Shock collar

Quality 0.50 · 1 view · Updated 2 months ago

Animal collar with electrical shocking abilities

title: "Shock collar" type: doc version: 1 created: 2026-02-28 author: "Wikipedia contributors" status: active scope: public tags: ["dog-training", "abuse", "cruelty-to-animals"] description: "Animal collar with electrical shocking abilities" topic_path: "general/dog-training" source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_collar" license: "CC BY-SA 4.0" wikipedia_page_id: 0 wikipedia_revision_id: 0

::summary Animal collar with electrical shocking abilities ::

::figure[src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Shock_collar.jpg" caption="A typical shock collar."] ::

::figure[src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Diensthund.jpg" caption="website=www.animallaw.info}}"] ::

A shock collar, also known as an e-collar, Ecollar, or electronic collar, is a type of collar that delivers electrical current to the neck of its wearer (usually a dog), in an effort to control behaviour as a form of aversive training. These collars incorporate an electronic device that can either trigger automatically as in the case of bark control collars, or electronic fence systems, or may be triggered via a remote control. Many object to the user of shock collars as animal cruelty as they can cause discomfort, pain and fear, and several countries and regions and have banned their use. Some models offer additional features such as a tone or vibrational setting that can be used as an alternative or in combination with the shock, and may incorporate GPS functionality to track the collar's location.

Shock collars were initially developed for training hunting dogs in the 1960s, and were originally designed with only one high level of power. Many modern versions are capable of delivering varying levels of shock. In areas where shock collars are legal, they are generally accessible, although Petco took the lead as the first major U.S. retailer to cease their sale. Where permitted, shock collars have been used in a range of applications, including behavioral modification, obedience training, and pet containment, as well as military, police and service training.

Types

Invisible fences

Pet containment systems, or invisible fences, are designed to keep an animal within a boundary, such that the wearer is shocked when they try to leave a boundary defined by a hidden wire, or by a set of co-ordinates (in conjunction with a GPS receiver).

These systems are illegal for use with pets in 14 countries and discouraged under existing animal welfare laws in others, such as Scotland.

Bark control shock collars

Bark control shock collars are used to curb excessive or nuisance barking by delivering a shock at the moment the dog begins barking. Bark collars can be activated by microphone or vibration, and some of the most advanced collars use both sound and vibration to eliminate the possibility of extraneous noises activating a response.

Remote shock collars

Remote shock collars can be activated by a handheld device to give the dog an electric shock which causes pain. Remote shock collars can deliver variable shocks in variable duration and intensities, and may additionally have a beep or vibration option for getting the dog's attention without the use of an electric shock.

Remote shock collars use operant conditioning either as a form of positive punishment, where the correction is applied at the moment an undesired behavior occurs to reduce the frequency of that behavior—or as a form of negative reinforcement, where a continuous stimulation is applied until the moment a desired behavior occurs, to increase the frequency of that behavior.

How they work in training

Shock collars are used in dog training primarily within the framework of operant conditioning, in which behavior is modified through the systematic application of consequences. {{cite book |last=Lindsay |first=Steven R. |title=Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training |volume=1 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=2000 |isbn=0813807549 when the desired behavior is performed).{{cite encyclopedia |title=Dog training |encyclopedia=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_training |access-date=2026-01-25

In positive punishment, the electrical stimulus is delivered immediately after an undesired behavior in order to reduce the future frequency of that behavior. In negative reinforcement, the stimulus is applied continuously or in anticipation of a behavior and is terminated when the dog performs the desired response, thereby reinforcing that response through relief from the aversive stimulus. {{cite book |last1=Pierce |first1=W. David |last2=Cheney |first2=Carl D. |title=Behavior Analysis and Learning |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2017 |isbn=978-0128000373

The effectiveness and side effects of shock collar training are strongly influenced by timing, predictability, and consistency. For conditioning to occur, the stimulus must be closely paired in time with the target behavior, and the dog must be able to associate the stimulus with its own actions rather than with unrelated environmental cues or the presence of the handler. Poor timing or inconsistent application can lead to confusion, ineffective learning, or the development of unintended associations. {{cite book |last1=Pierce |first1=W. David |last2=Cheney |first2=Carl D. |title=Behavior Analysis and Learning |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2017 |isbn=978-0128000373

