International Canine Legislation Action Committee
An evidence-informed policy dossier drawing on peer-reviewed research, professional standards and primary legislative sources.
This file is a jurisdiction-neutral evidence foundation. It is designed to support letters, submissions, approaches to retailers and manufacturers, and work with parliamentary or regulatory committees anywhere in the world. It is not a substitute for local legal advice or for checking the primary text of any statute or bill.
It supports the aims set out in the ICLAC Global Declaration on the Protection of Dogs from Harm and the Promotion of Humane Training:
https://iclac.org.uk/declaration.php
The Global Declaration is the organisation’s public position whilst in the founding stages. This evidence file is the supporting case: welfare science, professional consensus, legal trajectory, retail risk and practical alternatives. The two are intended to be used together.
It can be attached as a supporting pack, excerpted for a shorter briefing, or combined with a short jurisdiction-specific annex (for example local bill text, local professional bodies and the relevant row from the Legislation Table).
The central argument is welfare. Dogs meet modern scientific criteria for sentience. Controlled studies link aversive methods to measurable welfare costs. Reward-based approaches achieve equivalent or better results without those costs. Independent veterinary and behaviour bodies advise against aversive tools. University-level education in animal behaviour and related fields trains practitioners in welfare-centred, reward-based methods, not in the routine use of pain-based equipment. A growing set of jurisdictions has already restricted or prohibited them on welfare grounds. Open retail sale of these devices adds a further welfare risk, because members of the public may obtain and use them without training, oversight or even reading the instructions.
These tools are not required for the training or behaviour change of dogs. Effective, humane alternatives exist. The policy case is for ending their sale and use as ordinary training equipment.
Unless a local annex states otherwise, this file concerns tools and methods commonly used to apply pain, discomfort or fear in the training or management of companion dogs, including:
It also concerns the open retail and online sale of such devices to the general public.
Boundary or containment systems and spray collars are noted only where a jurisdiction has expressly included or excluded them. The full policy scope ICLAC is advancing is set out in the Global Declaration:
Dogs are sentient beings. They can experience pain, fear, distress and positive emotional states. That is no longer a fringe claim. It is the basis of modern animal-welfare science, and it is increasingly recognised in law.
More and more jurisdictions are moving away from treating dogs as property and toward recognising them as sentient. Where the law accepts that dogs feel and suffer, the ethical and legal default is to avoid causing unnecessary pain or fear when effective alternatives exist. Training and management have to be judged against that standard. The relationship is not simply one of control over an object. It is a responsibility toward an animal capable of emotion and suffering.
Neuroscience supports what behaviour science and everyday observation already show. At Emory University, Dr Gregory Berns and colleagues trained dogs to enter a functional MRI scanner awake, unrestrained and without sedation, using positive reinforcement. Their work has shown that dogs have brain structures and patterns of activation involved in emotion and reward that parallel key systems in the human brain. Activity in the caudate nucleus — a region central to positive expectation and reward — responds to signals of food, praise and the presence or scent of a familiar person. Berns’ research is part of the wider scientific picture: dogs are not machines to be corrected by pain. They are animals with emotional lives that matter for how we teach and live with them.
Once sentience is accepted, methods that rely on electric shock, prong pressure or other deliberate application of pain or fear become harder to justify. The same modern understanding of canine behaviour that is taught in formal education points toward methods that work with learning and emotion, not against them through punishment.
Where a jurisdiction already recognises animals as sentient in statute or case law, ending the sale and use of these tools can be presented as consistency with that recognition. The evidence in the rest of this file shows why that step is warranted.
One-page study briefs are available for three core comparative papers:
Those papers are not the whole literature. They are the clearest controlled comparisons of electronic-collar or aversive-based training against reward-based training in companion dogs. The wider literature is summarised in published reviews.
4.1 Literature reviews on aversive methods and welfare
Ziv (2017), reviewing seventeen studies, concluded that aversive training methods can jeopardise the physical and mental health of dogs, and that there is no evidence they are more effective than positive reinforcement–based training. The recommendation was to rely on positive reinforcement and avoid positive punishment and negative reinforcement.
Guilherme Fernandes, Olsson and Vieira de Castro (2017) reviewed the literature on whether aversive-based methods compromise welfare. They reported that published studies generally link aversive-based methods with indicators of compromised welfare, including stress-related behaviours during training, elevated cortisol and problematic behaviours such as fear and aggression. They also noted limitations in the existing evidence base and called for further research. The direction of the findings, however, is consistent: aversive methods are associated with welfare costs.
Those reviews, together with the controlled studies below, form the scientific backbone of this file.
4.2 Welfare costs of aversive methods
Peer-reviewed work on companion dogs has linked higher use of aversive methods (including electronic collars, prong-type devices and other punitive techniques) with indicators of elevated stress during training, more tense or low behavioural states, and, in some designs, more negative affective bias outside sessions. Reward-based approaches do not carry the same pattern of welfare cost.
Vieira de Castro et al. (2020) compared training methods in real training-school settings and reported welfare concerns associated with aversive-based methods, especially when used in high proportions. Cooper et al. (2014) examined welfare consequences and efficacy of remote electronic training collars compared with reward-based training. China, Mills and Cooper (2020) compared electronic-collar training with a positive-reinforcement focus.
4.3 Efficacy
Controlled comparisons have not established that electronic collars or related aversive tools are more effective than well-delivered reward-based training. Where short-term suppression is observed with aversive tools, that is not the same as durable learning or improved long-term welfare.
