Content uploaded by Louise Anne Buckley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Louise Anne Buckley on May 13, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received: 25 November 2020 Revised: 23 January 2022 Accepted: 14 March 2022
DOI: 10.1002/vetr.1627
REVIEW
Lead pulling as a welfare concern in pet dogs: What can
veterinary professionals learn from current research?
Lesley Townsend1Laura Dixon2Louise Buckley1
1The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary
Studies, University of Edinburgh,
Midlothian, Scotland, UK
2Animal and Veterinary Science Research
Group, Scotland’s Rural College, Ayr,
Scotland, UK
Correspondence
Lesley Townsend, The Royal (Dick) School of
Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh,
Midlothian, Scotland, UK.
Email: ltownsend@ed-alumni.net
Abstract
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 common-
place undesirable behaviour VPs will encounter regularly in practice. Exclud-
ing 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 liter-
ature of particular interest to VPs.
Lead pulling could negatively affect walk quality, frequency and duration,
causing weight gain, while decreased environmental enrichment could trig-
ger 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.
INTRODUCTION
Physical and behavioural health are intrinsic to pet
dog welfare, and behaviour changes may be veteri-
nary professionals’ (VPs) first indication of underlying
disease processes and broader welfare concerns.1
Left untreated, undesirable behaviours can compro-
mise health; for example, recall problems causing
accidents,2stress contributing to dermatitis,3lead
pulling causing injuries,4separation anxiety leading
to escape-related injuries5and wounds from inter-
dog aggression.6Undesirable behaviours damage
pet–owner attachment and are the leading cause of
relinquishment and euthanasia in pet dogs under
3 years old.7VPs are often the first source of advice
for clients struggling with their dog’s behaviour and
early interventions can prevent escalations.8Effec-
tive recommendations can increase compliance, not
just with behavioural therapies but also medical
treatments.9Thus, it is in VP’s interests to routinely
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Veterin ar y Re co rd published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Veterinary Association.
discuss behaviour, as part of a holistic, preventative
healthcare approach.
VPs can augment this approach to patient care
by discussing with clients the importance of regu-
lar, appropriate walking.10 Walking is essential to pet
dog welfare, providing outlets for exercise,10 social
interactions,11 species-specific behaviours,12 appro-
priate challenges and pleasurable activities.13 While
research suggests owners recognise these benefits,13,14
15% of UK owners do not walk their dogs daily.15 Multi-
ple barriers and motivators may contribute, including
social and environmental constituents, but the most
influential factors are dogs themselves.
Breed, size, age,16 health and walking capacity17
are important walking incentives and disincentives
for owners, but the strength of attachment owners
feel towards their dogs is key.13,14,18–20 Owners report
wanting to meet their dog’s exercise needs and that
provision and participation in an activity their dog
enjoys provides motivation.13,14 However, owners of
Vet Rec. 2022;e1627. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/vetr 1of10
https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.1627
2of10 Veter inary Rec ord
older, overweight or arthritic dogs may still be strongly
attached but find daily walks challenging,17 and unde-
sirable behaviour may affect the quality, frequency
and duration of walks owners can provide. Research
has focused on positive outcomes of dog walking for
humans13,14,16,20; negative outcomes of dog walking
are less clear.
