No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Owner approaches and attitudes to the problem of lead-pulling behaviour in pet-dogs
Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe the approaches of UK and Ireland pet-dog owners to lead-pulling prevention and modification and attitudes to this common problem. Between February and March 2019, a four-part questionnaire, exploring owner and dog demographics, walking practices, training and attitudes to lead-pulling, was distributed to UK and Ireland pet-dog owners, via social media. A subset of data from the broader analysis of lead-pulling and pet-dog welfare, is presented herein. Of 2,531 respondents, 82.7% (n=2,092) of dogs pulled on lead. Over the 30-day study period, 32.1% of dogs that pulled were walked for ≤ 30 minutes daily and 18.2% were not walked every day. Although equipment to prevent pulling was widely used [back-connection harnesses (43.1%), front-connection harnesses (11.2%) and head-collars (7.4%)] , flat-collars were the most popular equipment choice (59%). Of dogs that pulled, 63% had attended training classes, [puppy classes (21%), other classes (13.3%), multiple classes (28.7%)]; 85.3% of which included loose-lead exercises. Owners favoured positive reinforcement for lead-pulling modification [i.e. praise (91.2%), food (72%)]; which was also deemed most successful. Nevertheless, aversives were common [i.e. pulling back on-lead (33%), lead corrections (16.4%)] and 25% of owners considered these Very/Extremely successful. Owners believed lead-pulling dogs want to be in charge (21.7%), need stronger pack leaders (17.6%), will grow out of it (13.5%), are dominant (11.5%) or stubborn (11.5%). This study suggests that while humane methods of lead-pulling
... Despite increasing emphasis on loose leash heelwork, many dogs still lunge and/or consistently pull on the leash during walks, especially when encountering stimuli of interest to them, such as food scraps or another dog (8). A survey with U.K. and Irish owners of pet dogs found that 82.7% of dogs pulled while on the lead (9). Pulling on the leash is also one of the most common problems reported in shelter dogs during the first month post-adoption (10). ...
... There is a variety of equipment that owners use to walk their dogs, with flat-collars and back-connection harnesses being the most popular equipment choices (9). Harnesses may be a better restraint method, as the force exerted when wearing a harness is distributed over a larger area, while the force exerted on the neck when wearing a neck collar is more localised, increasing the potential for injury, or the exacerbation of existing medical conditions (16). ...
... Such instruments measure the pressure experienced by the dog and the distribution of the pressure on the body of the dog (32,40). However, the dog's experience may also be affected by that of the handler, who may jerk the leash, according to the tension they feel the dog is exerting (9,41,42). A leash tension metre, such as that used in this study, not only measures the tension of the leash but also differentiates the pulling direction, allowing us to quantify the pulling forces initiated by the dog and the handler respectively (18). ...
Leash pulling is a concern for dog owners and can be detrimental to the health and welfare of dogs. Neck-collars and back-connection harnesses are popular restraint types. Harnesses have been proposed as a better and more considerate option for canine health and welfare. Anecdotally, dogs pull more when wearing a back-connection harness; however, there is no scientific evidence for this perception. This study aimed to investigate how strongly dogs pull on the lead to achieve a food treat or toy under restraint by a neck-collar versus a back-connection harness. A within-subject counterbalanced design was used for the study, involving 52 shelter dogs. A customised canine leash tension metre was connected to the collar or harness to record the pulling of the dogs, including measuring the maximal and mean leash tension, and the time spent pulling. In addition, dog behaviours were recorded using two cameras from two separate directions. The maximal and mean leash tension and the pulling time were greater under restraint by harness when attracting dogs with food treats. No significant difference between harness and collar was found in potential stress-related behaviours (e.g. tail and ear positions, lip-licking, and panting). However, dogs looked at the experimenter more often when restrained by harness than collar in the food treat attraction test. No significant difference was detected between harness and collar with respect to leash tension and stress-related behaviours in the toy attraction test. These findings suggest that dogs tend to pull stronger and more steadily when wearing a back-connection harness compared to a neck collar to reach the food treat but not the toy.
... Approximately 90% of dogs exhibit undesirable behaviours 54 and as many as 82% pull on lead, 99 but the relationship between lead pulling and pet dog welfare has yet to be studied. Research is needed to quantify lead pulling in pet dog populations and its effect on walk frequency and duration. ...
Veterinary professionals (VPs) are often the first source of advice for clients struggling with their dog's behaviour, and pulling on the lead is a commonplace undesirable behaviour VPs will encounter regularly in practice. Excluding bites, being pulled over while walking on a lead is the leading cause of non‐fatal dog‐related injuries in the UK. This narrative review investigates lead pulling as a welfare concern in pet dogs, highlighting aspects of the literature of particular interest to VPs.