The combined evidence supports a clear position: these tools produce measurable welfare costs and are not more effective than reward-based methods. No controlled studies have demonstrated a general efficacy advantage. Policy can prioritise methods that do not rely on pain or fear, and can restrict both use and open sale.
4.4 Unintended consequences of aversive training
Aversive methods do not only produce stress during the session. The literature and clinical behaviour practice identify secondary effects that matter for safety and welfare:
These consequences are why professional bodies advise against aversive tools for behaviour problems, including aggression, and why open retail sale to untrained users is a welfare risk in its own right.
Opponents of restriction rarely need to prove that aversive tools are best for ordinary pet training. They only need to persuade a decision-maker that there is a serious exceptional category where prohibition would cause harm. This section addresses that claim directly.
The hard cases usually named are livestock worrying and predatory chasing, severe recall failure, aggression, dogs said to be at risk of euthanasia, and dogs that have “failed” reward-based training. Working and service dogs are sometimes added. The evidence does not establish that electronic collars or prong devices are required for those problems.
Recall and livestock-related problems
Cooper et al. (2014) studied pet dogs referred for recall-related problems, including livestock issues. E-collar training produced no consistent efficacy advantage over reward-based training, and was associated with greater behavioural signs of poorer welfare during training. China, Mills and Cooper (2020) found that positive-reinforcement-focused training was at least as effective as e-collar training for off-lead problems such as poor recall, and in several measures more effective. E-collars are not required for reliable recall or for addressing the problems for which they are most often marketed.
Aggression
Interrupting an aggressive display with pain or fear can suppress the visible behaviour without treating the underlying emotion or motivation. Suppression can mask warning signals and increase risk. Aggression cases belong with qualified behaviour assessment and veterinary involvement. Retail shock or prong equipment marketed as a quick fix is not treatment.
Euthanasia claims
Published evidence does not establish that access to shock or prong collars is what prevents euthanasia. Qualified behaviour support, management and veterinary care are the documented routes for serious cases. Anecdote is not population-level evidence. These tools are not required to keep dogs alive or safe.
“Reward-based training failed”
Difficult cases require skilled assessment and qualified support. They do not require pain-based equipment or a general retail market in shock and prong devices. Formal university education in dog behaviour does not include these tools in its training programmes. The existence of a hard case does not convert an aversive product on a shop shelf into a necessary clinical instrument.
Working and service contexts
Where a jurisdiction excludes police, military or certain working dogs from a civilian sale-and-use restriction, that is a matter of legal scope, not proof that civilian open sale is justified. Civilian policy can still remove these devices from ordinary retail and ordinary training.
Conclusion on necessity
Across the exceptional cases most often raised, the evidence does not show that these tools are required. Reward-based training, management, veterinary care and qualified behaviour practice address the problems for which the tools are sold.
The tools are not required.
Independent veterinary, behaviour, welfare, assistance-dog and training organisations have issued documented positions against pain-based training. Decision-makers can fairly treat these positions as professional guidance. Primary documents are cited and, where possible, linked.
The list below runs to 169 organisations in six categories, on five continents. An organisation appears here only where there is primary-source evidence of its position: a published position statement, a code of ethics or conduct, membership or certification rules, a formal coalition endorsement, legislative support, or a curriculum that excludes aversive methods. Marketing language such as “positive”, “humane” or “modern” does not qualify on its own. Organisations that permit shock, prong or choke collars, or intentional positive punishment, under any label, are not listed.
The leading positions are summarised with their primary documents. The remaining organisations are listed with a brief identifier. A dagger (†) marks an organisation listed by the Initiative for Force-Free Dog Training as a supporter of its position paper and code of conduct. For submissions in a particular country, the national veterinary association and the major welfare bodies of that country, especially where it has already restricted these tools, are the most relevant local authorities to cite.
Veterinary and veterinary behaviour organisations (20)
Veterinary bodies carry particular weight with legislators because they speak for the profession responsible for animal health and welfare. The positions below come from national associations, international federations, the European specialist society for veterinary behaviour, and Swiss veterinary bodies. Specialist veterinary behaviourists, including diplomates of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and of the European College of Animal Welfare and Behavioural Medicine, sit at the top of this professional structure.
1. American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB). United States. Its Position Statement on Humane Dog Training (2021) states that evidence supports reward-based methods for all canine training and that reward-based learning offers the most advantages and least harm to the learner’s welfare. It finds no evidence that aversive training is necessary for dog training or behaviour modification, and states that aversive methods, which by definition rely on force, pain, or emotional or physical discomfort, should not be used in canine training or for the treatment of behavioural disorders. Only reward-based methods are recommended, including for behaviour problems.
Primary document: https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf
2. American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB). United States. The specialty college that examines and board-certifies veterinary behaviourists.
3. American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA). United States. The 2015 AAHA Canine and Feline Behavior Management Guidelines oppose aversive training techniques, associating them with detrimental effects on the human-animal bond, on problem-solving ability, and on physical and behavioural health. Techniques named include prong or choke collars, electronic shock collars, alpha rolls, dominance downs and physical punishment. The guidelines endorse non-aversive, reward-focused techniques.
4. Australian Veterinary Association (AVA). Australia. Its policy on the use of behaviour-modifying collars on dogs (ratified July 2022) states that collars designed to inflict pain, discomfort or fear to achieve behavioural change should not be used, naming electronic, citronella and choke collars, and that prong collars must not be used under any circumstances and should be illegal in every Australian jurisdiction. A companion policy addresses the use of punishment and negative reinforcement in dog training.