Inappropriate socialisation is one such outcome,
now recognised as a pre-eminent welfare concern.21
During the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in
2020, UK and Spanish owners reportedly walked their
dogs on a lead more than they had previously.22,23
Some owners expressed concerns on-lead walks pro-
vided insufficient exercise, mental stimulation and
social outlets for their dogs.24 However, others fre-
quently report off-lead dog behaviour on walks
as problematic.20,21,25 Studies have found dogs—
particularly juveniles aged under 16 months25—
are more likely to approach conspecifics when off-
lead.11 While off-lead interactions increased play
opportunities, they more than doubled the risk of
aggressive responding among dogs.25 Indeed, 13% of
UK dog owners, primary concern when walking is
fear of their dog being attacked by another dog.15
Despite acknowledging lead use curtails unwanted
behaviours, many dog owners still consider off-lead
walking integral to welfare,20,26 even when their dog
presents a risk to dogs, people and wildlife.27
Owners of off-lead dogs are less likely to pick
up after them,11 increasing risks of intraspecific and
zoonotic infection.28,29 Off-lead dogs killed approxi-
mately 15,000 sheep in the UK in 2016,30 costing farm-
ers over a million pounds, despite 64% erecting sig-
nage, and dog owners being liable to prosecution.30,31
In March 2021, an off-lead dog fatally injured a Thames
harbour seal in London, UK.32 Road traffic acci-
dents cause 12% of deaths in dogs under 3 years
old.7Lead use is a simple, affordable, immediate
intervention that can reduce conspecific aggression,25
zoonoses, intraspecies infections,29 death by injury7
and predation.26,28 Internationally, dog control laws
introduced to address these concerns33–37 mean it is
imperative owners are willing and able to walk their
dogs on a lead safely and humanely.
Excluding bites, being pulled over by a dog on-
lead while walking is the foremost cause of non-fatal
dog-related injuries to patients attending Accident &
Emergency departments in the UK.38 Over 12 months,
Cornwall NHS Trust reported 30 incidences of injuries
from lead use, prompting the British Society for
Surgery of the Hand to warn pet owners about the
dangers.39 Two large-scale US studies identified lead
pulling as a significant public health risk, particularly
for the elderly.40,41 Israeli military dog handlers had
significantly higher risks of injury than controls, where
other occupational hazards were controlled for.42 Lead
pulling has sparked litigation, awarding substantial
damages against the liable dog owner.43 While these
findings suggest lead pulling is a prolific public health
concern, surprisingly little is known about its impact
on pet dog welfare.
This narrative review explores potential risks to
welfare associated with lead pulling, highlighting
gaps in the current knowledge on this common-
place behaviour and recommending future research
avenues. Given VPs role in promoting welfare-centred
husbandry, training and equipment for dogs in their
care and the wider population, and that lead pulling is
a prolific training problem VPs are likely to encounter
in practice, welfare-centred recommendations for
client education are discussed.
DISCUSSION
Lead pulling and welfare
The 2020 UK PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) report
found lead pulling to be the dog behaviour pet owners
most wanted to change (24%)15; perhaps because lead
pulling directly affects owner wellbeing daily, more
than fireworks fear (22%) for example.15 However,
owners may be unaware that lead pulling has serious
implications for their dog’s welfare. Lead pulling itself,
and equipment and training used to address it, may
have direct and indirect consequences for welfare,
including pain, fear, injury, disease, reduced outlets
for canine behavioural expression and diminished
pet–owner attachment. Understanding the potential
risks of lead pulling to an individual patient’s welfare
can inform the VPs’ approach to client education.
Reduced exercise
Of owners who walked their dogs for less than 30 min-
utes daily, 10% cited their dog’s behaviour on walks
as the reason15; lead pulling could be one such
behaviour. Walking and ‘excitable’ behaviours were
negatively correlated in Australian pet dogs,44 and
‘obedient’ Argentine dogos received longer walks than
those deemed less obedient.45 While homogenous
sampling limits generalisability of these findings, it
seems probable lead pulling might impact the qual-
ity, duration and frequency of walks dogs receive. If
dogs that pull are walked less, or not at all, they could
be more prone to resultant weight gain. Overweight
and obese dogs exercise less46 and live shorter,47
poorer quality lives,48 with increased risk of comorbid
pathologies.49
Multiple studies detect a relationship between
reduced walking and weight gain in dogs,10,46,50–53
although conflicting methodologies, age, neutering,
diet, owner behaviour, breed and genetics confound
the results. In one large UK study (n=11,154), a
relationship between overweight, exercise and unde-
sirable behaviours was identified.54 Overweight dogs
were walked less46 and more likely to flee, be fear-
ful, aggressive, or pull on lead.54 However, the direc-
tion of the relationship remains unclear; undesirable
behaviours such as lead pulling may prevent owners
from walking their dogs, resulting in weight gain, or
Veteri nary Record 3of10
weight gain may prevent owners walking their dogs,
resulting in undesirable behaviours.