From a learning theory perspective, shock collars operate through aversive control, in contrast to reward-based methods that rely primarily on positive reinforcement.{{cite journal |last1=Cooper |first1=James J. |last2=Croney |first2=Candace C. |last3=Farmer-Dougan |first3=Valeri |last4=Grandin |first4=Temple |last5=Hewson |first5=Cynthia J. |title=Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars |journal=Frontiers in Veterinary Science |volume=7 |year=2020 |pages=508 |doi=10.3389/fvets.2020.00508 |doi-access=free |pmid=32793652 |pmc=7387681 |last1=Ziv |first1=Gal |title=The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=12 |issue=3 |year=2017 |pages=e0171963 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0171963 |doi-access=free |pmid=28241006 |pmc=5328255 |last1=Vieira de Castro |first1=Ana C. |last2=Fuchs |first2=Doris |last3=Morello |first3=Giacomo M. |last4=Pastur |first4=Simona |last5=de Sousa |first5=Luciano |title=Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare |journal=Journal of Veterinary Behavior |volume=19 |year=2017 |pages=50–59 |doi=10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004 |last1=Pierce |first1=W. David |last2=Cheney |first2=Carl D. |title=Behavior Analysis and Learning |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2017 |isbn= 978-0128000373 |title=Clicker training |encyclopedia=Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clicker_training |access-date=2026-01-25

Shock collar training is also related to avoidance learning, in which the animal learns to perform a behavior to prevent or terminate an aversive stimulus. In such cases, behavior may be maintained by the anticipation of the stimulus rather than by the presence of a reward.[citation needed] Studies in animal learning have shown that avoidance-based training can produce rapid behavioral suppression but may be associated with elevated stress responses and less reliable generalization compared with reward-based methods.{{cite journal |last1=Vieira de Castro |first1=Ana C. |last2=Fuchs |first2=Doris |last3=Morello |first3=Giacomo M. |last4=Pastur |first4=Simona |last5=de Sousa |first5=Luciano |title=Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare |journal=Journal of Veterinary Behavior |volume=19 |year=2017 |pages=50–59 |doi=10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004 |last1=Ziv |first1=Gal |title=The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=12 |issue=3 |year=2017 |pages=e0171963 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0171963 |doi-access=free |pmid=28241006 |pmc=5328255 |last1=Vieira de Castro |first1=Ana C. |last2=Fuchs |first2=Doris |last3=Morello |first3=Giacomo M. |last4=Pastur |first4=Simona |last5=de Sousa |first5=Luciano |title=Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare |journal=Journal of Veterinary Behavior |volume=19 |year=2017 |pages=50–59 |doi=10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004

Opinions about the amount of pain caused by shock collars

Pain is a difficult outcome to measure because its nature is both multifaceted and subjective, as a result, researchers disagree on how much pain a shock collar causes.

Dr Diane Frank, in the Australian Veterinary Journal, argues that shock collars for dogs inflict pain and distress. "Electric shock hurts and the same shock will be perceived differently by different dogs. Regardless, if the dog perceives pain, [it] experiences a stress response that actively interferes with learning positive, more favourable, substitute behaviour. If the shock and pain are profound, it is possible to induce almost immediate long-term potentiation (LTP), or the molecular changes associated with hippocampal memory, which will lead to a strong aversion or phobia."

In contrast, Steven R. Lindsay, in the 2013 edition of his textbook on training and behavior, stated: "At low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting ... since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin ... the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsive spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses ... the stimulus or signal generated by most modern devices is highly controlled and presented to produce a specific set of behavioral and motivational responses to it." Lindsay does note that higher levels of shock from these collars do cause "fear" and "acute pain".

