Are Shock Collars Legal in NZ? 5 Checks

A shock collar is not subject to a blanket ban in New Zealand, but its use must comply with animal-welfare law. MPI says electronic behaviour-modifying collars should only follow unsuccessful alternative training, require suitability assessment, and must not cause unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

That answer leaves three practical questions:

• What does the MPI Code of Welfare: Dogs actually require?
• When could collar use become an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 1999?
• What should you check before buying, fitting or activating an electronic collar?

The short answer is yes, but only within strict welfare limits. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) does not describe electronic collars as automatically prohibited. Instead, its Code of Welfare: Dogs sets conditions around how behaviour-modifying collars should be selected and used.

The guidance covers electronic collars, including anti-barking collars. It says they must not be used in a way that causes a dog unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress. Therefore, legality depends on the way the device affects the individual dog, rather than simply on the product being sold as an e-collar.

MPI also says these collars should only be considered after other training methods have failed. This means an owner should not treat an electronic collar as a convenient first response to barking, pulling, recall problems or anxiety. If a neighbour has already raised a noise issue, our barking dog complaint guide explains the council process you may also be dealing with.

The Code recommends involving a veterinarian or suitably experienced trainer. That professional input should help determine whether the dog is suitable for the proposed training programme and how the programme should operate.

In practical terms, a collar’s legality does not come from a retailer’s description. It comes from responsible use that remains consistent with the dog’s welfare.

Source: Ministry for Primary Industries, Code of Welfare: Dogs (current guidance accessed 2026).

The Code focuses on preventing avoidable harm, not on giving owners a simple product-based permission. That distinction matters because two owners could use the same device in different ways, with different welfare consequences.

MPI identifies several safeguards:

The warning about supervision deserves particular attention. MPI says a malfunction could cause serious harm if the collar remains on an unsupervised dog. Therefore, leaving the device on during the day, overnight or while the dog is alone creates a clear practical risk.

Owners should also distinguish training from punishment. A device that repeatedly activates without a clear, controlled training purpose may create distress without teaching the behaviour you want. In addition, barking can result from fear, pain, separation-related distress, frustration or an unsuitable environment. Suppressing the noise may not address that cause.

A written plan helps. Record the behaviour, trigger, frequency, duration and your response. Then take those notes to the veterinarian or trainer before deciding whether an electronic collar is appropriate.

Use may become unlawful when it causes suffering, pain or distress that is unreasonable or unnecessary. The key legal issue is therefore the dog’s welfare impact and the circumstances of use, not whether the owner calls the product a shock collar, bark collar or e-collar.

Section 28 of New Zealand’s Animal Welfare Act 1999 makes it an offence to ill-treat an animal. The Act defines ill-treatment as causing an animal to suffer, by an act or omission, pain or distress that is unreasonable or unnecessary.

That wording creates an important boundary. An owner cannot rely on the fact that a device is commercially available if their use causes prohibited suffering. Likewise, describing an activation as a correction does not remove the need to consider whether the response is reasonable and necessary. If you suspect a dog has been harmed by misuse, see our guide on how to report animal cruelty in NZ for who to contact.

The Act also provides the legal framework under which codes of welfare are issued. MPI’s Code of Welfare: Dogs sets minimum standards. Conduct inconsistent with a minimum standard can be used as evidence in a prosecution under the Act.

However, this article cannot determine whether a particular incident breaches the law. The outcome would depend on the facts, the dog, the device, the settings, the duration, the owner’s actions and the resulting welfare impact. If you believe a dog has been harmed, seek prompt veterinary advice and contact the relevant New Zealand animal-welfare authority for guidance.

Source: New Zealand Legislation, Animal Welfare Act 1999 (current version accessed 2026).

Do not assume that an organisation’s general training position is the same thing as a legal rule. The outline sources supplied for this guide verify MPI guidance and the Animal Welfare Act, but they do not provide a current SPCA New Zealand or New Zealand Veterinary Association position statement.

Consequently, this article does not attribute a specific policy or recommendation to SPCA NZ or NZVA. Their published guidance may change, and owners should check the current statement directly before relying on it.

That distinction helps prevent two common mistakes:

• Treating an animal-welfare organisation’s recommendation as legislation.
• Treating the absence of a blanket ban as an endorsement of routine use.

Regardless of an organisation’s position, MPI’s requirements remain relevant to practical decision-making. Other training methods should have failed, professional input should guide the programme, and the collar must not cause unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

A veterinarian can also help investigate medical contributors to barking or sudden behaviour changes. For example, pain, sensory changes or anxiety may need attention before any behaviour-modification equipment is considered. In addition, an experienced trainer can assess whether management, reinforcement and environmental changes offer a safer solution.

Pause before purchase or activation and complete a welfare check with professional input. A careful process is more reliable than choosing a device because an advertisement promises fast results.

Use this five-point check:

1. Identify the behaviour. Write down what happens, where it happens, what triggers it and how long it lasts.
2. Check for health factors. Ask a veterinarian whether pain, illness or another medical issue could contribute.
3. Try alternatives. Use appropriate training and management methods, and record what you have tried.
4. Assess the individual dog. Ask a veterinarian or suitably experienced trainer whether the dog and training goal are suitable.
5. Plan supervision. Do not leave the collar on an unsupervised dog, and stop if it causes distress or harm.

Also check the collar’s physical fit and condition. A damaged device, unclear instructions or unreliable activation increases the risk of poor use. Keep the instructions, purchase details and your training notes. These records can help a professional understand what happened if the dog develops a new problem.

Do not use the device to address unexplained aggression, panic or severe anxiety without professional advice. A collar may interrupt behaviour while leaving the underlying trigger unresolved. Therefore, focus on the cause, the dog’s emotional state and a training plan that you can monitor. If the behaviour involves biting, lunging or a council notice, read our menacing dog guide to understand the separate Dog Control Act process first.

The safest answer is conditional: New Zealand regulates welfare outcomes rather than giving owners a simple green light. MPI guidance allows no room for use that causes unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

Before proceeding, ask:

• Have suitable non-electronic methods genuinely been tried?
• Has a veterinarian considered possible medical causes?
• Has a suitably experienced trainer assessed the dog and the training goal?
• Can you supervise the dog whenever the collar is fitted?
• Can you explain how the plan avoids unnecessary distress?
• Will you stop and seek help if the dog’s behaviour or welfare worsens?

If you cannot answer these questions clearly, do not activate the collar. Instead, arrange professional advice and continue with safe management while you wait.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 remains the legal backstop. A failure to follow the MPI Code may provide evidence in a prosecution, while conduct that causes unreasonable or unnecessary suffering can fall within the Act’s ill-treatment provisions.

So, are shock collars legal in NZ? They are not covered by a blanket ban in the guidance provided, but their use is tightly constrained by animal-welfare requirements. MPI says other training methods should come first, professional input should guide suitability, supervision is necessary and the collar must not cause unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

Before using one, record the behaviour, arrange a veterinary check and speak with a suitably experienced trainer. If the dog shows distress, stop using the device and seek advice. Check the latest MPI guidance and the Animal Welfare Act 1999 before making a decision, because responsible use depends on the individual dog and the exact circumstances.