Studies on the effects of exercise on undesirable
behaviours suggest it is not exercise per se but its qual-
ity that affects behaviour. Gentle, outdoor, accompa-
nied exercise lowered stress and improved behaviour
in shelter dogs,55 while kennel pacing increased in
shelter dogs after running on-lead.56 Olfactory stim-
ulation induced calmer states in shelter dogs,57,58
while high-intensity exercise increased cortisol in sled
dogs.59 It seems plausible high-intensity activity such
as lead pulling could elevate heart rate, blood pressure
and corticosteroids in dogs,59 resulting in heightened
arousal; manifesting behaviourally as alertness, rest-
lessness and hypervigilance.60
Dogs are a social and olfactory species61 and
sniffing is positively correlated with optimism62 and
calm behavioural states.60 Regular walking may be
a pet dog’s only opportunity to engage in vital
canine behaviours such as sniffing, social interac-
tions and scent marking.12,62 Lead pulling could
reduce access to these, triggering other undesir-
able behaviours61,63—digging, destruction, excessive
vocalisation and escape attempts. Furthermore, if lead
pulling causes, or is a sequela of, acute or chronic
stress and accompanying hyperarousal, dogs that pull
might be less likely to engage in species-specific
behaviours when walking. Lead tension could also
limit a dog’s behavioural responses to stimuli, increas-
ing barrier frustration; a phenomenon associated with
redirected aggression.64 Lead pulling could then be
symptomatic of, or a precursor to, a broader suite
of stress or frustration-related behaviours on walks—
excessive vocalisation, hyperarousal, dog and human-
directed aggression. Thus, VPs should take reports of
lead pulling seriously, as they may indicate deeper wel-
fare concerns for patients.
Training methods
Training loose lead walking may require more time
and skill than owners anticipate65 and the desire for
‘quick fixes’ could prompt owners to choose punitive
training66 which appears effective at face value.
Evidence on the efficacy of punishment (lead cor-
rections/electronic stimuli/verbal corrections) and
reward-based (food/toys/praise) training methods is
contradictory. Training methods utilising positive
reinforcement—whereby a rewarding stimulus follows
a desirable behaviour—were as effective as punish-
ment in some studies;67–69 however, Schalke et al.70
found opposing effects, aversives were more effec-
tive for learning. From a welfare standpoint, effi-
cacy is not the sole consideration when evaluating
training methods. While punitive training can sup-
press behaviour, it may cause injury,71 aggression,72
fearfulness,73 anxiety and stress74 in dogs; negative
outcomes which may be heightened when punish-
ment is poorly applied.67 Furthermore, owners who
utilise punitive training are reportedly less satisfied
with their dog’s ability to walk on lead than those who
use positive reinforcement.68,75 However, owners who
usepunitivemethodsmaybemoreinclinedtodosoin
the first place, precisely because their dog is difficult to
walk.
The dog training and behaviour industry is unreg-
ulated and, while numerous self-regulatory organ-
isations exist, standards and methods vary widely
between them and membership and adherence to eth-
ical codes are voluntary. Furthermore, ongoing debate
exists between professionals regarding punishment
versus reward-based training methods. Misconcep-
tions of dominance and pack theory persist among
VPs66 and paraprofessionals76 alike. This inconsistent
messaging likely confuses owners who may imple-
ment ineffective or dangerous advice72 from hobby-
ists, websites, television or social media.15 Thus, VPs
have a crucial role to play in promoting evidence-
based, humane training methods for lead pulling, in
accordance with the British Small Animal Veterinary
Association77 and the American Veterinary Society of
Animal Behaviour78 position statements on punish-
ment in dog training.