Primary document: https://www.ava.com.au/policy/use-of-behaviour-modifying-collars-on-dogs
5. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). Canada. Its position statement Humane Training of Dogs (2021) highly recommends reward-based methods, strongly discourages aversive methods because they do not address the underlying cause and may cause fear, distress, anxiety, pain or injury, and states that remote-controlled shock collars are not a necessary method of training or behaviour modification.
Primary document: https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/policy-and-outreach/position-statements/statements/humane-training-of-dogs/
6. British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA). United Kingdom. Recommends positive training methods as the most effective intervention for companion animals in terms of health, welfare and behavioural outcomes, recommends against aversive methods, and supports legislation banning the sale and use of devices that enable aversive training, such as electronic shock collars.
Primary document: https://www.bsava.com/position-statement/aversive-training-methods/
7. British Veterinary Association (BVA). United Kingdom. Holds the same position as BSAVA and continues to call on all UK governments for a complete ban on the sale and use of electric shock collars for dogs and cats.
Primary document: https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/electric-shock-collars-and-training-aids/
8. New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA). New Zealand. Its policy on behaviour-modifying collars (ratified November 2018) states that the NZVA does not support the use of electronic collars that deliver aversive stimuli for the training or containment of dogs, and that positive reinforcement is an effective and humane alternative.
Primary document: https://nzva.org.nz/policy-advocacy/policies/collars
9. Singapore Veterinary Association (SVA). Singapore. Co-signatory of SPCA Singapore’s position statement on animal training, which calls for humane, force-free, evidence-based methods.
10. European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE). Europe. Its position statement on electronic training devices, adopted in 2017 and published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior in 2018, strongly opposes the use of e-collars in dog training and urges all European countries to take a position on the matter.
Primary document: https://esvce.org/esvce-position-statements
11. Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE). Europe. Lead author of the 2024 joint position paper on the behaviour and training of animals, issued with FECAVA, FEEVA and WSAVA. The paper advocates positive reinforcement-based training, opposes aversive techniques including electric pulse collars, and calls for regulation of behaviour and training services so that practitioners use humane, evidence-based methods.
Primary document: https://fve.org/publications/fve-feeva-fecava-and-wsava-joint-position-paper-on-the-behaviour-and-training-of-animals/
12. Federation of European Companion Animal Veterinary Associations (FECAVA). Europe. Co-author of the 2024 joint position paper.
13. World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA). International. Co-author of the 2024 joint position paper.
14. Federation of European Equine Veterinary Associations (FEEVA). Europe (equine). Co-author of the 2024 joint position paper, which extends the same principles to horses.
15. Fear Free. United States, with international certification. A veterinary-led certification programme for veterinary teams, trainers and other pet professionals. Its practice certification standards require that any training or behaviour modification provided or referred by a certified practice be free from aversives, listing prong, pinch, choke, electric stimulation and citronella collars among them, and its animal trainer pledge commits certified trainers to reward-based methods that avoid fear or force.
16. Swiss Veterinary Society for Animal Protection (STVT). Switzerland. †
17. Swiss Veterinary Society for Behavioural Medicine (STVV). Switzerland. †
18. Certodog, Stiftung für das Wohl des Hundes. Switzerland. Foundation for the welfare of dogs. †
19. Berufsverband der TierheilpraktikerInnen Schweiz (BTS). Switzerland. Professional association of complementary animal health practitioners (allied practitioners). †
20. EGCBT Schweiz, European Guild of Canine Bowen Therapists. Switzerland (allied practitioners). †
Professional dog training and behaviour associations (46)
These are the bodies that set membership and practice standards for trainers and behaviour consultants. Several publish standards that bind their members. Several more are founding signatories of the UK Dog Behaviour and Training Charter, signatories to the 2018 open letter to the UK Secretary of State opposing any exemption in the proposed English ban on electronic training devices, or supporters of the Initiative for Force-Free Dog Training.
21. Association for Professional Dog Training International (APDT International). United States, international membership. Its Standards of Practice state that there are no training or behaviour cases which justify the use of intentional aversive, punishment-based interventions, from general obedience through to severe behaviour problems. Members do not employ choke collars, prong collars, shock collars (including “stim” and e-collars) or other techniques designed to cause fear, pain or startle. APDT International is a partner in the Joint Standards of Practice with IAABC and other organisations.
Primary document: https://apdt.com/standards-of-practice/
22. Association of Pet Dog Trainers UK (APDT UK). United Kingdom. Signatory to the 2018 open letter.
23. Association of Pet Dog Trainers Australia. Australia.
24. Association of Pet Dog Trainers New Zealand (APDTNZ). New Zealand.
25. Association of Pet Dog Trainers Ireland. Ireland.
26. International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC). United States, international membership. Its Standards of Practice state that positive reinforcement should be the primary training strategy and that the IAABC opposes the intentional use of methods involving pain, fear or intimidation. In February 2025 the IAABC folded its earlier shock-collar addendum into the Standards of Practice. The unified position strongly opposes the intentional use of aversive stimuli, requires members to refrain from using shock in training or behaviour modification, and expects members to help clients already using shock devices move to humane alternatives.
Primary document: https://iaabc.org/standards-of-practice
27. Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC). United Kingdom. The regulatory body that sets and maintains standards for animal trainers and behaviourists in the UK. Its indicative list of aversive methods and equipment (June 2024) names choke, prong and electric collars, spray collars, electronic fences and physical methods such as the “alpha roll” as equipment and methods that should not be used in training animals. Signatory to the 2018 open letter.
Primary document: https://abtc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Aversives-June-2024.pdf
28. UK Dog Behaviour and Training Charter. United Kingdom. Launched in 2020 by seven founding organisations. Signatory organisations pledge not to endorse correction-based remote training devices or aversive stimuli that work through pain or fear, including shock collars, citronella and anti-bark collars, choke chains and prong collars, and must write that pledge into their codes of practice.
