Collars risk causing neck injuries in dogs, study shows

I used to use flat collars, with fishtails on the sighthounds, with a couple of exceptions. I couldn't get a good fit with a flat collar on the Rough Collie so he wore a half check, adjusted so that it didn't pull tight on his neck. My bull terrier's neck was bigger than her head so she wore a harness. Not one of those 'look at me, I'm bull terrier' type harnesses with a chest plate and studs, I hasten to add.

Then I got the lad in my avatar who at 18 months had never been on a lead never mind a walk. Our first walk was an education. He was wild, jumping up in my face, highly reactive, backed out of a flat collar in the blink of an eye, so I bought him a harness. Inflicting pain and discomfort with something tightening round his neck like a choke collar or slip lead wouldn't have improved his emotional state or enabled him to learn. Building a relationship based on trust and looking to me for guidance was what worked.
 
Last edited:
My view - how many people actually have a dog that doesn't pull ? Maybe 20% of the dog owning population ? It is very much a training issue, that most people fail on, so rely on lead jerks/slip leads to try and stop the dog pulling. I once had to see a specialist on laryngeal paralysis for one of my dogs ( not due to collar damage) and she said she see's so many dogs who have damage from pulling on a collar.

Harnesses still seem to be viewed as 'fluffy' by lots of people and I've lost count of the comments I've seen on FB of people saying 'harnesses encourage pulling' ( they don't unless you are using the same harness for Canicross etc, as those are a very different style). A lack of training encourages pulling, dogs generally walk faster than we do, so they need help to walk at our pace. I also see people with harnesses with a strap across the chest, they are the ones that can cause damage with long term use. For me a harness is for attaching the lead to, a collar is for the ID tag to hang on and as back up.
 
Clodagh said:
The trouble with advocating never having to inflict inconvenience on an animal is it can be dangerous to others. Bits in horses mouths can cause pain and injury, but most people still use them as bitless does not generally give the same control.
If by yanking a collar your dog doesn’t run across the road after a cat then personally I’m all for the yank.
There’s idealism and there’s the real world.
Click to expand...

As you have already said, maybe the total lack of correction that is often advocated is the reason we see so many badly behaved dogs. Dare I say it but the same could possibly be said about children, not that I'm advocating putting a slip lead on a child. :p
 
skinnydipper said:
The study from 1991 that FL referred to found that 91% of 400 dogs had cervical neck injuries due to jerking by a lead or pulling in a collar.
Click to expand...
Just about the same percentage of ridden horses were found to have injuries to the neck and back in a similar study, however the majority of injuries were insignificant. Much like human feet in shoes, which also show deformation and minor injury. It's obvious that pulling hard in a collar will cause damage over time.
 
What I don’t really get is why dogs that pull don’t at some point realise or learn that in this position (pulling) I’m uncomfortable but in this position (heel or at least loose lead) it’s much more comfortable for me.
They pick up other things either intentionally or accidentally so quickly that I just don’t really get why not this.
I see a guy near me and his dogs sound like they can’t breathe they pull so much, every single time I pass him.
 
ycbm said:
Why was a study needed to prove that putting anything around a dog's neck and then jerking it or allowing the dog to pull at it could cause neck injuries? Have academics been paid to do this stuff?
Click to expand...

In this case I can only speak about how it was in Sweden, and the short answer is because as far as I know, quick jerks on the leash was the most commonly used training method to teach dogs to not pull on their leashes in Swedish dog clubs, up until Anders Hallgren's study.

The longer, but still a bit simplified, answer: When it became more common for the average dog owning Swede to want to go with their puppy/dog to dog training classes in the 60's-70's, basically the only thing available were classes held by the Swedish Brukshundklubben, an organisation founded under a different name in 1918. The Swedish word Brukshund is probably translated to Working dog in English, but its true meaning is more something like Utility dog/Dog used for a purpose, and at a Brukshundklubb, that purpose was for many years to train the dogs that the military and police wanted to use for the benefit of society.
The bunch of presumably mainly/only men with military and/or police background who decided how dogs as quickly, and efficiently should be taught to march with military precision without pulling on their leashes, decided that quick jerks on the leash was the method to use.

