meeting of the International Chiropractic Association (ICA) in April, the formation of the Council of Animal Chiropractic was announced. They are the first organized, professional organization to recognize the AVCA as the gold standard."

"Currently the Gold Standard of Animal Chiropractic Education is certification by the AVCA and the ACCC. The Council of Animal Chiropractic will be awarding Diplomates in Animal Chiropractic (ICADAC). The first step in achieving this status will be the AVCA certification. The remainder will be followed by a two to four year program including a minimum of 160 more hours with written and practical examinations."

The tone was triumphant. A Zoom link promised would‑be diplomates insider access to the Council’s first “open meeting.” No supporting statute, regulation, or ICA resolution was cited; the message relied on the authority of its letterhead and the reputations of the names it invoked.

Within hours, doctors were forwarding the email to The Chiropractic Chronicle with a simple question: “Where, exactly, does NH law mention the AVCA?”

It doesn’t. The law, adopted two months earlier, states only that a DVM or DC must complete “a nationally recognized animal‑chiropractic program as determined by the executive director.” The statute names no certifying body at all.

Across the country, chiropractors in Tennessee scanned their own law, signed in April 2024. There the legislature had indeed referenced the AVCA, but in the very next breath had added an escape valve: “or a similar curriculum approved by the board of chiropractic examiners.” Nothing in the act declared AVCA the exclusive gatekeeper.

The claim in ACES e‑mail’s second pillar—that the ICA had already vetted and approved a 160‑hour diplomate built on AVCA testing—also crumbled under scrutiny when the ICA put out an official announcement several days later including that:

"Anyone marketing the program at this stage is doing so without ICA authorization. Anyone who has stated what will and will not be included has done so without ICA authorization. All Council on Animal Chiropractic meetings including discussions about the Diplomate program will be hosted by the ICA and arranged by Mrs. Aracelly Martinez with Beth Clay as her back up."

Even the note’s casual boast—“the first organized professional body to recognize the AVCA as the gold standard”—proved hollow. Neither state statute, veterinary authority, nor independent academic panel has ever bestowed such a title on the AVCA. The phrase existed only in marketing copy.

The Chronicle Inquires

On May 26,  2025 The Chronicle sent a letter to ICA president Dr. Joe Betz and chief executive Dr. Edwin Cordero requesting clarification on the claims being made on behalf of the ICA.

The Chronicle letter stated in part:

First and foremost, the email misrepresents the statutory requirements in Tennessee and New Hampshire. Contrary to the ICA's claim that these states now require AVCA certification for chiropractors and veterinarians practicing animal chiropractic, the actual language of both statutes does not mandate AVCA certification. In Tennessee, the law requires *certification from the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association *or a similar curriculum approved by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. In New Hampshire, the law requires completion of a nationally recognized animal chiropractic program as determined by the executive director in consultation with relevant boards—again, without naming any specific certifying body. The ICA's assertion that AVCA certification is the statutory requirement is false and does not reflect the law.

Second, the email repeatedly refers to AVCA certification as the “Gold Standard” of animal chiropractic education, without offering any objective, third-party evidence or regulatory validation for this claim. While AVCA and IVCA are both recognized certifying bodies, portraying AVCA as exclusively superior—particularly in light of its partnership with your Council—risks misinforming chiropractors and veterinarians. There are multiple reputable educational programs that prepare candidates for both AVCA and IVCA certifications. Your email’s language dismisses these legitimate pathways and suggests an unfair and unfounded hierarchy.

Third, the email’s requirement that Council members must be current members of both the ICA and the AVCA—while omitting recognition of IVCA or other legitimate pathways—raises concerns about exclusionary practices and potential restraint of trade. This could harm the profession’s diversity and accessibility and runs counter to principles of inclusivity and fairness."

The most pointed paragraph concerned the e‑mail’s mysterious reference to “his goal.” If individual commercial ambitions were shaping official ICA communications, that must be disclosed.

*The Chronicle reached out to the AVCA for comment on this issue but as of publication they have not responded.

The Chiropractic Defense Council Weighs in

During the intervening time before the ICA responded another monkey wrench was thrown into the mix. Bharon Hoag, executive director of the Chiropractic Defense Council released a video, framed as a “clarification” for what he called the “animal warriors.”

Stating his emails had:

"been blowing up, my phone's been blowing up, there's a lot of conversation happening right now out in the space I want to make sure that we deliver information in a way that people have the proper information and then can make their determination and opinions from that but I think there's just a lot of misinformation going on right now so I want to kind of fill that in."

Hoag then assured viewers that the proposed ICA diplomate would be optional and insisted there was no plot to exclude IVCA‑certified practitioners. Yet his central argument rested on a single, unverified assertion:

“The AVCA did go the extra step of creating the ACCC, a separate organization purely for testing, and that passes the scrutiny of opposition. The IVCA doesn’t have that separation, so it’s harder to defend.” — Hoag video

In other words, according to Hoag - legislators and veterinary boards view the AVCA’s Animal Chiropractic Certification Commission as structurally “independent,” whereas the IVCA’s examination—administered by its International Certification Commission for Animal Chiropractic—appears, in Hoag’s opinion “to have no clear separation from the school itself.” The distinction, he conceded, was optical.

"Optical" indeed. More like a hallucination. There is no publicly available information to support Hoag's claim that there is anything substantively different between the AVCA and IVCA's examination schemes.

Hoag tried to stress that he was not attacking the competency of IVCA practitioners by stating:

"let me be very clear in this because I don’t want people hijacking what I’m saying to say that I’m somehow insinuating that IVCA-certified practitioners are not competent. I do not believe that at all.”

He went on stating:

“I think IVCA practitioners are very competent. The schooling that you’re getting from Options is a great education, and the testing process that you’re going through is a good process.”

After making those statements he then walks them back by repeating a distinction between the AVCA and IVCA which he had no evidence for - stating:

“However, it is very hard to defend when it’s being attacked by opposition. The AVCA did go the extra step of creating the ACCCC, which is a separate organization purely for the purpose of testing out and certifying the competency of those sitting for that certification.”

Hoag further claimed:

“That does pass the scrutiny of opposition. This is why, for example, in recent history the state of Tennessee, when they passed their language, they used AVCA, not IVCA, and it was because it was difficult to stand behind the process of the IVCA because the exit exam for Options is that IVCA certification testing.”

Hoag conveniently left out the full language of the TN law that includes “or a similar curriculum approved by the board of chiropractic examiners.”

And then he stumbles down further alleging that the IVCA is the "easiest path" insinuating that their program is less academically rigorous and repeating the unfounded claim about separation of the exam:

“There’s no separation between school and certifying agency. So… and again, I’m not at all… most of you that are IVCA certified, you didn’t know any of this… you went to a school, you chose the easiest path—the best path for you, the most convenient—I shouldn’t say easiest—the most convenient path for you to get certified.”

Then he claimed as the CDC continues its efforts regarding animal chiropractic education "we are going to continue to recognize that IVCA certification so that chiropractors still have direct access no matter what organization they’re through. "

Hoag also reiterates the false claim from ACES that the ICA had already decided to use the AVCA only claiming, without any evidence to support it, that it’s "more defendable".

“But for the purpose of this diplomate, the AVCA is being used because of their certification process. It makes more sense. It’s more defendable.”

Hoag drills down even more on the issues casting further suspicion on the IVCA's program stating:

“So that those that get the diplomate, it’s a defendable process that there was an appropriate diplomate process—the hours were done, the certifications, all of those things—so it’s not a biased or ‘friends, we’re keeping our friends closer’… this entire process was done very intentionally because of that situation.”

The Chronicle wrote to Hoag and the CDC regarding his statements in the video:

I’m writing to follow up on your recent video and your statements about the AVCA’s certification process—specifically, your comments about the administrative independence of the Animal Chiropractic Certification Commission (ACCC) within the AVCA.

You mentioned that this separation makes the AVCA’s process more defensible in legislative contexts. However, there doesn’t seem to be any publicly available information listing who actually serves on the ACCC’s board or how they’re distinct from the AVCA’s main governance.

Could you please clarify:

I think having this clarity would help everyone understand exactly how this separation works and what it means for animal chiropractic certification.

Thanks for your time and your willingness to provide more information.

In his response Hoag admitted he did not know the answers to the questions being asked stating:

“I unfortunately do not know this information and would encourage you to reach out to the AVCA. I have no affiliation with this group other than having asked them numerous questions over the years. I speak with both the AVCA and the IVCA when I can to get information when fighting for the rights of animal chiropractors in various states.”

So where did his claim about the superior defendability of the AVCA process come from?

Hoag stated:

My comments about the ACCC came from information I heard the AVCA present when we were speaking to the Veterinarian Board in Kentucky as they were questioning the validity of a true certification. Hearing the AVCA present the work done to form the ACCC and how they worked with national certify organizations to create their structure. Short of that I do not have any further information and would again encourage you to reach out to them.

In defending those claims from the opposition, we have dug pretty deep with both AVCA and IVCA. Our goal was to support both certifications, but it became a bit more difficult due to how things are structured.

Shocked to hear that these claims were being made without any evidence that they were true we followed up with Hoag expressing those concerns:

Thank you for your quick and candid response. I appreciate your openness in sharing that you don’t have the direct information about the ACCC’s structure or membership and that your comments were based on what the AVCA has presented to veterinary boards.

However, I find your email reinforces some of the very concerns I and others such as the Coalition for Chiropractic Freedom have been raising—not just about the AVCA versus IVCA distinction, but about the broader issue of how political optics and control dynamics are shaping chiropractic policy, rather than objective evidence or the clinical competence of those involved.

Specifically:

When you say you have no direct knowledge of the ACCC’s structure or independence, yet you’ve still publicly promoted the AVCA’s process as more defensible, it’s troubling. It highlights how easy it is for external narratives—crafted by a small group of people—to shape the direction of chiropractic, even in the absence of transparency or real-world evidence.

For me, and for many others, this confirms the urgent need to resist monopoly behavior and ensure that chiropractic remains governed by those who actually practice, teach, and live it—not by external agencies or political lobbying interests that only see “defensibility” in legislative language as the ultimate standard.

I will reach out to the AVCA directly for further clarity, as you suggest. But I wanted to let you know how important it is to me that we all remain vigilant about the real-world impacts of these political narratives—especially when they don’t reflect the clinical realities we see every day in practice.

Thanks for your honesty in sharing your perspective, and I hope you’ll keep this broader context in mind as these conversations continue.

In short, the entire rationale for elevating the AVCA boiled down to optics and those opits had no evidence to support them.

The ICA Weighs In

Shortly after these exchanges the International Chiropractors Association posted an “ICA Update” to its main Facebook page. In a single, tightly packed paragraph the Association drew a clear, public line between rumor and reality.

The statement confirmed that the Council on Animal Chiropractic had only been approved "earlier this year," that Dr. Carolyn Longacre would serve as president, and that while the board had approved exploring a diplomate, crucial materials "have not yet even been provided." Most important, it declared: “Anyone marketing the program is doing so without ICA authorization. Anyone who has stated what will and will not be included has done so without ICA authorization.”

It added that no certifier—AVCA, IVCA, or otherwise—had been chosen, that suggested curricula were "submitted but not yet formally vetted," and that only Dr. Edwin Cordero (CEO) and Dr. Joe Betz (board chair) could speak for the Association. Council logistics would run through Aracelly Martinez with oversight by Beth Clay. Echoing B. J. Palmer, the post closed with Principle #6: “There is no process that does not take time.”

For many practitioners the update landed like a cool rain after weeks of wildfire claims. It confirmed that no one’s IVCA credential was obsolete and that the diplomate—if and when it arrived—would be shaped in daylight by a committee accountable to the broader profession.

ACES Tries to Keep the Flame Alive

The ICA’s clarification should have closed the chapter. Instead it prompted a swift, if subdued, counter‑move from ACES. Less than twenty‑four hours after the Association’s post, Dr. Amy Hayek e‑mailed everyone who had registered for the May 20 webinar.

Her note announced that Thursday’s follow‑up meeting had been cancelled: “Some people have upset the leadership at the ICA following last night’s meeting.” She directed recipients back to the ACES dashboard and invited them to schedule private consultations with herself or Dr. Bill Ormston.

“Unfortunately, there will not be a meeting on Thursday… For those of you who would like detailed conversations with Dr. O or me, please choose the links to schedule time on our calendars.” — Amy Hayek e‑mail, 28 May 2025

Public discussion under ICA auspices was shelved; private conversations remained on offer. The e‑mail offered no retraction of the earlier claims, reinforcing the sense that the AVCA‑centric narrative originated with a private school’s marketing plan, not with the Association.

Within ten days the profession witnessed the full cycle of a modern credential grab: an unsolicited e‑mail announcing a fait accompli, a wave of practitioner backlash, a formal association repudiation, and a retreat into closed‑door sales pitches. The episode underscored how vulnerable chiropractors remain to entrepreneurial intermediaries who promise prestige one week and private “clarifications” the next—always at a cost, always just beyond the reach of official scrutiny.

This debacle highlights the political and personal posturing of individuals trying to financially benefit from directing the growth of the profession they serve. Instead, what might the future look like if everyone acted instead with integrity and with a spirit of synergy? What actions would help to move animal chiropractic forward as a collaboration between vets and chiros for the benefit of the animals they serve? Things that could actually benefit us all immediately as a growing profession, like supporting national legislation for direct access of IVCA/AVCA, or creating a vision for supporting and promoting animal chiropractic research.

Back to archive