29. Initiative for Force-Free Dog Training (IFD). Switzerland, international reach. A position paper and code of conduct committing signatories to non-aversive training, supported by 954 professionals (as of April 2026) and by the organisations marked † in this list.
Primary document: https://www.forcefree-dogtraining.org/supporters/organsations/
30. Pet Professional Guild (PPG). United States, international membership. Maintains position statements on shock, on choke and prong collars, and on pet correction devices. Its position is that electrical stimulation devices are not necessary for effective training or behaviour modification and are damaging to the animal, and it does not recommend choke or prong collars. Use of such equipment is incompatible with membership under its Guiding Principles. Founding signatory of the UK Charter. †
Primary document: https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/about-us/position-statements/
31. Pet Professional Guild Australia (PPGA). Australia. Australian affiliate of the Pet Professional Guild.
32. Institute of Modern Dog Trainers (IMDT). United Kingdom. Founding signatory of the UK Charter.
33. International Canine Behaviourists (ICB). United Kingdom. Founding signatory of the UK Charter.
34. Association of INTODogs. United Kingdom. Founding signatory of the UK Charter.
35. COAPE Association of Pet Behaviourists and Trainers (CAPBT). United Kingdom. Founding signatory of the UK Charter and signatory to the 2018 open letter.
36. COAPE Association of Behaviourists and Trainers International (CABTi). International arm of the COAPE association.
37. International Companion Animal Network (ICAN). International accreditation and membership body for companion animal behaviour and training professionals.
38. International Institute for Canine Ethics (IICE).
39. The Canine Behaviour and Training Society (TCBTS). United Kingdom.
40. Professional Association of Canine Trainers (PACT). United Kingdom.
41. Pet Professional Network (PPN).
42. Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC). United Kingdom. Signatory to the 2018 open letter.
43. Fellowship of Animal Behaviour Clinicians (FABC). United Kingdom.
44. British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA). United Kingdom and Ireland. Professional body for zoos and aquariums.
45. Pet Dog Trainers of Europe (PDTE). Europe. Association of pet dog trainers across Europe. †
46. IBH, Internationaler Berufsverband der Hundetrainer/innen. Germany. Professional association of dog trainers. †
47. ÖBDH, Österreichischer Berufsverband der Hundeerzieher, -trainer und -verhaltensberater. Austria. Professional association of dog educators, trainers and behaviour consultants. †
48. VDTT, Berufsverband der Tierverhaltensberater und -trainer. Germany. Professional association of animal behaviour consultants and trainers. †
49. VÖHT, Vereinigung Österreichischer HundeverhaltensTrainerInnen. Austria. Association of dog behaviour trainers. †
50. SVH StresstrainerInnen Hund. †
51. SKG, Schweizerische Kynologische Gesellschaft. Switzerland. The Swiss Cynological Society, the national kennel body. †
52. Kennel Union of Southern Africa (KUSA). South Africa. National kennel body.
53. Professional Dog Businesses UK. United Kingdom. †
54. Force Free Oregon. United States. †
55. Force Free Trainers of Wisconsin (FFTW). United States.
56. Alliance of Force-Free Animal Professionals.
57. Dog Scouts of America (DSA). United States.
58. Dog Welfare Alliance.
59. International Positive Dog Training Association (IPDTA).
60. Canadian Association of Professional Dog Trainers (CAPDT). Canada. In 2021 it added a “STOP” list of severe and outdated training equipment and procedures to its Code of Ethics.
61. Animal Behaviour Consultants of Southern Africa (ABCSA). South Africa.
62. MFEC, Mouvement professionnel francophone des éducateurs de chiens de compagnie. Francophone professional movement of companion-dog educators.
63. SECEP, Syndicat des éducateurs comportementalistes en positif. France. Professional union of positive-method behaviour educators.
64. Chien en Mouvement.
65. Collectif Pausitif.
66. Association of Animal-Assisted Intervention Professionals (AAAIP). Professional association for animal-assisted intervention practitioners.
Dog training education, certification and professional development (46)
These are the schools, academies and certification programmes that train practitioners. Their curricula, codes or public commitments exclude aversive methods. When the people trained to the highest formal standard are not trained to rely on pain-based devices, the case for keeping those devices on open sale weakens further.
67. Karen Pryor Academy (KPA). United States. Trainer education and certification built on positive reinforcement.
68. The Academy for Dog Trainers. United States. Trainer education founded by Jean Donaldson.
69. Victoria Stilwell Academy / Positively. United States. In May 2025 the Academy and Positively reaffirmed their absolute avoidance of any tool, method or practice that causes pain, fear or purposeful discomfort to any dog, regardless of behaviour, history or breed. Victoria Stilwell Positively Dog Training was a founding signatory of the UK Charter.
