Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are there videos or reliable sources showing Hasan Piker harming his pet?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows a viral October 7–12, 2025 livestream clip in which Hasan Piker’s dog yelps and viewers alleged he used a shock (electronic) collar; Piker denies using a shock setting and says the dog clipped a foot, while animal‑welfare groups and at least one veterinarian have urged caution about collars or criticized his handling [1] [2] [3]. Multiple news outlets carried the viral clip and reaction from other streamers, pundits and PETA, and some commentators say additional short clips circulated that they contend show him reaching for a remote [4] [5] [6].
1. What the videos actually show — the raw footage and how it spread
News organizations describe a short portion of an October livestream where the dog, Kaya, is visible in the background, emits a sharp yelp as Hasan appears to reach off‑camera, and the clip quickly spread across X/Reddit and other platforms; outlets call it a viral clip rather than a long, unedited exposé [1] [4]. Multiple reposts and newly surfaced 10–20 second clips prompted renewed debate, with some creators claiming there are several similar moments across different streams [5] [7].
2. What Hasan Piker says happened
Hasan Piker has publicly denied that he used a shock setting on Kaya, saying the yelp came from a minor mishap (for example, the dog “stepped funny” or clipped her foot), and he has sarcastically dismissed accusations on stream as coming from “crazy haters” while reiterating Kaya is “spoiled” and well cared for [1] [8]. He has also reportedly said the collar is vibration‑only in some statements cited by outlets [9].
3. What independent organizations and experts have said
PETA issued a statement warning that shock collars are dangerous and called for positive reinforcement instead while noting Piker denied using a shock collar [2]. A practicing veterinarian who reviewed clips — identified in reporting as CatalystVet — criticized the on‑stream handling and argued that appearing to operate a handheld remote raises animal‑welfare concerns and could amount to abuse under professional guidance discouraging aversive methods [3].
4. Claims, counterclaims and the limits of current footage
Supporters of the allegations point to the yelp timing, alleged reaches for a remote in short clips, a blinking light on the collar in some frames, and resurfaced past comments where Piker praised shock collars [5] [9]. Defenders say the footage does not conclusively show an electrical shock being delivered, that Kaya may have injured a paw or been startled, and that Piker has denied wrongdoing — opinion pieces call parts of the controversy misinformation or overreach when the clips are short [10] [8]. Available sources do not present a full, continuous video that indisputably demonstrates the collar delivering an electrical shock; reporting relies on short viral clips, commentary and expert readings of those clips [1] [5].
5. Who amplified the story and why that matters
High‑profile streamers and commentators such as Ethan Klein and xQc publicly accused Piker and amplified clips, and political figures and pundits also weighed in, intensifying attention and partisan framing [6] [7] [11]. Some outlets and opinion writers say longstanding feuds and political differences have driven amplification, which can shape how viewers interpret ambiguous footage [6] [10].
6. What’s been asked or done formally so far
News reporting records calls for investigations from viewers and mentions social‑media users urging local animal services to review the incident; some outlets say they reached out to Twitch and local authorities for comment [1] [12]. Available sources do not report the outcome of any official animal‑welfare investigation or legal finding at the time of these stories [1] [3].
7. How to evaluate similar viral allegations going forward
Short viral clips are often ambiguous; authoritative conclusions typically require longer context (full‑stream video, device data, veterinarian exam or formal inquiry). In this case, reporting shows credible concern from PETA and a veterinarian review, while Piker’s denials and the absence of publicly disclosed investigative findings leave the matter contested [2] [3] [8].
Bottom line: multiple reputable outlets document the viral clip, Piker’s denial, and expert/advocacy criticism, but reporters cite short, fragmentary footage and commentary rather than a single, unambiguous recording proving an electrical shock was administered — available sources do not present a definitive, full‑length video that conclusively shows him harming the dog [1] [2] [5].