18/12/2025
Position Statement on Electronic Shock Collars
Dear Dr. Michael Bailey
I am writing in response to your public comments regarding the use of electronic shock collars, made during a recent radio interview. Because these remarks were made while you were serving as President of the American Veterinary Medical Association, they have been widely interpreted as reflecting acceptable veterinary guidance rather than personal opinion.1
Link to the Steve Dales show:
https://wgnradio.com/steve-dales-pet-world/affordability-of-veterinary-care-vaccine-hesitancy-of-pets-and-more/
I offer this perspective as a behavior professional and crossover trainer - someone who previously worked with aversive tools and later moved away from them based on outcomes, evidence, and ethical responsibility. That background allows me to evaluate these tools not in theory, but through direct professional experience.
My current practice is guided by the LIFE framework: Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective. This framework requires that any intervention be evaluated not only on whether it can suppress a behavior, but on whether it minimizes harm, teaches usable alternatives, and supports long-term emotional stability.2
Using the LIFE framework, electronic shock collars do not meet the standard.
Electronic collars operate through the application of pain or the anticipation of pain.1 Regardless of intensity or frequency, this places them high on the inhibition spectrum. Under LIFE, such intrusiveness requires strong justification. That justification is not present when less intrusive methods exist that achieve comparable or better outcomes.24
From a functional standpoint, suppression is not the same as learning. In practice, behaviors stopped through aversive stimulation often reappear under stress or in new contexts. The underlying emotional drivers remain unaddressed or are intensified. This pattern is consistent with fear-based conditioning and is commonly observed in applied behavior work.3
I am particularly concerned by public framing that suggests shock collars may be appropriate in severe cases, including those involving safety risks or euthanasia considerations. Under the LIFE framework, increased risk calls for escalation of expertise, not escalation of aversiveness. Comprehensive behavioral assessment, environmental management, structured behavior modification, and, when appropriate, pharmacological support represent the least inhibitive effective pathway for such cases.4
The suggestion that shock collars can be used humanely if the animal understands the reason for the stimulus does not reflect real-world learning conditions. In typical household environments, timing and contextual control are inconsistent. As a result, dogs often associate aversive stimuli with surrounding cues rather than with a specific behavior, increasing the risk of generalized fear, avoidance, and defensive aggression.3
Reinforcement-based training combined with management strategies meets LIFE criteria without introducing these risks. These methods reduce inhibition, support skill acquisition, improve emotional regulation, and demonstrate equal or better effectiveness for recall, reactivity, and safety-related behaviors. When such options are available, ethical practice requires that they be prioritized.24
As a professional in this field, clarity in public guidance matters. Pet guardians and practitioners rely on veterinary leadership to define standards of care. Public statements that appear to normalize highly inhibitive tools risk creating confusion about ethical thresholds and evidence-based practice.
Internationally, veterinary and welfare organizations have increasingly moved away from electronic shock collars. This shift reflects a broader recognition that these tools are unnecessary within modern behavior care and inconsistent with welfare-centered standards.
Based on my professional experience 25 years, crossover training background 18 year, and application of the LIFE framework, I do not consider electronic shock collars compatible with contemporary, evidence-based behavior practice. They are not the least inhibitive option, and they are not required for effective outcomes.
I encourage the AVMA to clarify its public messaging in a way that reflects current behavioral science and welfare-focused standards of care. Clear, measured guidance supports practitioners, protects animals, and preserves professional integrity.
Sincerely,
Roman Gottfried
Holistic, Trauma-Informed Dog Behavior Consultant
Crossover Trainer
Founder, Holistic Dog Training
Footnotes
1 Masson, S., de la Cruz, L. R., Landart, L., Dufour, E., & Gaultier, B. (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 (ESVCE). *Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 26*, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.04.005
2 Cooper, J., Cracknell, N., Mills, D., & Bailey, J. (2014). The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs living with owner-reported problem behaviour with remote electronic training collars. *BMJ Open, 4*(9), Article e005730. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102722
3 Schilder, M. B. H., & van der Borg, J. A. M. (2004). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: Short and long term behavioural effects. *Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85*(3-4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.10.004
4 Polgár, Z., de Assis, L. S., & Mills, D. S. (2024). Comparison of the efficacy and welfare of different training methods to desist lure chasing in dogs. *Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 11*, Article 1463311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632