In 2000, prior to Germany's ban on shock collars, Dr. Dieter Klein, in an article published in the German trade magazine "Office for Veterinary Service and Food Control", stated that shock collars for dogs cause minimal pain, comparing the impact of shock collars to other devices utilizing electrical stimulation. "Modern devices ... are in a range in which normally no organic damage is being inflicted. The electric properties and performances ... are comparable to the electric stimulation devices used in human medicine. Organic damage, as a direct impact of the applied current, can be excluded." |last=Klein |first=Dieter R. |year=2000 |title=Wie gefährlich sind Fernstimulationsgeräte für die Ausbildung von Hunden? |trans-title=How Dangerous are Remote Stimulation Devices for the Training of Dogs? |journal=Amtstierärztlicher Dienst und Lebensmittelkontrolle |language=de

Comparing pain levels: evaluating different amperages

The intensity of pain caused by electric current can vary significantly due to small changes in amperage. This pain can be further amplified by adjusting the pulse rate and pulse duration.https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2019-04/Basic_Electricity_Materials.pdf Train-the-Trainer: Basic Electricity Safety This material was produced under a Susan Harwood Training Grant #SH-24896-SH3 from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

Other factors such as voltage, current, waveform, and frequency of the waveform are not particularly relevant when it comes to assessing the level of pain. While these factors can be used to calculate the amount of energy applied in Joules, they do not indicate the actual intensity of the stimulus or how it will be perceived by the recipient.

In 2004, Dr. Dieter Klein conducted research and estimated that commercial shock collars, which were later banned in Germany, operated at a minimum setting of 30 milliamps and a maximum setting of 80 milliamps. Another commonly-cited study, conducted by Christiansen et al., utilized shock collars with a higher intensity, reaching up to 400 milliamps. These figures do not directly translate into a specific level of perceived pain, because collar design, pulse structure, electrode contact, and individual sensitivity strongly influence how a given current is experienced.

Depending on design, some shock collars can be set so that at the lowest level, the shock delivered is only mildly uncomfortable, and at the highest level produce acute pain. Variable settings of this kind are essential, so that the shock collar can be adjusted to provide the level of pain that changes the dog's behavior, as situations change.

Shock collars are sometimes referred to as delivering a “static shock.” However, static electricity is simple direct current and carries little energy, on the order of millijoules. Shock collars do not use simple direct current because the effect is too unpredictable, but rather, use pulsed direct current producing an effect resembling the square wave of alternating current. It is therefore inappropriate to refer to shock collars as delivering a static shock.

Consistent pain delivery requires good contact between the collar electrodes and the dog's shock skin. The shock collar must be fitted according to the manufacturer's instructions. Local humidity and individual variation in coat density, skin thickness and surface conductivity, also affect the delivery of the pain.

Individual variations in temperament, pain sensitivity and susceptibility to startle in dogs mean that settings must be carefully adjusted to produce pain that is perceived by the dog as only just aversive enough to stop the dog engaging in the unwanted behavior. Normally salient stimuli, such as noises, commands and even shocks, may have no effect on a dog that is highly aroused and focused on an activity such as hunting.

Individual shocks delivered by a shock collar are of short duration, typically 6–8 milliseconds. However, pain intensity can be increased by using the same milliamps for each shock while delivering more shocks per second:

"Many e−collars appear to shift intensity levels by altering the pulse duration or repetition rate while keeping the output current and voltage relatively constant, depending on the electrode−skin load."

The pain level can also be increased by delivering a continuous series of shocks (up to 30 seconds).

Potential to cause physical harm

Pain experienced from shock collars is not from the electricity passing through the dog's body and reaching the ground (which would cause physical damage), but instead a result of electricity passing through a dog's body via closely-spaced electrodes (which should only cause pain). This pain is most clearly "described as physiological pain because it is not associated with any tissue damage" and even though such pain can "justifiably be described as a painful and emotionally distressing event, any potential harm would be psychological rather than physical", and therefore, burns are not likely to occur.

Burns from shock collars are not unheard of, however. In 1980 (revised 1987), the US Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), a branch of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), concurred in regulatory action against a manufacturer of a bark collar, stating "Complaints received, which were later corroborated by our own testing, included severe burns in the collar area and possible personality adjustment injuries to the dogs. The shocking mechanism was found to be activated not only by barking but by vehicle horns, slamming doors or any other loud noise. CVM concurred in regulatory action against the device since it was deemed to be dangerous to the health of the animal." The standing policy of the US FDA is that "Dog collars which are activated by the noise of barking to produce an electric shock are considered as hazardous to the health of the animal."