Add on to the above, in the late 40's came a study on wolves which launched the now refuted conclusion that Wolves have a strict Alpha system. Which quickly trickled over to dogs = if you're the Alpha leader to your dog, your dog will be obedient. An Alpha doesn't ask their minions to do something, they tell them, and expect obedience... This fitted like a hand in a glove into the existing training method, an Alpha doesn't ask their dog to not pull on the leash, an Alpha gives their dog a quick jerk in the leash to let them know they should listen to their leader.

Which brings us back to the 60's-70's again. There wasn't really any adaption to that average mr or mrs Svensson/Smith started to show up to Brukshundklubben's equivalent of today's puppy classes, together with their pet Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Papillons, and Standard Schnauzers etc, without at the majority of dog club's the same old harsh training methods continued to be used. Another thing to note is that, as I understand it, the classes were usually sort of built on the thought that all dog owners goals were to continue on to have it as a hobby to work with their dog in one discipline or another. The whole idea that someone might simply want to saunter, instead of marching, with a reasonably obedient pet dog, just weren't part of their way of thinking.

It was only after Anders Hallgren's study came out, that the Swedish Brukshundklubben more overall really started to change their old training methods.
I do know about 1 dog club who was started in the late 80's, which focused on more modern training methods, so I suppose there also could've been others, but I think most non Brukshundklubben dog clubs started in the 90's or later. However, dog clubs belonging to the Brukshundklubben organisation was, and still is, in majority in Sweden, so I'm glad that the study was made so that they changed their training methods.
 
skinnydipper said:
Are you at a loose end again today? Looking for entertainment?
Click to expand...


It's lovely of you to ask, thank you. I am a bit tied to the house today, doing home care for the OH, who can't do much after his operation. Getting into and out of the car seems to bring on some bleeding that we really don't want, and it's very embarrassing for a man if he leaks at the front of his trousers out in public, but I'm sure we'll be out and about again soon.
.
 
FinnishLapphund said:
In this case I can only speak about how it was in Sweden, and the short answer is because as far as I know, quick jerks on the leash was the most commonly used training method to teach dogs to not pull on their leashes in Swedish dog clubs, up until Anders Hallgren's study.

The longer, but still a bit simplified, answer: When it became more common for the average dog owning Swede to want to go with their puppy/dog to dog training classes in the 60's-70's, basically the only thing available were classes held by the Swedish Brukshundklubben, an organisation founded under a different name in 1918. The Swedish word Brukshund is probably translated to Working dog in English, but its true meaning is more something like Utility dog/Dog used for a purpose, and at a Brukshundklubb, that purpose was for many years to train the dogs that the military and police wanted to use for the benefit of society.
The bunch of presumably mainly/only men with military and/or police background who decided how dogs as quickly, and efficiently should be taught to march with military precision without pulling on their leashes, decided that quick jerks on the leash was the method to use.

Add on to the above, in the late 40's came a study on wolves which launched the now refuted conclusion that Wolves have a strict Alpha system. Which quickly trickled over to dogs = if you're the Alpha leader to your dog, your dog will be obedient. An Alpha doesn't ask their minions to do something, they tell them, and expect obedience... This fitted like a hand in a glove into the existing training method, an Alpha doesn't ask their dog to not pull on the leash, an Alpha gives their dog a quick jerk in the leash to let them know they should listen to their leader.

Which brings us back to the 60's-70's again. There wasn't really any adaption to that average mr or mrs Svensson/Smith started to show up to Brukshundklubben's equivalent of today's puppy classes, together with their pet Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, Papillons, and Standard Schnauzers etc, without at the majority of dog club's the same old harsh training methods continued to be used. Another thing to note is that, as I understand it, the classes were usually sort of built on the thought that all dog owners goals were to continue on to have it as a hobby to work with their dog in one discipline or another. The whole idea that someone might simply want to saunter, instead of marching, with a reasonably obedient pet dog, just weren't part of their way of thinking.