Equipment
Lead pulling has spawned a plethora of equipment
designed to prevent and modify it. While some are
at worst ineffective, others could cause conditioned
negative associations,79 stress,80 ophthalmic4and
orthopaedic damage81 and even death.71
E-collars utilise negative reinforcement to train lead
walking; an electronic stimulus applied when the dog
walks out of position, is removed when they return to
position by the handler’s leg.82 The risk here is the dog
associating the aversive stimulus with people, animals
or things in their environment rather than lead pulling,
resulting in fear-based aggression.79 That risk is exac-
erbated by pet owners poor timing, misunderstand-
ing of conditioning, and potential applying the elec-
tronic stimulus at levels exceeding requirements.67
While some trainers advocate for e-collars as effec-
tive, positive reinforcement has been shown to be as
successful when training.67 However, there is no cur-
rent evidence on the specific efficacy of e-collars for
lead pulling. Research on the welfare implications of
e-collars has prompted varying restrictions on them;
from none in some countries to bans on their use
and/or sale in others.83 The European Society of Vet-
erinary Clinical Ethology84 and the BVA85 recommend
against using e-collars in dog training.
Less is known about the physical and behavioural
outcomes of prong (pinch) and choke collars when
used to train loose lead walking. These also use neg-
ative reinforcement; pressure is exerted on the dog’s
neck when they pull and released when they walk on
a loose lead. Prong collars were found to elicit more
pronounced behavioural indicators of stress than
e-collars or a verbal cue.70 Owners using choke and
prong collars reported lower satisfaction levels with
their dog’s lead-walking behaviour than owners who
did not use those collars,75 although less satisfied
4of10 Veter inary Rec ord
owners may be more inclined to use them in the first
instance. One death by strangulation resulting from
excessive force on a choke chain has been reported,
but the dog was suspended from, rather than pulling
on the chain; albeit only for 60 seconds.71 While
research on the welfare outcomes of lead pulling on a
choke or prong collar are lacking, studies highlighting
the risks of pulling on a flat collar suggest a smaller
contact area—such as a chain or metal prongs—could
concentrate pressure and force in that area, increasing
the potential for nerve and skin damage.86
Anecdotally, owners report their dogs cough and
hack while pulling on a collar and lead, and research
supports the hypothesis that lead pulling could cause
neck injuries. In Hunter et al.,86 three different flat
collars exerted sufficient pressure to cause ischaemic
necrosis in dogs. However, the small sample (n=8)
consisted of dogs of varying coat and conformation,
which could have influenced the results. Surprisingly,
padded collars exerted the highest pressure; perhaps,
the authors suggest, because the convex design con-
centrates pressure and force around the neck.
Carter et al.87 used a simulated neck model to mea-
sure collar pressure on a dog’s neck under consistent
(lead pulling) and acute (lead jerking) force.73 While a
plastic model cannot replicate responses of neck tis-
sue to pressure, or account for intraspecies variabil-
ity, every collar tested created pressure exceeding that
which causes tissue damage in humans. Pauli et al.4
found dogs experienced significantly higher intraocu-
lar pressure (IOP) when force was applied to a collar
than a harness and suggested these effects could be
heightened when actively lead pulling, due to the Val-
salva manoeuvre. Persistently elevated IOP increases
the likelihood of visual field loss in humans,4suggest-
ing dogs that pull on lead might be at similar risk.
Pulling on a collar and lead has been shown to
increase the risk of permanent tracheal, laryngeal,
oesophageal and ophthalmic damage in all dogs4,88
but could be particularly problematic in brachy-
cephalic breeds where airway compromise89 and oph-
thalmic problems90 are endemic. With the current
popularity of brachycephalic breeds,91 VPs have a
responsibility to educate clients on the heightened
risk of lead pulling and the safest equipment choices
available for them. Harnesses are now widely recom-
mended for brachycephalic dogs92 and limited evi-
dence suggests they are a superior choice when eye
and respiratory health are particular concerns.