Training effectiveness

When it comes to effectiveness, multiple studies have shown that shock collars are less effective than positive-reward-based training.

Deterring predation in the wild

The Wildlife Society article addresses the use of shock collars as a way to prevent sheep from being preyed upon by wild coyotes. The collars were tested on coyotes for a four-month period and found that the collars stopped thirteen attacks on sheep herds. This also is said to deter future attacks by the tested coyotes. Collars have also been used on wolves for similar reasons. This document is the assessment of the shock collar on wolves' long-term behavior. The article talks about trying to alter wolves' behavior over an extended period of time using the collar. The consensus was while it did have an effect while in use and temporally after it was removed, the study concluded that longer exposure would be needed to have any substantial evidence. As far as non-lethal alternatives these two sources both concluded that shock collars are the most effective deterrence to predators. Both groups continued their research and the Wildlife Society has developed a new and improved version that eliminates the risk of neck injury when used on animals that previous versions caused. They have increased battery life and the durability of the unit. They devised a unit that is worn like a backpack for the animal. Previous versions caused excessive rubbing and soreness as well as being irritating for the animal to the point where they would try to take the harness off.

Criticism

Even in countries where shock collars are legal, their use is controversial, with differing positions among animal welfare organizations, veterinary associations, professional trainers, and policymakers.

Positions of veterinary associations

The AVSAB (American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior) has strengthened their position statement on all aversive methods, including shock collars, which now states "The application of aversive methods – which, by definition, rely on application of force, pain, or emotional or physical discomfort – should not be used in canine training or for the treatment of behavioral disorders."

Positions of animal welfare organizations

On the advice of the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and other welfare groups, the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) banned the use of shock collars for police dog training by all UK police forces. The current ACPO Police Dogs Manual of Guidance states "Equipment that is not approved for use in the training of police dogs includes remote training collars designed to give an electric shock and Pinch Collars".

The RSPCA removed a policy statement discouraging the use of shock collars in 2018 due to a UK Government statement that they would be banned. In June 2023 the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023 were approved by the Lords but a delay in implementation leading to the BVNA alongside other charities such as the RSPCA launching a campaign to support the proposed ban.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) opposes the use of shock collars, stating "Shock collars can cause dogs physical pain and injury (ranging from burns to cardiac fibrillation) and psychological stress, including severe anxiety and displaced aggression. Individual animals vary in their temperaments and pain thresholds; a shock that seems mild to one dog may be severe to another. The anxiety and confusion caused by repeated shocks can lead to changes in the heart and respiration rate or gastrointestinal disorders. Electronic collars can also malfunction, either administering nonstop shocks or delivering no shocks at all".

Views of proponents and training practitioners

Some professional trainers and manufacturers argue for the collars, saying that they are humane and effective when applied correctly, emphasizing low stimulation levels, careful timing, and trainer expertise.{{cite news |last=Lindqwister |first=Liz |title=San Francisco may be first city in the nation to ban dog shock collars |url=https://sfstandard.com/2023/01/16/san-francisco-may-be-first-city-in-the-nation-to-ban-dog-shock-collars/ |work=The San Francisco Standard |date=January 16, 2023 |access-date=January 25, 2026

Scientific findings on welfare effects

Several reviews and controlled studies have examined the welfare effects of aversive-based training methods, including remote electronic collars.

A 2020 controlled study comparing training with and without electronic collars reported that dogs trained with reward-based methods achieved similar or better training outcomes without the use of aversive stimuli. Cooper, James J.; Croney, Candace C.; Farmer-Dougan, Valeri; Grandin, Temple; Hewson, Cynthia J. (2020). "Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars" C. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 7: 508. doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.00508U. PMC 73876818.

A 2017 systematic review concluded that aversive training methods are associated with increased stress-related behaviors and poorer welfare outcomes compared with reward-based approaches.