70. Grisha Stewart Academy. United States.
71. Science Matters Academy of Animal Behavior.
72. Academy of Pet Careers. United States.
73. Animal Training Academy.
74. Canine Behavior College.
75. Carefree Companion.
76. Good Dog Academy.
77. Peaceable Paws. United States. Founded by Pat Miller.
78. The Phenix Advocacy Center for +R Canine Professionals. United States.
79. Understand Horses. Equine.
80. Do No Harm Dog Training and Behavior.
81. International School for Canine Psychology and Behaviour (ISCP). United Kingdom, international distance learning.
82. College of Scent Dogs. United Kingdom. Founding signatory of the UK Charter (as the UK College of Scent Dogs).
83. Puppy School. United Kingdom.
84. Gundog Trainers Academy. United Kingdom.
85. Natural Animal Centre (NAC).
86. The Dog Trainer School.
87. Animal Centred Education (ACE). United Kingdom.
88. Delta Institute. Australia.
89. Nordic Education Centre for Dog Trainers. Nordic countries.
90. Canis Hundeskole. Norway.
91. GoodDog Norway / GoodDog Academy. Norway.
92. BHARCS Academy of Canine Behaviour and Ethology. India.
93. PUPP Institute.
94. Animal Learn. Germany. Dog training, trainer education and publishing. †
95. AggressiveDog. United States. Educational platform on aggression in dogs. †
96. Clickerzentrum. Switzerland. Trainer education. †
97. cumcane familiari. Switzerland. Trainer education. †
98. Dog Academy Rakkaat Haukut / Dog Oriented Institute. Finland. Education centre. †
99. Dog-ibox. Online dog training. †
100. Easy Dogs. †
101. Hey Fiffi. Online dog training. †
102. HundeUni, Science Meets Practice. Education platform linking canine science and practice. †
103. Hundeherz. Switzerland. Online portal for dogs. †
104. I.E.T. Institut für angewandte Ethologie und Tierpsychologie. Switzerland. Institute for applied ethology and animal psychology. †
105. Leben mit Hunden. Online training for pet parents and dog trainers. †
106. Lernwelt Hund. Germany. Education centre. †
107. NF Footstep. Switzerland. Trainer education centre. †
108. Proactive Animal Consulting. †
109. Sprich Hund!. Germany. Education on dog behaviour and training. †
110. SzTVT, Schulungszentrum für Tierverhaltenstherapie und Erziehungsberatung. Austria. Education centre for animal behaviour therapy and training advice. †
111. ZfTT Zentrum für Tiertherapeuten. Germany. Education for animal therapists. †
112. rundum.dog. Online portal for dogs. †
Animal welfare, humane, rescue and advocacy organisations (36)
Welfare charities and SPCAs see the consequences of pain-based training in the animals they take in, and many have adopted formal positions or campaigned directly for legislation.
113. BC SPCA. Canada. Its Position Statement on Animal Training (2016) advocates force-free training, opposes methods or devices that employ coercion and force, and does not support choke chains, prong collars or shock collars. Its AnimalKind programme accredits dog trainers against published humane training standards.
114. Montreal SPCA. Canada.
115. Toronto Humane Society. Canada.
116. Ottawa Humane Society. Canada.
117. Winnipeg Humane Society. Canada.
118. Calgary Humane Society. Canada. Its position on the training of dogs (2022) supports humane methods and opposes training based on dominating the animal or on methods that cause pain, fear or undue stress.
119. Humane Canada. Canada. National federation of humane societies and SPCAs.
120. ASPCA. United States. Its Position Statement on Training Aids and Methods supports training based on how animals learn, states that humane training does not inflict unnecessary distress or discomfort, and relies primarily on lures and rewards.
Primary document: https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-training-aids-and-methods
121. Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society of the United States). United States, international.
122. American Humane Society. United States. Has publicly called on service dog trainers and organisations to pledge to stop using shock collars. Its own service dog standards permit only positive, reward-based training.
Primary document: https://www.americanhumane.org/press-release/american-humane-calls-on-service-dog-trainers-and-organizations-to-pledge-to-stop-the-cruel-and-inhumane-use-of-shock-collars/
123. Best Friends Animal Society. United States.
124. Humane Society of Sonoma County. United States.
125. RSPCA Australia. Australia. Its companion animal management policy opposes the use of aversive equipment and methods to train and control companion animals, describing them as inhumane, a risk of injury to animals and people, and a cause of short- and long-term harm to physical and mental health and to the human-animal relationship. It opposes the import, sale or use of equipment that delivers electric shocks or other aversive stimuli, prong or pinch collars, and choke or correction collars.
Primary document: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/rspca-policy-a7-companion-animal-management/
126. RSPCA South Australia. Australia. Firmly opposed to check chains, prong collars and other “dominance” equipment in all circumstances. Maintains a force-free trainers list and the Lead By Example campaign.
127. RSPCA Victoria. Australia.
128. RSPCA New South Wales. Australia.
129. RSPCA (England and Wales). United Kingdom. Has campaigned with other major organisations for a ban on the sale and use of electric shock collars. Signatory to the 2018 open letter.
130. Scottish SPCA. Scotland.
131. Blue Cross. United Kingdom. Signatory to the 2018 open letter.
132. PDSA. United Kingdom. Veterinary charity.
133. Dogs Trust. United Kingdom. Dog welfare charity. Signatory to the 2018 open letter.
134. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. United Kingdom. Long-standing campaigner against electric shock collars and part of the coalition of welfare groups pressing for a ban in England.
135. SPCA New Zealand. New Zealand. Supports low-stress, force-free, reward-based training and has described electric shock collars as inhumane and unnecessary.
136. SPCA Singapore. Singapore. Its Teach with Kindness position statement on animal training, co-signed by fourteen organisations, promotes humane, force-free, evidence-based methods. It continues to call for a ban on electric shock collars and co-chairs Singapore’s Dog Training Standards Workgroup with the Animal and Veterinary Service.