It was only after Anders Hallgren's study came out, that the Swedish Brukshundklubben more overall really started to change their old training methods.
I do know about 1 dog club who was started in the late 80's, which focused on more modern training methods, so I suppose there also could've been others, but I think most non Brukshundklubben dog clubs started in the 90's or later. However, dog clubs belonging to the Brukshundklubben organisation was, and still is, in majority in Sweden, so I'm glad that the study was made so that they changed their training methods.
Click to expand...


Very interesting FL, thank you. It seemed to confirm that this latest study wasn't much needed. I hope it didn't cost much to do.
.
 
poiuytrewq said:
What I don’t really get is why dogs that pull don’t at some point realise or learn that in this position (pulling) I’m uncomfortable but in this position (heel or at least loose lead) it’s much more comfortable for me.
They pick up other things either intentionally or accidentally so quickly that I just don’t really get why not this.
I see a guy near me and his dogs sound like they can’t breathe they pull so much, every single time I pass him.
Click to expand...

They haven't made the connection between 'not walking to heel/on a loose line = discomfort' as they have not learned 'how to learn'. A lot of dogs also evade contact/pressure, so they are inadvertently leaning into the pressure they are trying to get away from.

Dogs typically take 3-5 seconds to link two previously unconnected stimuli.

Risk of injury is a (lack of) training issue more than an equipment one.

(CC, didn't go to university ;))
 
I've just realised that I will occasionally pull Clover when she's on lead. It's when we are on a street walk and there is something ahead of her I don't want her to walk in like glass or dog poo then yes I will pull her away. So it's not great that it yanks on her neck but better than her getting a bad cut on her pads
 
CorvusCorax said:
They haven't made the connection between 'not walking to heel/on a loose line = discomfort' as they have not learned 'how to learn'. A lot of dogs also evade contact/pressure, so they are inadvertently leaning into the pressure they are trying to get away from.

Dogs typically take 3-5 seconds to link two previously unconnected stimuli.

Risk of injury is a (lack of) training issue more than an equipment one.

(CC, didn't go to university ;))
Click to expand...
Ah yes ok, makes sense. I should have thought of the into pressure thing especially. My dog, always loose lead and slightly in front (this is fine with me) if i switch the lead so it hangs either side of his body he leg yields away from it- handy when a car is coming or the like!
He'd do a good dressage test. :)
 
My American friends were THRILLED when I reconfigured their front-leading harness (I'd never seen one and thought they'd done it up all wrong).

Incidentally she didn't pull, but was one of the stiffest, visibly lamest Labs I've ever come across, even when young. Maybe injuries are caused by poor use of equipment, maybe it's inappropriate exercise when they're too young, maybe it's not great genetics?
 
Dogs learn through linking things, rightly or wrongly. The theories of Classical/Operant conditioning are based on the work of Pavlov/Skinner, respectively, and if someone can convince me that dogs learn in any other way (Either/and/or) than between linking two previously unrelated stimuli/action = consequence (good or bad) I'm all ears!
 
Last edited:
skinnydipper said:
The Koehler method was popular here :(
Click to expand...

Had to google what that was. I really don't know whether the Brukshundsklubben incorporated some of his teachings in their training method or not.

ycbm said:
Very interesting FL, thank you. It seemed to confirm that this latest study wasn't much needed. I hope it didn't cost much to do.
.
Click to expand...

I have to to say that I disagree, Hallgren's study is over 30 years old, and not much have changed in the dog world. Perhaps two studies showing the same/similar results eventually can change more dog owners mind.
 
I think it was in the late 90s when I heard an interview with Sverre Sjölander, professor in zoology specialised in ethology, on TV, and he was asked what he thought about Swedish parents who wanted their children to show own initiative, and always have their individual right to make a personal decision, and he answered something like:

There's situations where that works, but I don't think that a grandmother in India who tells the grandchild she's looking after to "Do not touch that cobra over there!", wants that child to show own initiative, and make their own individual decision.

