Did Hasan Piker pull his dog’s tail and when did the incident happen?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive Summary
Hasan Piker is at the center of two overlapping controversies: a widely discussed October 7, 2025 livestream clip in which viewers allege he activated a shock collar on his dog Kaya, and a separate resurfaced clip that some outlets report shows him pulling a dog’s tail; the two incidents are not the same event and the evidence for a deliberate tail-pull is mixed and undated. Reporting and analysis diverge: several sources focus on the October 7 shock-collar allegation and Piker’s denial that he used a shock device, while at least one resurfaced clip is described as showing a tail pull but lacks verifiable dating and context [1] [2] [3].
1. The October 7 livestream: shocks, yelps, and a denial that shifts focus
The clearest, date-specific allegation concerns an incident on October 7, 2025, when a viral livestream moment showed Piker scolding his dog and viewers interpreted a yelp and visual cues as evidence a stimulation device was activated; Piker responded by denying use of a shock collar and saying the collar is a vibrating training device and that the dog “clipped herself” on something [1] [3]. This account is the most consistently dated in the reporting and is the piece that triggered public responses including animal-rights commentary; PETA’s response and other mainstream coverage explicitly tied their reactions to the October 7 clip. The dispute therefore centers on the nature of the collar and whether any stimulus was intentionally applied, with Piker’s explanation contradicting the interpretation of critics and viewers [1] [3].
2. The resurfaced tail-pull clip: specific allegation with no reliable timestamp
A separate claim—appearing in resurfaced footage circulated online—alleges Hasan pulled a dog by the tail and even threatened the animal; that claim is presented by at least one outlet as a direct action but the clip’s date and context remain unverified [2]. Veterinary experts cited in the coverage warn that tail-pulling can cause nerve damage and should be taken seriously as a welfare issue, but the lack of an original stream date and missing broader context—why the clip resurfaced now, who posted it, and whether it shows a current or historical pet—means the allegation cannot be fully corroborated from the materials provided. The ambiguity about timing is critical: without provenance, the clip’s evidentiary value is limited [2].
3. Conflicting narratives and how outlets framed the story
Coverage splits into two narratives: one frames the October 7 incident as potential cruelty via a shock collar and emphasizes Piker’s denial and technical details about the collar, while another frames the resurfaced video as showing an explicit physical abuse act (tail-pull) but without establishing when it happened [1] [2] [3]. Different outlets emphasized different elements—some led with the timestamped October 7 livestream and Piker’s public response, others amplified the resurfaced tail-clip as an independent allegation. This divergence shapes public reception: time-stamped material lends itself to verification and rebuttal, whereas undated clips encourage speculation and recycling of past grievances [4] [5].
4. What Piker said, expert cautions, and missing evidence that matters
Piker’s public rebuttal asserts the device is a vibration training collar with an AirTag and that any yelp resulted from an accidental clipping event, not deliberate shock use; this claim is repeatedly reported in the October 7 context [1] [3]. Conversely, veterinary commentary attached to the resurfaced tail allegation warns about physical harm from tail-pulling, underscoring that if the tail-pull occurred as described it would merit concern [2]. Key pieces still missing are the original full-stream files, metadata proving clip dates, independent expert review of the collar device shown, and first-hand testimony about the resurfaced clip’s provenance—without those, definitive adjudication of the tail-pull claim or the exact mechanics of the October 7 episode is impossible [2] [3].
5. Bottom line for readers: what can and cannot be concluded today
The available reporting establishes that the October 7, 2025 incident involving Kaya and allegations about a collar is documented and disputed by Piker, making it the most verifiable event cited in coverage; the resurfaced tail-pull clip exists in reporting but is undated and context-poor, so it cannot be treated as conclusive proof that Piker pulled his dog’s tail at a specific time. Readers should treat the October 7 accusation and the tail-pull allegation as separate claims with different evidentiary bases: one is date-linked and rebutted by Piker, the other lacks a verifiable timeline and therefore remains unconfirmed [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].