137. SPCA Hong Kong. Hong Kong.
138. Hong Kong Dog Rescue. Hong Kong.
139. Cape of Good Hope SPCA. South Africa.
140. FOUR PAWS International. International animal welfare organisation headquartered in Austria.
141. TIR, Stiftung für das Tier im Recht. Switzerland. Foundation for the Animal in Law. †
142. Kompanima. Switzerland. Animal protection competence centre. †
143. Schaffhauser Tierschutz. Switzerland. Animal protection society, Schaffhausen. †
144. Susy Utzinger Stiftung für Tierschutz. Switzerland. Animal welfare foundation. †
145. Stiftung TierRettungsDienst. Switzerland. Animal rescue foundation. †
146. Zürcher Tierschutz. Switzerland. Zurich animal protection association. †
147. Animal Rescue, Canton Schaffhausen and Thurgau. Switzerland. †
148. DAS TIER + WIR, Stiftung für Ethik im Unterricht. Switzerland. Foundation for ethics in education. †
Assistance, service, therapy, search and working-dog organisations (17)
The claim that working dogs need aversive tools is answered by the working-dog sector itself. The two global accrediting bodies for guide and assistance dogs have taken a joint position, and specialist search, rescue and therapy-dog organisations train without them.
149. Assistance Dogs International (ADI). International. With the International Guide Dog Federation, issued a joint position statement on the ethical training and care of guide and assistance dogs (2023), stating that aversive, compulsive, punishment-based or mixed training methods are not in the best interests of dogs or clients. ADI standards require member programmes to use humane, evidence-based training methods.
Primary document: https://assistancedogsinternational.org/news/2023/10/19/member-news/new-boost-for-the-ethical-training-health-and-welfare-of-assistance-dogs-and-guide-dogs/
150. International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF). International. Co-author of the 2023 joint position statement.
151. Guide Dogs UK. United Kingdom.
152. Guide Dogs Victoria. Australia.
153. Guide Dogs Queensland. Australia.
154. NEADS Service Dogs. United States.
155. Atlas Assistance Dogs. United States.
156. Dog A.I.D., Assistance in Disability. United Kingdom.
157. Pet Partners. United States. Therapy animal organisation.
158. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Mantrailing, Rescue and Therapy. Germany. Rescue and therapy mantrailing. †
159. Search and Recovery Canine Network. Human remains detection dogs. †
160. Mantrailing Basel. Switzerland. †
161. Mantrailing Plus. Switzerland. Mantrailing training and magazine. †
162. Ausbildungszentrum für tiergestützte Therapie im Rheinland-Pfalz. Germany. Education for school dogs and animal-assisted therapy. †
163. Fellverliebt, Training Centre for Therapy Dog Teams. †
164. Helferhund. Switzerland. Therapy dog training. †
165. TellingtonTTouch Interessens- und Berufsverband Schweiz. Switzerland. Professional association for Tellington TTouch practitioners. †
Legislative, government and kennel bodies (4)
Government agencies and national kennel bodies are not advocacy groups, which is what makes their positions notable.
166. International Canine Legislative Action Committee (ICLAC). International. The committee that publishes this document.
167. The Royal Kennel Club. United Kingdom. Campaigned for a ban on electric shock collars and was a signatory to the 2018 open letter, published through the Kennel Club, opposing any exemption for electronic containment fences.
Primary document: https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media-centre/2018/may/animal-welfare-organisations-pen-open-letter-to-michael-gove
168. Animal and Veterinary Service / National Parks Board (Singapore). Singapore. In July 2025 the Animal and Veterinary Service, a cluster of the National Parks Board, issued an advisory through the Dog Training Standards Workgroup that discourages the use of shock and prong collars and states that rewards-based methods should always be considered first.
Primary document: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/-/media/avs/advisory-on-use-of-aversive-dog-training-devices.pdf
169. Norsk Kennel Klub (NKK). Norway. National kennel club.
University education and academic training in canine behaviour
People who want a serious education in canine behaviour, animal behaviour or clinical animal behaviour study at university or through university-accredited programmes. Those programmes are built on learning theory, ethology, welfare science and evidence-based behaviour modification.
In that pathway, pain, fear and intimidation are not taught as methods for training companion dogs. Students learn to assess motivation and emotion, to use reinforcement and management, to avoid methods that increase fear or aggression, and to treat welfare as central to competent practice. The research those courses draw on is the research summarised earlier in this file.
Universities rarely issue position statements. The academic consensus is expressed through curriculum, textbooks, research supervision, and the professional bodies that university-trained clinicians join, many of which appear above. Where universities and research groups publish on training methods, the published direction is toward reward-based, welfare-centred practice and away from routine use of pain-based tools.
Policy that keeps these tools on open shelves, or that freezes older standards allowing them as a “last resort”, is therefore out of step not only with veterinary and behaviour organisations but with the educational pathway that produces behaviour professionals.
† Listed by the Initiative for Force-Free Dog Training as an organisation supporting its position paper and code of conduct (list checked 15 September 2026).
Section updated: 15 September 2026
Legal precedent is part of this evidence base. Jurisdictions that have already restricted or prohibited electronic training collars and related aversive devices show that welfare-based restrictions are workable in legal systems.
Examples of places that have already acted include Wales (electronic collars banned since 2010 under secondary legislation made under the Animal Welfare Act framework), Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Further proposals and consultations continue elsewhere, including in parts of the United Kingdom and beyond Europe.
Successful restrictions have generally been framed as animal-welfare measures, not as attacks on a profession. That framing should be preserved: the aim is to remove unnecessary harm from ordinary training and from open sale channels, and to raise professional standards where licensure is proposed.
The full living catalogue, enacted bans, partial measures, stalled efforts and live proposals across countries, nations, states, provinces and territories, is maintained in the Legislation Table.