Broadly speaking, there are two styles of harness—
those with a chest strap forming a Y-shape above the
dog’s shoulders (Figure 1) and those with a chest strap
sitting across the dog’s chest (Figure 2). Both styles
may clip either between the shoulders, or on the ster-
num, with some attaching at both points. Lafuente
et al.81 explored the hypothesis that harnesses with
a strap sitting across the dog’s chest (described as
‘restrictive’ by the authors); might impair shoulder
and thoracic limb extension more than harnesses that
form a Y-shape above the dog’s shoulder. Their find-
ings did not support this hypothesis; both styles of har-
nesses decreased shoulder extension in dogs walking
FIGURE 1 A non-restrictive Y-shaped harness, which clips at
the back. Some styles feature an additional clip at the sternum
FIGURE 2 A restrictive harness which crosses the dog’s
shoulder joint and clips at the sternum. Some styles also clip at the
back
on a treadmill. It could be hypothesised pulling on a
harness while moving at different speeds, across differ-
ent substrates outdoors, produces greater effects than
those in the study. Furthermore, the cohort was small
and varied (n=9), so conformation, function, gait
or coat could have confounded results. The harnesses
were altered with additional weights possibly com-
promising their functional integrity. While acknowl-
edging this flawed methodology, the authors suggest
prolonged use of what they describe as restrictive
harnesses could potentially cause tendinopathies.81
Grainger et al.88 found no differences between flat
collar and harness use on either behavioural indica-
tors of canine stress (lip licking, panting, pawing, low-
ered body position, etc.) or behavioural measures of
restricted movement (i.e. sniffing, tracking and stop-
ping). However, the study sample was small (n=30)
and the harness manufacturer funded the research.
More recently, Shih et al.93 found dogs pulled sig-
nificantly harder in back connection harnesses than
Veteri nary Record 5of10
neck-collars in trials with food but not with toys. This
suggests that for larger, stronger dogs that pull or those
with comorbid behaviours requiring modification,
headcollars might be more effective than harnesses.
Headcollars comprise a strap around the dog’s muz-
zle below their eyes that interconnects with a neck
strap to secure the fit. A lead is attached either
beneath the dog’s chin or at the back of their head.
Anecdotally, owners report poor tolerance of head-
collars by dogs, if applied without prior desensiti-
sation, resulting in nose pawing, rubbing face and
muzzle against surfaces, refusing to walk or thrash-
ing on lead. These behavioural responses are in them-
selves a welfare concern being acute stress indicators94
and potentially causing injury to the owner, dog or
both. They may also cause owners distress, reduc-
ing compliance with headcollar use and subsequently
exercise or behaviour modification protocols.95 Haug
et al.95 found dogs habituated to headcollars with
just intermittent use over 6 weeks, suggesting adverse
behavioural responses to headcollars may be partly
due to novelty; however, the sample did not include
dogs that pulled on the lead.
Ogburn et al.96 observed that naïve dogs pawed their
noses and fought the lead more frequently in head
than neck collars. However, physiological stress indi-
cators did not vary between dogs walked on either,
perhaps because physical and behavioural indicators
of stress are not always associated, as cortisol fluctua-
tions are multifactorial.1
Dogs were reportedly easier to control and more
‘subordinate’ in headcollars, but the authors, interpre-
tations of dog’s behavioural motivations were based
on now debunked dominance theory, which could
have prompted misinterpretations of behavioural sup-
pression as compliance.
Inappropriate equipment can be detrimental to pet
dog welfare. Clients may find choosing the right equip-
ment overwhelming and ask VPs for recommenda-
tions. Given the limited evidence surrounding the
behavioural and physical impacts of equipment for
dogs that pull, critical evaluation of the potential risks
and benefits of each, is key to make welfare-centred
recommendations.
Strength of owner attachment
An indirect impact of lead pulling on welfare is a
potential weakening of pet–owner attachment. Sev-
eral of the aforementioned outcomes—comorbid
undesirable behaviours, aversive equipment75 and
punitive training97— have inverse relationships with
pet–owner attachment, although these are correla-
tional rather than causal. Importantly, owners who
walk their dogs consistently report higher attachment
than owners who do not.19,20,98 Whether dog walk-
ing increases attachment, attachment increases dog
walking, or a bidirectional relationship exists remains
unclear. Regardless, weakened attachment is a risk
for relinquishment and euthanasia, with undesirable
behaviours being an aggravating or perhaps initiating
factor.75 It is imperative VP’s proactively advise on
lead pulling prevention and modification, to preserve
the human animal bond, a key component of owner
retention.
AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Approximately 90% of dogs exhibit undesirable
behaviours54 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. The impact of
lead pulling on species typical behaviours on walks
warrants observational analysis, as engagement in
these may indicate positive welfare while walking and
in broader terms.
