We hope to inspire other cities and towns to follow suit. Electronic shock collars are an outdated and inhumane method of animal training and are currently banned in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia, Germany, the Netherlands, Wales, Quebec, and parts of Australia.

DRAFT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE:

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors finds that using electronic shock collars (e-collars, stim collars, and bark collars) on dogs is cruel and inhumane. The legislature further finds that electronic dog collars have a negative impact on dog welfare.

This ordinance aims to improve the health, safety, and welfare of dogs in San Francisco.

Top veterinary doctors and behaviorists agree that using aversive methods like electronic shock collars leads dogs to suppress or mask their outward signs of fear, often causing them to act suddenly with heightened aggression and with fewer warning signs when they feel threatened. In addition, after being repeatedly shocked, the dog may begin to feel unsafe, which can cause them to live in a constant state of fear. As a result, shock collar/e-collar training can make aggressive dogs more dangerous and put the public at risk. 

 St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of San Francisco and all animals, believed that animals are not subjects to be dominated, exploited, or abused. As the first city in the nation to ban the use of e-collars, San Francisco lives up to our tradition as a frontier of justice, rights for all, and progressive ideas.

For the purposes of this legislation, a training e-collar (also known as a shock collar) refers to any device affixed to a dog that produces an electric current designed to decrease or change behavior, including electrical stimulation collars and anti-bark collars. This legislation does not apply to GPS collars and attachments (such as Whistle, Fi, or Apple AirTags) used for tracking. Vibrating-only collars (with no shock or stim option) are excluded from the ban and may be used in the training of deaf dogs.

1. Prohibition on the use of electronic collars on dogs:

It is prohibited for a person to —

(a) attach an electronic collar to a dog;

(b) cause an electronic collar to be attached to a dog; or

(c) be responsible for a dog to which an electronic collar is attached

2. Prohibition on the sale and distribution of electronic collars for dogs:

It is prohibited for a person, business, or organization to — 

(a) sell 

(b) distribute

(c) or use electric shock dog collars when training, walking, boarding, or petsitting dogs

3. Cruelty to animals in the second degree is a misdemeanor and shall be punishable in the following manner:

(a) For the first offense, a fix-it ticket shall be issued

(b) For the second offense, a fine of not less than $250

4. Enforcement:

This ordinance allows San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SF ACC) officers to issue tickets to non-compliant dog owners, dog walkers, and dog trainers. All businesses within San Francisco city limits will be required to remove e-collars from dogs in their care and/or remove e-collars from their stores and cease using or selling them.

Terminology:

An electronic collar is a training tool that delivers an electrical stimulus, usually to the neck of the dog, through electrodes incorporated into the collar. There are a variety of electronic collars available for sale in the United States. There is currently no standard or regulation for manufacturing e-collars: stimulus strength varies between different e-collar brands and models.

There are three categories of e-collars. This ordinance applies to all three categories:

1. remote devices/hand-held 

2. bark-collars or noise-activated collars (some deliver electric current, some spray citronella as a punishment)

3. containment systems/invisible fencing

Note that different terms are used to describe electronic collars: shock collar, e-collar, electronic collar, electric collar, electronic training collar, remote training collar, electric pulse training aid, e-stimulus, e-stim, anti-bark or noise-activated control collars, etc. This ordinance recognizes these terms as interchangeable.