The full living record of enacted, partial, draft and stalled measures is maintained online:
Policymakers often ask not only whether other jurisdictions have acted, but what followed. Published, systematic before-and-after evaluations of every welfare and public-safety indicator are limited. What is available still matters.
Wales
Wales prohibited electronic collars under the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010. The ban was upheld in the High Court. A later Welsh Government–commissioned independent review (published 2016) considered scientific evidence, industry submissions and other material. It concluded that the animal welfare cost is likely to exceed the benefits of electronic collars as training devices: they may cause pain, effective alternatives exist, and the scope for misuse is too great. On that basis the Welsh Government retained the policy. There are no plans, on the public record of that review process, to reverse the ban because of demonstrated harm from the prohibition itself.
Longer-running European restrictions
Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Nordic countries and, more recently, the Netherlands and others have operated restrictions or prohibitions for years. Opponents of bans often predict rises in euthanasia, dog attacks or livestock incidents attributable to prohibition. Those predicted harms have not been established in the published peer-reviewed literature as consequences of the restrictions. Absence of documented catastrophe is not a full impact evaluation — but the burden of proving that bans produce serious public-safety harm lies with those who assert it, and that proof has not been produced.
What this section does not claim
This file does not invent national time-series for livestock attacks or euthanasia where governments have not published them. Local campaigns should attach any official statistics their own jurisdiction holds. The point for policy is simpler: multiple jurisdictions have restricted these devices on welfare grounds; where independent review has revisited the Welsh ban, the welfare case was upheld; and the severe harms predicted by opponents of restriction have not been demonstrated in the published evidence as results of those policies.
A central welfare concern is not only professional use of aversive tools, but their presence on open retail shelves and online marketplaces.
These devices are widely marketed to ordinary dog owners as routine training equipment. Many purchasers have no formal training in behaviour, timing or welfare assessment. Instructions may be incomplete, ignored or never read. In those conditions, a remote electronic collar or a prong collar becomes a pain-based device in untrained hands: a dog barks, the button is pressed; a dog pulls, the collar tightens. The result can be repeated, poorly timed application of pain or fear, with no assessment of underlying causes and no plan for long-term change.
That risk is distinct from any claim about highly controlled professional settings. Open sale normalises pain-based equipment as an everyday consumer product. It also undermines jurisdictions and professionals that are moving toward reward-based standards, because the same devices remain a click away.
Policy that addresses only “use” while leaving unrestricted sale in place leaves the main pathway to harm open. Restrictions on sale, import and advertising — alongside restrictions on use where appropriate — are therefore a necessary part of a coherent welfare approach. The aim is that these tools should not be on the shelves at all.
Why sale and supply matter
Measurable welfare costs. Peer-reviewed work links higher use of aversive methods, including electronic collars and prong-type devices, with elevated stress during training, more tense or low behavioural states, and in some designs more negative affective bias outside sessions. Reward-based methods do not carry the same pattern of cost. Selling these devices as ordinary pet products puts that welfare cost within easy reach of any buyer.
No demonstrated need. Controlled comparisons have not shown electronic collars or related aversive tools to be more effective than well-delivered reward-based training. Short-term suppression under pain or fear is not the same as durable learning or improved long-term welfare. These tools are not required. Competent reward-based training, management and, where needed, qualified behaviour and veterinary support address the problems for which the tools are marketed.
Independent professional positions. Major veterinary and behaviour organisations advise against aversive tools. That consensus is set out in the professional consensus section of this file. Several of those bodies also support restrictions on sale.
Direction of legal travel. Jurisdictions including Wales, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland have already restricted or prohibited electronic collars and, in some cases, related devices.
Risk to the general public. Devices sold in shops and online are not limited to experienced professionals. There is no competence test at the point of sale. Packaging and marketing often present the product as a simple solution. That combination — pain-based equipment, untrained users, and weak or ignored instructions — is a foreseeable welfare risk. Ending open sale removes that pathway.
Documenting the marketplace
Logical risk is not the whole case. Local campaigns should preserve concrete marketplace evidence: date, retailer or platform, product name, URL, advertised claims, stated stimulation levels where shown, whether the product is marketed to ordinary owners as a training solution, and whether any competence or professional-supervision requirement is stated. Screenshots and product pages, properly dated, show that the consumer market creates the risk this policy addresses. ICLAC can hold a shared library of such examples as members submit them.
Approaches to retailers, online platforms and manufacturers rest on the same evidence base as approaches to legislators: welfare cost, absence of need, professional consensus, legal precedent, and the particular harm of open consumer sale.
Reward-based and management-based approaches address the same problems for which aversive tools are often marketed.
Effective alternatives include:
Where a case involves serious aggression, complex behaviour disorder or risk to people or animals, the appropriate route is qualified behaviour practice and veterinary involvement. Those cases are not a justification for shock or prong equipment, and they are not solved by the use of pain-based devices sold on open shelves.
The evidence summarised in this file supports a clear position: reward-based methods achieve the required outcomes without the welfare costs associated with aversive tools. These tools are not required. Restricting sale and use does not leave owners without options. It points them toward methods that train without relying on pain or fear.
Opponents of restrictions often raise a small set of repeated claims. Responses should stay measured and evidence-led. Full study detail is in the one-page briefs linked from section 4.
“These tools are needed or more dogs will be euthanised.”
Published evidence does not establish that access to shock or prong collars is what prevents euthanasia. Qualified behaviour support, management, and veterinary care are the documented routes for serious cases. Anecdote is not a substitute for population-level evidence. These tools are not required to keep dogs alive or safe.
“Reward-based methods fail on hard cases.”