Surprisingly little is known about equipment own-
ers use to walk dogs and why, and the physical and
behavioural outcomes of those for dogs that pull. A
leash tension meter (see Shih et al.100), which mea-
sures lead pulling and whether the handler, dog or
both are exerting pressure, could provide an objective
means of measuring equipment and training efficacy.
Identifying possible risk and protective factors—
whether breeds selectively bred for carting and sled-
ding pull more frequently, whether life stages or
sourcing are aggravating factors and whether puppy
class attendance is preventative—could inform best
practice approaches for VPs. If a relationship exists
between lead pulling and aggression on walks, iden-
tifying it is vital, given aggression is a primary cause of
relinquishment in pet dogs.101
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Puppy consultations present excellent opportunities
to discuss lead pulling, associated welfare risks and
proactive prevention. These should be discussed—
regardless of breed—but with specific considera-
tion for brachycephalics.92 Recommendations could
form a dog-walking ‘toolkit’102 alongside informa-
tion on equipment, training, exercise, weight man-
agement and legal obligations. While 79% of owners
of 9-month-old dogs reported lead-pulling behaviour,
only 5% of them considered it problematic,103 indi-
cating some owners underestimate the challenges
and welfare implications lead pulling may present
as their dog matures. By adulthood, lead pulling
may already be chronic, with a well-established
reinforcement history—thus early interventions are
critical.
Owners may choose aversive equipment out of
safety concerns while walking, being unaware of
associated welfare risks.72 As certain equipment may
be more effective and appropriate for some dogs
than others, a risk assessment, considering the indi-
vidual dogs behavioural and physical needs and
the owner’s abilities,102 is essential before making
recommendations (Figure 3). Selling equipment in
6of10 Veter inary Rec ord
FIGURE 3 A simple risk assessment tool for discussing dog-walking equipment with clients
practice creates opportunities for client education
while generating revenue and footfall.104
Teaching owners to fit and use equipment reduces
stress, frustration and injury risk, increasing compli-
ance and satisfaction and enhancing welfare.95 For
example, using a double-ended lead, attached to both
the headcollar and the neck collar or harness can
increase safety and control, while reducing force on
the head and neck. A dog may not tolerate equipment
simply because it is humane, and stress signalling
should be observed during fittings, ensuring the dog is
not just enduring the item but is comfortable wearing
it. Desensitisation and counter conditioning protocols
can increase acceptance; associating equipment with
rewards, in gradual approximations at a tolerable level
for the individual dog.105 Desensitisation protocols
can be lengthy, so managing client expectations is
vital, but owners are more likely to use equipment
their dog finds comfortable.95 If a dog must wear
something every day, the goal from a welfare per-
spective should be willing compliance resulting in
enriched walking experiences for both species, rather
than simply suppression of lead pulling. Guides to
desensitisation are available from Denenberg106 and
Dogs Trust UK.107 Figures 4and 5illustrate simple
techniques to utilise when fitting equipment.
Equipment is an important consideration in safe
handling practice where slip leads are used to move
dogs quickly. Dogs that are stressed in clinic105 may
pull on a slip lead, exerting concentrated pressure
around the neck. VPs should consider alternatives, or
use the client’s equipment, particularly for dogs with
compromised airways.
Least aversive/minimally invasive, reward-based
training methods should be utilised for lead pulling,
as these support good welfare.68 This is critical as pet
Veteri nary Record 7of10
FIGURE 4 Stuffed food toys can be used to enhance
acceptance of headcollars and harnesses when fitting
FIGURE 5 Scattering food can briefly station a dog while
fitting or putting on a harness
owners’ poor skills and timing79 may aggravate nega-
tive outcomes of punitive techniques. Where in-house
training expertise is lacking, VPs can refer clients to
behaviourists and trainers accredited with the Animal
Behaviour and Training Council.108
Handouts, books and posters in the waiting room104
are an efficient means of providing advice to a cap-
tive audience of owners. Dogs Trust109 and PDSA110
have free resources on lead training using posi-
tive reinforcement. If severe lead pulling prohibits
walking, other outlets—private hire fields, playing
tug, enrichment and scent work—should be rec-
ommended to fill the behavioural void short-term
reduced exercise likely brings, while training is under-
taken. The book ‘No Walks, No Worries’111 is an
excellent resource to stock in practice for reference
or sale.
Annual vaccinations, puppy parties and weight loss
clinics are good opportunities to discuss behaviour
and training concerns. A genuine, non-judgemental
interest in their dog’s welfare builds client trust and
adherence with guidance.112 Working collaboratively
with owners to resolve lead pulling could improve gen-
eral compliance, generating return business and refer-
rals for the practice.
SUMMARY
The evidence presented here suggests a relation-
ship exists between pulling on the lead and pet dog
welfare, the nature and scope of which warrants
empirical study. VPs should be cognisant of poten-
tial risks lead pulling poses to the individual dog
and educate clients on humane means of mitigating
them. Fostering enjoyable, symbiotic walking experi-
ences can increase enrichment and exercise, reduc-
ing stress and aversion for pet dogs, while improving
owner attachment, collectively contributing to higher
welfare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review was originally undertaken as part of the
lead author’s MSc in Clinical Animal Behaviour, Royal
(Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of
Edinburgh.
FUNDING INFORMATION
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there are no competing interests
to report.
ETHICS STATEMENT
No animal or human subjects were used in the cre-
ation or context of this narrative review, thus no ethical
permission was required.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All three authors made substantial contributions to
conception, drafting and revision of this manuscript
and have given final approval for this version to be
published.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no
datasets were generated or analysed during the cur-
rent study.
ORCID
Lesley Townsend https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-
5146
Laura Dixon https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1781-
8795
Louise Buckley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1557-
4341
8of10 Veter inary Rec ord
REFERENCES
1. Dawkins MS. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Anim
Welf. 2004;13:S3–8.
2. Cannas S, Talamonti Z, Mazzola S, Minero M, Picciolini A,
Palestrini C. Factors associated with dog behavioral prob-
lems referred to a behavior clinic. J Vet Behav. 2018;24:
42–7.
3. Paterson S, Midgley D, Barclay I. Canine acral lick dermatitis.
In Pract. 2007;29(6):328–32.
4. Pauli AM, Bentley E, Diehl KA, Miller PE. Effects of the appli-
cation of neck pressure by a collar or harness on intraoc-
ular pressure in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2006;42(3):
207–11.
5. Ballantyne KC. Separation, confinement, or noises: what
is scaring that dog? Vet Clin N Am Small Anim Pract.
2018;48(3):367–86.
6. Feltes ESM, Stull JW, Herron ME, Haug LI. Characteristics
of intrahousehold interdog aggression and dog and pair fac-
tors associated with a poor outcome. J Am Vet Med Assoc.
2020;256(3):349–61.
7. O’Neill DG, Church DB, McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Brodbelt
DC. Longevity and mortality of owned dogs in England. Vet J.
2013;198(3):638–43.
8. Gazzano A, Mariti C, Alvares S, Cozzi A, Tognetti R, Sighieri C.
The prevention of undesirable behaviors in dogs: effectiveness
of veterinary behaviorists’ advice given to puppy owners. J Vet
Behav Clin Appl Res. 2008;3(3):125–33.
9. Casey RA, Bradshaw JWS. Owner compliance and clini-
cal outcome measures for domestic cats undergoing clini-
cal behavior therapy. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2008;3(3):
114–24.
10. Hurley KJ, Elliott DA, Lund EM. Dog obesity, dog walking and
dog health. In: The health benefits of dog walking for peo-
ple and pets: evidence and case studies. United States: Purdue
University Press; 2011. p. 125–43.
11. Westgarth C, Christley RM, Pinchbeck GL, Gaskell RM,
Dawson S, Bradshaw JWS. Dog behaviour on walks and the
effect of use of the leash. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2010;125(1–
2):38–46.
12. Horowitz A, Hecht J, Dedrick A. Smelling more or less: Inves-
tigating the olfactory experience of the domestic dog. