Oh no. We’ve sat for a couple that had trackers, and we didn’t mind at all, we were completely relaxed about them. However, we wouldn’t be okay with the way in which you are describing you use these tools. We’d totally avoid any owner if we thought there was a lack of trust with ourselves before we’d even met.
We treat every pet owner we agree to sit for afresh, and I would hope every owner would do the same with us.
This went from “ALL experiences and or suggestions ARE WELCOME! Your responses may shape how I handle this topic with future sitters.” to “your approach and tone don’t align with what I look for in a sitter. Your the type of person I wouldn’t choose to have care for my dog.” very quickly. 
Last summer, one of the indoor/outdoor cats I sat wore a tracker while roaming outside so that I could monitor his movements. Since I wasn’t entirely comfortable letting the cat out, the tracker not only gave me peace of mind but was also a great help when bringing him in for the night. That tracker only monitored the cat’s whereabouts, nothing more.
However, I don’t think I’d be as comfortable with the type of tracker you mentioned. In fact, I am certain I wouldn’t want to sit a pet wearing one. This is why I believe it is of utmost importance that you disclose it upfront in your listing.
Yes they would be , because you should have disclosed this in your listing.
Then only sitters who are comfortable with this level of monitoring would apply .
Sitters should not get surprises during a sit. Any monitoring devices should be disclosed in the listing, you run the risk of your sitter ending the sit.
As a sitter I can follow instructions regarding pet care. I would not want to be monitored to this extent. If not disclosed prior to confirming sit I would be at the very least uncomfortable with the lack of trust or most likely then cancel. You can require whatever you like but it is up to sitters if they choose to take it. Not for me.
Some sitters are going to have a problem. Some aren’t. The best policy is disclosure upfront and agreeing about if and when “checking in” based on the information would be warranted. We did one sit with a dog that had airtags which we weren’t fully aware of until the warm hand off where the homeowners were thrilled at the many long village exporation walks we’d gone on with the dog. I agree it is somewhat like outside cameras, allowed but don’t make it weird.
I think the audio monitoring alone makes it weird. The monitoring of how long the dog is away from the home and 24x7 live location doesn’t help.
That the sitters clearly aren’t given access to this marvellous health monitoring tool for the pets they are supposed to be responsible for is the biggest of red flags that it’s actually to monitor the sitter. I think the weird ship has sailed.
You may have a point. I never heard of tags with audio monitoring before. Is this standard or extra? I’d want to know how that feature works and if it could pick up other sounds eg my saying, “Would you please shut the _____ up?"
Was there an apology after you enlightened them @BonnyinBrighton?
It’s an interesting topic, and I can understand both sides. From a sitter’s perspective, I can see how a GPS tracker and health monitor would feel reassuring — especially if it helps ensure a pet’s safety, which I’m all for. If a device gives peace of mind to the pet owner, that’s great. However, the idea of being “watched” or monitored during the sit could feel a bit unsettling for some sitters, particularly if the pet owner doesn’t give a heads-up about it beforehand.
That said, I think transparency goes a long way. If a sitter is made aware of the device and its capabilities at the start, it removes the feeling of surprise or discomfort. If there’s a reason behind the device—like the previous experience you had with the road trip—sitters may also be more understanding of why it’s in place.
For future sits, I’d recommend mentioning it upfront, maybe even explaining why you find it helpful for your dog’s safety. It could ease any concerns and ensure everyone feels comfortable with the arrangement.
In my view, anything that helps keep the pets safe is a bonus, as long as it’s communicated clearly.
Thanks for raising the question!
Agree. I’m a lone sitter and I often talk to myself. Absolutely nothing wrong in that, although my language can be choice, and I’m sure most people do the same but I certainly don’t want anyone listening in!
That’s my fault 
I used it when frustrated with another very non empathetic member and got it banned! #foreffssake
Speaking from experience — it really doesn’t. I’m a good & reliable sitter, but I know I’m potentially being tracked & monitored & that’s disquieting. It makes me question everything I do with the pet & how it might be misinterpreted. But because I understand where the host is coming from, I shut up & deal with it, for as long as I believe the owners are reasonable people. 
No thank you to all those monitoring devices (unless medical or you have a pet that does regular runners) on a platform based entirely on trust. Please declare them in the listing or as @Maggie8K says, you risk the sitter leaving on arrival if they only find out then. We don’t want to look after micro managed pets & homes, either handover full responsibility or pay someone and give them instructions. #nowayjose
I’d be tempted to put on a little radio play to see if anyone was listening.
How was I to know he was just here to read the gas meter? Now help me roll him up in the rug. We’ll tell the homeowner the dog made a mess and we had to throw it out.
Because I am obsessive this way, I just looked up online if the trackers that monitor barking actually record or can playback sound, and it looks like they can’t or at least that isn’t standard. So it really looks like they are monitoring the dog, not the sitter, but of course there could be micromanaging and misunderstandings as there could be with ring cameras and many other types of devices.
I’m with you. I don’t like any cameras, even exterior ones, just because I find it creepy that the HO might see me pick my nose or talk on the phone on their porch or whatever. I don’t need to worry about more nefarious deeds on my part as I am never “up to no good” - but I find them violating. I only sit for cats, but a Ring doorbell or some such invasive gadget would show the HO if I’m 15 minutes later than they requested for the cats’ dinner, which makes me nervous and extra conscientious in case they hold that against me. Giving meds at specific times, especially insulin shots, are a serious matter and of course I am super conscientious about that.
If I were to sit a dog, I would ask the HO if they use a tracker and, like you, decline the sit if the answer is yes. I have been a professional pet sitter for decades and would find it insulting that a dog owner needs to check up on where the dog is to make sure I’m where I should be. This takes the “trust” out of Trusted Housesitters.
I just hope HOs will be truthful about such trackers if they use them, to spare those of us who don’t want to be micromanaged.
That’s what happens when you let the cat out of the bag.
If you’re advocating for less transparency wrt tracking devices, that’s rather concerning. But perhaps I misunderstand.
In this case, however — there’s no necessity for the PO to let anything out of the bag. The gps devices I’ve seen are all pretty obvious: a good-sized plastic rectangular object attached to the pet’s collar. You can’t miss it — or help but question it — if you don’t already know what it is.