I've often used what he said as a sort of guideline for trying to find a golden mean when I trained my dogs. I like positive training, but I wanted them to know that there was limits, and beyond that I expected them to obey just because I said so.

Clodagh said:
...
If by yanking a collar your dog doesn’t run across the road after a cat then personally I’m all for the yank.
There’s idealism and there’s the real world.
Click to expand...
SAujla said:
I've just realised that I will occasionally pull Clover when she's on lead. It's when we are on a street walk and there is something ahead of her I don't want her to walk in like glass or dog poo then yes I will pull her away. So it's not great that it yanks on her neck but better than her getting a bad cut on her pads
Click to expand...

I think the story I mentioned at the start is a good example of that I agree with that there's a point where it's better to leave idealism behind.

However, both of the examples I quoted are to me good examples of why I continued to prefer to use harnesses on my dogs, even after that they'd learnt to most of the time act well-behaved, because if something unexpected happened leading to me needing to yank either one of them in their leash, I preferred that it was attached to a harness, and not a collar.
 
I've been wondering why every man and his dog these days is wearing a harness. I should have guessed there had been a study on it.
😐

We once took our dogs with us on a short camping trip. Big mistake. They weren't overly happy being there. Our Jack Russell X Kelpie (best dog in the world) wore a harness as we couldn't risk him getting free while away from home, or we'd probably never see him again. He hated that harness. I kept telling him I was sorry, that I could see what a rotton thing it was to wear, especially at the beach for goodness sake. So unpleasant when you are wet and there's a bit of sand and you have a somewhat wiry coat in places.

So glad we were to get home and chuck that harness away.

ETA: I meant to address the issue of people getting pulled around by their big dogs due to being on a harness. It's just daft.
 
Last edited:
Lois Lame said:
I've been wondering why every man and his dog these days is wearing a harness. I should have guessed there had been a study on it.
😐

We once took our dogs with us on a short camping trip. Big mistake. They weren't overly happy being there. Our Jack Russell X Kelpie (best dog in the world) wore a harness as we couldn't risk him getting free while away from home, or we'd probably never see him again. He hated that harness. I kept telling him I was sorry, that I could see what a rotton thing it was to wear, especially at the beach for goodness sake. So unpleasant when you are wet and there's a bit of sand and you have a somewhat wiry coat in places.

So glad we were to get home and chuck that harness away.

ETA: I meant to address the issue of people getting pulled around by their big dogs due to being on a harness. It's just daft.
Click to expand...

This is why all equipment should be conditioned.
 
I'm a certified dog trainer and behaviorist. 99% of my time is spent training dog owners how to use their lead/harness correctly and not injure their dog, it's a thankless task and most people don't take any notice and just continue hauling their dog around. It's one of the most misused items in the pet world.
 
There also seems to be a misconception that any leash pressure is a negative and only ever a negative for the dog. I teach my dogs to come through a minor discomfort like leash pressure when they are young and they get a positive for getting out the other side - as a result, they come up in drive after going through stress.
I add my oft repeated belief that it's unfair not to expose a well adjusted dog to low level stress or indeed expect any animal to go through life with no stress or discomfort, these things happen in life/from external sources so it's much more fair that we prepare them how to deal with that and survive, rather than throw them out of a plane with no parachute.

I know I have trained this well, because when my dog pulled me over the other night and hit the end of the line with my dead weight on the other end, she came flying back to me for a reward. As I was lying in a heap, not getting up in case I'd broken anything else, she climbed on top of me and stood on my back 🤣
 
Last edited:
poiuytrewq said:
Yep, I realise that. I just thought that after time a dog would learn to stop doing the thing that hurts. Dogs do learn a lot without specifically being taught by people.
CC explained why I was wrong and it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Dogs only learn bad behaviours by themselves, never good. 🤣.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top