Lead pulling could negatively affect walk quality, frequency and duration, causing weight gain, while decreased environmental enrichment could trigger other undesirable behaviours. Aversive equipment to prevent lead pulling can cause pain, distress and injury, but even equipment considered humane can have welfare consequences. Punitive training methods could cause dogs stress, fear and anxiety and trigger aggressive behaviour. While these lead pulling outcomes are welfare concerns in themselves, they could also weaken dog–owner attachment, a risk factor in pet dog relinquishment.
Given lead pulling could affect the welfare of patients in a VPs care, clinical implications and opportunities for client education are outlined. Educating clients on humane prevention and modification of lead pulling could make walks easier, safer and more enjoyable, with positive outcomes for clients, canine welfare and the practice.
... About 85% are free-ranging dogs, and they are present in every continent except Antarctica 2 . Companion dogs are employed in numerous studies on behaviour and training (Townsend et al. 2020), dog cognition (Huber and Lamm 2017), and dog-computer interaction (Bozkurt et al. 2014;Mancini 2012), among others. The results of many studies demonstrate how dogs provide essential emotional and cognitive support to humans (Batson et al. 1998; (Glenk 2020); Travers et al. 2013). ...
Free-ranging dogs often are perceived as an element of disturbance, and they are unwelcomed in many areas worldwide. The tendency, in numerous cases, is that of controlling their population via indiscriminate culling (Putra et al. 2013), vaccination (Reece and Chawla 2006) or other strategies. Humans decide to which degree to tolerate the presence of free-ranging dogs. Contrarily, in other contexts and globally, the inclusion of dogs in human families is acquired, and the practices involving dog-human interaction are increasing. Here, humans establish the rules in houses, shelters, breeding programs and training centres and manage special activities with dogs (and other animals) by setting up the necessary procedures. It is the case, for example, of Rescue Dogs and Animal Assisted Intervention, among others, where dogs are studied, raised, trained and directed to achieve specific results. With those premises, we need to identify the contradictory nature of two macro-scenarios, both handled by humans. That then triggers relevant queries. What is at the core of humans seeking control, one way or the other, over Canis lupus familiaris? Complementarily, how could we apply another approach? How could we reconsider, to some degree, the idea and convention of pulling dogs into our environments and customs and reverse the perspective by entering their habitat and learning their modalities? Is domestication the outline for cooperation and coexistence? If so, to which degree of domestication? Hence, what could be the role and value of free-ranging dogs and their natural environments?
Citation: Adda M. 2020. "Câinii fără stăpân într-un peisaj multi-specii: o schimbare de paradigmă într-un aspect esențial al co-existenței om-animal". In Ed. Frasin I., Bodi G. , Dinu Vasiliu C., Studii de antrozoologie. Gandind dincolo de limite, pp. 117-134. Bucaresti, Editura PRO Universitaria.
Background
Leash pulling is a commonly reported problem behavior for dog owners, as a result, a variety of leash equipment types are offered to mitigate pulling force. We were particularly interested in prong collars as their inherently aversive design has made their use a subject of debate. Though banned in certain countries and widely available in others, to date, there is no research comparing them to other leash walking equipment.
Methods
We compared four types of leash walking equipment: a martingale (flat collar as baseline measure), a front-connection harness, a polymer prong-style collar (Starmark), and a standard metal prong collar. Twenty-three dogs were walked on all four types of equipment for 5-min each. Equipment was attached to a leash which was connected to a battery-powered strain gauge to measure the dog’s pulling force. All walks were video recorded for behavior analysis.
Results
There were statistically significant differences among the leash equipment types in pulling impulse (Newtons × seconds), (χ ² (2) = 30.6, p < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences in impulse between the martingale and the other equipment: harness (Z = −3.69, p < 0.001), Starmark collar (Z = −3.62, p < 0.001) and prong collar (Z = −3.92, p < 0.001). No other differences among equipment types were significant. Fifteen behaviors were examined as welfare indicators but only three: looking at the handler, lip licking, and sniffing occurred across all dogs and all walks. There was a statistically significant difference in frequency of lip licking behavior across the four types of leash-equipment (χ ² (2) = 8.17, p = 0.04) and post-hoc analysis showed a difference between the martingale and the harness (Z = −2.65, p = 0.008). While our research did not provide any clear evidence of poorer welfare due to equipment type, we caution the generalizability of these findings and recommend further assessment of these items of leash-walking equipment in real-life scenarios.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.