Why Veterinarians Should Not Recommend Shock Collars, including Electronic Fences like the Halo
- Serena Caunce
- Jul 31
- 6 min read
In an era of evidence-based practice, veterinarians have a responsibility to guide clients toward interventions that support animal welfare, preserve the human–animal bond, and align with learning science. Shock collars, whether bark-activated, remote-controlled, or integrated into so-called “smart” containment systems like the Halo collar, fail on all counts.
Shock devices are designed to suppress behaviour through the application of pain, discomfort, or fear. These outcomes are not side effects: they are the mechanism. While this alone should give us pause, a closer look reveals a cascade of behavioural fall out and medical concerns that make their use not just questionable, but indefensible.
Physiological and Psychological Stress
Numerous studies have documented the physiological stress response associated with shock collar use. Dogs subjected to electronic training devices show elevated salivary cortisol, increased heart rate, and behavioural signs of fear such as yawning, lip licking, cowering, and avoidance. These signals do not indicate “respect” or “calm submission” but a state of conflict and distress. In some cases, long after the collar is removed, the dog may generalize that stress response to the environment, the trainer, or even previously neutral stimuli.
Containment Fails and Return-Home Punishment
The appeal of electronic fences is understandable: they offer the prospect of invisible boundaries and off-leash freedom. But in practice, these systems fail both behaviourally and ethically. When arousal is high enough, such as during a chase, many dogs will bolt through the fence despite the shock. After the chase, when arousal subsides, the dog may attempt to return home, only to receive another shock. By then their adrenaline, a great pain modulator, has worn off. The collar, designed to keep the dog “safe,” instead ensures it is punished for coming home.
Neglect and Injury from Constant Wear
Many shock and electronic containment collars are worn continuously, often without proper maintenance. This leads to pressure sores, moist dermatitis, bacterial infections, and in severe cases, myiasis, aka flystrike, aka MAGGOTS.
Maggots have been found under electronic collars worn too long in damp weather, undetected by owners who assumed their dog’s discomfort was due to an allergy or a minor irritation. These are not training accidents, they are predictable outcomes of poor design and negligent oversight.
The Myth of “If Used Correctly”
Shock collar proponents frequently insert a qualifier: “if used correctly.” This argument presumes a level of understanding that does not exist among most laypeople and, in many cases, among the trainers who sell or promote these tools. Correct timing, reinforcement history, discriminative stimuli, and the avoidance of unintended associations all require nuanced understanding of learning theory. Without that foundation, these devices are used not as tools of communication but as instruments of frustration and punishment.
A collar that beeps or vibrates before a shock is still part of an aversive conditioning protocol. The intention may be to create a conditioned recall cue, but in practice, that cue often becomes poisoned. If the recall fails, the shock is applied. This turns the cue into a predictor of pain, not a signal of opportunity. The lack of consistency creates confusion in the learner, the pet dog. And once an owner experiences a failed recall, the device often shifts from a communication aid to a punishment tool. They didn’t listen the first time, so now it’s time to increase the level of shock.
Punishment Fallout and Escalating Aggression
Applying an aversive stimulus in an emotionally charged context, such as a dog reacting to another dog on or off leash, can make behaviour problems worse. If the shock is paired with the presence of another dog, classical conditioning can occur, linking the other dog to the pain. This association increases the risk of aggression and intensifies reactivity over time. In some cases, I have seen dogs being shocked and they undergo the fidget fear response, frenetically dancing their feet around in a state of confusion of should I stay, or should I go now?
Behaviour that might have been addressed through desensitization and counterconditioning becomes entrenched, and sometimes dangerous.
Why Are These Devices Still Legal?
In countries like Germany, Norway, and Wales, shock collars are banned outright. They are recognized as incompatible with animal welfare. In Canada, they remain freely available (outside of Quebec). There are no licensing requirements, no educational prerequisites, and no restrictions on sale. This means anyone, with no understanding of behaviour, learning, or welfare, can walk into a pet store or browse an online retailer and purchase a device designed to hurt animals.
As veterinarians, we should be demanding change.
At minimum, electronic collars should be regulated as restricted-use devices, available only to licensed professionals with advanced training in behaviour and welfare. Better still, they should be banned. Full stop.
What We Should Recommend Instead?
The good news is that humane, effective alternatives exist. Positive reinforcement training, based on reward, timing, and choice, is not only more ethical, it is more effective in the long term. These methods do not suppress behaviour through fear. They build reliable responses through trust, consistency, and motivation. They support the bond between the animal and the person, not undermine it.
First, set your dog (and yourself) up for success by ensuring that there are no competing motivators in the environment prior to training. Competing motivators could be prey, social partners (humans or conspecifics), other food items, garbage, the neighbour's cat, a duck pond, etc. What that means is you practice your cue when there are no distractions, inside the home for example.
Train a recall similar to how Ken Ramirez trains emergency recall in marine mammals, and zoological facilities train their large carnivores, through the use of a predictable cue and the highest value reinforcer.
Once the "cue", which could be a bell, dinner triangle, whistle or some other sound that carries over a distance, has been practiced inside the house, you can "fade in" more and more distractions to "proof" your recall. If your dog failed, then you have likely moved too quickly into an area with stronger reinforcers than the ones you are providing.
Educating Clients (and Veterinarians)
It is true that many veterinarians did not have specific education in animal behaviour modification and training techniques. Some come from the horse world where there is a lot of negative reinforcement techniques. Some learned from Cesar Millan on the once popular TV series the Dog Whisperer.
Veterinarians are uniquely positioned to shape public perception of what constitutes humane and effective training. When we remain silent, or worse, when we condone the use of aversive devices, we fail the animals in our care. We can and must do better.
This is not just about training tools. It is about our role as advocates, scientists, and stewards of animal welfare.
It is time to stop legitimizing pain as a training method.
It is time to stop calling these devices communication “tools.”
It is time to call them what they are: weapons.
And it is time we demand they be treated accordingly.
Countries that have Banned Electronic Collars as training aids for dogs:
While many veterinary associations do not support the use of electronic collars, it is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
Word went around that San Francisco would be the first region in the USA to ban shock collars.
If you or your clients are looking for a reputable dog trainer, start with the CPDT, KPA, IAABC or BCSPCA AnimalKind program.
Addendum: On “Calm Submission”
The term “calm submission” had gained popularity through media personalities, most notably Cesar Millan, who framed it as the ideal behavioural state in dogs. But what is often labelled as “calm” is more accurately described, in scientific terms, as appeasement or behavioural inhibition. This also goes with the phrase "better in the back". The dogs are not emotionally better, they are behaviourally suppressed.
Veterinary behaviorists recognize the signs commonly interpreted as submission: lowered body posture, avoidance of eye contact, stillness, slow movements, expressions of emotional conflict or fear. These behaviours often occur in response to perceived threat or social pressure and may reflect a state of learned helplessness rather than cooperation or trust.
Modern dog behavioural science has moved well beyond dominance theory. Companion dogs do not need to be “put in their place" or "be subservient." They need to feel safe, understood, and supported.
If we misinterpret fear as obedience, we risk reinforcing harmful methods and misguiding our clients.
Comments