Experimental studies have also reported that dogs trained using aversive-based methods show elevated stress indicators and less reliable generalization of learned behaviors compared with dogs trained using positive reinforcement.Vieira de Castro, Ana C.; Fuchs, Doris; Morello, Giacomo M.; Pastur, Simona; de Sousa, Luciano (2017). "Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare". Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 19: 50-59. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004G.

Legislation and policy

The UK Kennel Club welcomed the proposed legislation to achieve a ban on the sale and use of shock collars in England. Their campaign had stated that "The Kennel Club is against the use of any negative training methods or devices. The Kennel Club believes that there are many positive training tools and methods that can produce dogs that are trained just as quickly and reliably, with absolutely no fear, pain, or potential damage to the relationship between dog and handler." "The Kennel Club in calling upon the Government and Scottish Parliament to introduce an outright ban on this barbaric method of training dogs.".

The two British members of the World Union of German Shepherd Clubs (WUSV) helped the Kennel Club win a complete ban on shock collars. They passed a motion to exclude this equipment from any of its training branches during official club training times.

Legal status

Availability by region

::data[format=table title="Legality of shock collars by country"]

Country	Region	Date banned	Notes
Australia	Australian Capital Territory
New South Wales
South Australia
Austria			date=13 September 2021
Belgium	Flanders	2027
Canada	Quebec
Denmark			date=23 May 2019
Finland
France
Germany			url=https://www.ramstein.af.mil/About/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/303687/dog-keeping-laws-for-germany/
Iceland			date=2019-01-17
Netherlands		Its use is subject to €20,000 fine and three-year prison sentence.	date=4 April 2019
Norway			last=Lindin
Slovenia			last=Stroman
Spain
Sweden			last=Gernes
Switzerland		Automatic anti-barking shock collars are banned.
United Kingdom	England		Legislation to ban e-collars has been drafted, but as of October 2025 its passage into law is indefinitely delayed.
Wales			title=Electric Shock Collars
::

Legal cases involving shock collars

In 2001, British magistrates found that the aggressive behaviors of three dogs were due to the effects of shock collars. The initial incident occurred when the dogs, startled by a small dog, caused their owner to jump, inadvertently triggering the shock collars. This led to the dogs associating small dogs with receiving shocks, resulting in fear and aggression towards them. Over time, this escalated, leading to the dogs attacking and killing a small dog.

In 2002, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Victoria, Australia lost a defamation lawsuit to a shock collar manufacturer and was ordered to pay AUD100,000 in damages. The RSPCA was found to have falsely claimed that shock collars can cause burns, deliver 3,000 volt shocks to dogs, and that the current from a shock collar had caused a 60 kilogram dog to perform backflips and resulted in brain damage. RSPCA's claims that these collars caused epileptic fits, vomiting, seizures, burning and bleeding was also found to be misleading. The RSPCA's senior inspector had falsified evidence in an attempt to demonstrate that shock collars can cause burns.

In 2010, the High Court in Wales upheld a ban on the use of shock collars for cats and dogs. It was unsuccessfully challenged by Petsafe, a manufacturer of these devices, and the Electronic Collar Manufacturers' Association. The court upheld the law and ruled that it did not breach Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights (concerning the right to property).

In 2011, a Welsh man became the first person convicted of illegal use of a shock collar in Wales, receiving a fine for £2,000.

In 2022, a class action suit was filed in California for "a variety of brands" falsely marketing shock collars as "safe" and "harmless" tools, as well as "conceal(ing) the true nature of the Shock Collar Products" by using "neutral euphemisms to describe what being electrocuted by a shock collar feels like for a pet. Among the most popular terms that it uses to falsely describe a painful electric shock are 'static correction,' 'surprise,' 'tickle,' and 'stimulation.'

References

https://sfstandard.com/community/san-francisco-first-city-ban-dog-shock-collars-static-correction/# "San Francisco May Be First City in the Nation to Ban Shock Collars". San Francisco Standard. January 16, 2023.
"Germany - Cruelty - German Animal Welfare Act | Animal Legal & Historical Center".
(2 February 2016). "Vets call for ban on electric 'shock collars'". The Veterinary Nurse.
"Shock collar {{!}} Research Starters {{!}} EBSCO Research".
(September 1970). "On the generality of the laws of learning". [[Psychological Review]].
(November 1939). "A stimulus-response analysis of anxiety and its role as a reinforcing agent". [[Psychological Review]].
(April 1948). "Theory and experiment relating psychoanalytic displacement to stimulus-response generalization". [[The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology]].
(April 2015). "Emotional learning selectively and retroactively strengthens memories for related events". [[Nature (journal).
Wallace, Alicia. (6 October 2020). "Petco will stop selling electronic 'shock' collars".
Tyco, Kelly. "Petco ends sale of electronic shock collars, calls on competitors to also 'Stop the Shock' with online petition".
(2013-04-10). "Electric shock collars: Ministers reject invisible fences plea". BBC News.
(2025-08-08). "GPS cow collars create 'virtual fence' at Peasedown St John farm".
(December 2012). "The use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success as compared to other training methods". BMC Veterinary Research.
Ruiz, Marlene. (2025-08-18). "🌍 Tracking Legislation Worldwide".
Scottish Government. (October 2018). "Guidance on Dog Training Aids".
(1994). "Electronic shock collars: are they worth the risks?". Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.
(July 2007). "Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations". [[Applied Animal Behaviour Science]].
(November 2017). "Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare?: A literature review". Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
(February 2009). "Pain outcomes: A brief review of instruments and techniques". Current Pain and Headache Reports.
(August 2011). "The Measurement of Pain". Clinical Oncology.
(June 1999). "Electronic collars 'hurt'". Australian Veterinary Journal.
"Amperage, Not Voltage, Poses the Greatest Danger With Electrical Shock".
(2009-10-12). "Conduction of electrical current to and through the human body: a review". ePlasty.
Klein, Dieter R., 2000, "How Dangerous are Remote Stimulation Devices for the Training of Dogs?" Amtstierärztlicher Dienst und Lebensmittelkontrolle{{full citation needed. this should be a journal article with a German title, volume, issue & pages. (March 2024)
(April 2001). "Behavioural changes and aversive conditioning in hunting dogs by the second-year confrontation with domestic sheep". [[Applied Animal Behaviour Science]].
Masterson, Fred A., and Campbell, Byron BYRON. "Techniques of electric shock motivation." Methods in psychobiology. Academic Press, 1972. 21-58.
(1994). "Electronic shock collars: are they worth the risks?". Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.
(14 December 2020 }} Translated from: {{cite journal). "The negative effects of the electronic collar on the welfare of dogs and positive training methods as alternatives". Utrecht University.
"Animal shock collar with low impedance transformer".
(March 2004). "Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects". Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
Electronic RT in Perspective - David Chamberlain BVetMed., MRCVS.
FDA. (20 February 2020 }}{{dead link). "FDA Compliance enforcement".
(May 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.
"Electronic collars less effective than reward-based training, research finds".
(January 2007). "Why electric shock is not behavior modification". Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
(May 2017). "The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review". Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
(22 July 2020). "Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs. a Focus on Positive Reinforcement". Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
(1999). "Coyote Predation on Domestic Sheep Deterred with Electronic Dog-Training Collar". Wildlife Society Bulletin.
(2013). "Developing a new shock-collar design for safe and efficient use on wild wolves". Wildlife Society Bulletin.
(2018-08-27). "Ban on electric shock collars for pets".
"'No more effective than training': Brussels to ban controversial dog collars".
https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf AVSAB Humane Dog Training Position Statement
"ACPO Police Dogs Manual of Guidance".
"Cruel electric shock collars for pets to be banned".
Association, British Veterinary. "BVA policy - Electric shock collars and training aids".
"Ban the use of shock collars {{!}} Campaigns {{!}} RSPCA".
PETA. (10 August 2010). "Electric Fences and Shock Collars".
Ziv, Gal (2017). "The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs-A review". PLOS ONE. 12 (3): e0171963. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171963U.
"'Cruel' electric shock collars banned in England {{!}} Kennel Club".
Kennel Club. "Kennel Club Campaign".
WUSV. "WUSV Ban".
"Is the use of electronic dog collars legal?". RSPCA Australia.
(13 September 2021). "Achtung vor verbotenen Halsbändern für Hunde". Heute.at.
(11 August 2021). "Flanders to ban shock collars for pets".
(March 2024). "Uitdoofscenario voor stroomhalsbanden, verbod vanaf 2027".
(10 August 2021). "Stroomhalsbanden voor honden verboden vanaf 2027".
(23 May 2019). "Fynsk dyrlæge forarget over salg af stødhalsbånd: Hundene ved ikke, hvad der rammer dem".
(July 2018). "Questionnaire survey on the use of different e-collar types in France in everyday life with a view to providing recommendations for possible future regulations". Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
"Animal Welfare Decree". Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
"Eläinsuojelulaki | 247/1996 | Lainsäädäntö | Finlex".
https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/French-news/France-bans-training-dog-collars-that-cause-pain-to-animals# The Connexion. France bans training dog collars that cause pain to animals. 18 January 2023.
(2023-12-13). "Souffrance animale: l'Assemblée vote l'interdiction des "colliers de dressage"".
"Dog Keeping Laws for Germany".
(2019-01-17). "Notkun rafmagnsólarinnar tilkynnt sem ill meðferð til MAST".
(15 July 2011). "Rafmagnsólar hunda bannaðar - Vísir".
(4 April 2019). "Elektronische halsband voor honden vanaf volgend jaar verboden".
(4 April 2019). "Netherlands to ban shock collars for dogs, limit breeding of 'designer cats'".
Lindin, Ina-Kristin. (2017-01-27). "Dømt for bruk av strømhalsbånd".
Government of Norway. (2009). Animal Welfare Act. General Treatment of Animals (§ 3), Use of Equipment and Technical Solutions (§ 8), and Prohibitions in Training (§ 26.3). Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/animal-welfare-act/id571188/.
Stroman, Reta. (2023-08-26). "12 Countries Where Shock Collars Are Banned And Illegal - FunniPaw".
Total Slovenia News. (2021). Slovenia Tightens Rules on Pet Care. Retrieved from https://www.total-slovenia-news.com/lifestyle/8923-slovenia-tightens-rules-on-pet-care."
(16 February 2022). "Animal Protection Law in Spain gets the green light after months of delays". Spanish News Today.
https://www.publico.es/sociedad/gobierno-aprobara-proximo-viernes-ley-proteccion-animal.html Publico. El Gobierno aprobará este próximo viernes la Ley de Protección Animal. 15 March 2022.
https://el-lorquino.com/2022/02/16/espana/espana-aprobara-el-viernes-la-ley-de-proteccion-animal/134443/ El Lorquino. Spain will approve the Animal Protection Law on Friday. 16 February 2022.
Gernes, Jonatan. (2021-05-20). "Elhalsband gav plågsamma skador på hunden".
(May 2018). "Barriers to the adoption of humane dog training methods". Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
(2018-02-13). "Great News For Dogs As Switzerland Passes Law To Ban Cruel Anti-Barking Devices".
"Ordonnances du domaine vétérinaire: modifications".
Carter, E. (November 2007). "Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007". Animal Welfare.
"Electric Shock Collars". Kennel Club UK.
(23 March 2010). "Electric shock collars banned in Wales". WalesOnline.
(25 October 2001). "Collars turned dogs into killers".
(6 July 2002). "Dogfight nets RSPCA chief $30,000".
"Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Vic)".
Catriona Murdoch. (23 November 2010). "Electric shock pet collar ban did not breach human rights".
(April 18, 2011). "Shock collar found on pet dog roaming on Vale beach". BBC News.
(July 18, 2011). "Ogmore illegal shock collar dog owner gets £2,000 fine". BBC News.
{{cite court. (October 21, 2022). link
The case was settled on February 5, 2025.{{cite court. (February 5, 2025). link

::callout[type=info title="Wikipedia Source"] This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page. ::