Difficult cases require qualified assessment and support. They do not require pain-based equipment or a general retail market in shock and prong devices. Controlled comparisons have not shown aversive tools to be superior. Competent force-free practice resolves the problems for which these tools are marketed.
“Position statements are only opinions.”
Position statements from independent veterinary behaviour bodies are professional guidance grounded in the literature those organisations review. Courts and legislators routinely consider such guidance alongside primary studies. They are not the same as a commercial trade association defending product categories.
“Licensure should freeze older joint standards that still allow aversives as a last resort.”
Where a bill defines professional standards by reference to an older framework that still permits prong and shock devices, the evidence shows that professional and scientific guidance has moved on, and that a modern welfare-based definition is available.
“E-collars are essential for reliable recall.”
Controlled comparisons (including Cooper et al. 2014 and China et al. 2020) did not find a consistent efficacy advantage for e-collar training over reward-based training for recall-related problems. Owner-reported improvement was high across groups in Cooper et al., without a significant efficacy difference favouring e-collars. E-collars are not required for reliable recall. See the Cooper and China study briefs.
“E-collars are the only reliable way to stop predatory chasing or livestock worrying.”
Predatory and livestock-related problems are serious and need competent management. That does not make pain-based equipment the solution, and it does not justify open retail sale. Cooper et al. included dogs referred for recall-related problems including livestock issues and still did not find a consistent efficacy advantage for e-collars over reward-based training. Competent force-free practice, management, and, where needed, specialist behaviour support are the welfare-first route. A short-term stop under shock is not the same as durable, generalised change without ongoing risk of harm.
“You need aversives to interrupt aggression.”
Interrupting an aggressive display with pain or fear can suppress the visible behaviour without resolving the underlying emotion or motivation. Suppression is not treatment. It can also mask warning signals and increase risk. Aggression cases belong with qualified behaviour assessment and veterinary involvement, not with retail shock or prong equipment marketed as a quick fix.
“The tools are fine if used correctly by experienced people.”
Professional bodies that advise against these tools do so because of welfare costs, the absence of demonstrated need, and the difficulty of ensuring appropriate use at population level. These tools are not required.
“Force-free training is ideology, not science.”
The welfare route rests on measurable stress behaviour, physiology, affective bias, and comparative efficacy data, plus independent veterinary behaviour guidance. It is also the direction of university-level teaching in animal behaviour and clinical behaviour: students are not trained to use shock or prong equipment as ordinary tools. Disagreement about interpretation is normal in science. Denying that a body of evidence, professional consensus and academic training pathway exists is not.
Alongside the scientific literature and professional positions, there is a growing public campaign for the removal of aversive dog-training tools and methods.
ICLAC supports a global petition calling for a ban on aversive dog-training tools and methods:
https://www.change.org/p/global-ban-on-aversive-dog-training-tools-and-methods
As of August 2026 the petition has gathered more than two thousand signatures from the public and from professionals who support ending the open availability and use of these devices.
A petition is not a substitute for peer-reviewed evidence or for formal professional guidance. It is a signal of public and professional concern, and of demand for policy change. It can be cited in submissions, retailer approaches and media work as evidence that the issue is not limited to a small advocacy circle.
Supporters are encouraged to sign and share the petition where that is appropriate for their role and jurisdiction.
Do not over-claim. If a study is contested, say so and point to the primary paper. If a legal status is partial or under consultation, label it accurately. Credibility is the asset.
This file is maintained by the International Canine Legislation Action Committee (ICLAC) as a living evidence resource.
It's intended for use by advocates, professionals, retailers, journalists and decision-makers.
It supports the ICLAC Global Declaration on the Protection of Dogs from Harm and the Promotion of Humane Training:
https://iclac.org.uk/declaration.php
For the current catalogue of legal measures, see the Legislation Table. For plain-language detail on the core studies, see the one-page study briefs linked from the scientific evidence section 4.
ICLAC Global Declaration on the Protection of Dogs from Harm and the Promotion of Humane Training.
https://iclac.org.uk/declaration.php
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (2021). Position Statement on Humane Dog Training.
https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf
American Animal Hospital Association (2015). 2015 AAHA Canine and Feline Behavior Management Guidelines. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.
Association of Professional Dog Trainers International. Standards of Practice.
https://apdt.com/standards-of-practice/
British Veterinary Association. Electric shock collars and training aids (policy).
https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/our-policies/electric-shock-collars-and-training-aids/
British Small Animal Veterinary Association. Aversive training methods (position statement).
https://www.bsava.com/position-statement/aversive-training-methods/
Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers. Prohibited Practices Policy. Adopted 20 November 2025.
China, L., Mills, D. S., and Cooper, J. J. (2020). Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 508.
Cooper, J. J., Cracknell, N., Hardiman, J., Wright, H., and Mills, D. (2014). The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training. PLOS ONE.
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants. Standards of Practice (including unified position on shock, February 2025).
https://iaabc.org/standards-of-practice
Pet Professional Guild. Position statements (Use of Shock; Use of Choke and Prong Collars; Pet Correction Devices).
https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/about-us/position-statements/
RSPCA. Policy A7 Companion animal management (including opposition to aversive equipment and methods).
https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/rspca-policy-a7-companion-animal-management/
Vieira de Castro, A. C., Fuchs, D., Morello, G. M., et al. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0225023.
Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/943 (W. 97).
Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50–60.
Guilherme Fernandes, J., Olsson, I. A. S., and Vieira de Castro, A. C. (2017). Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare?: A literature review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 196, 1–12.
Welsh Government (2016). Written Statement — Electronic Shock Collars (review of the 2010 Regulations). https://gov.wales/written-statement-electronic-shock-collars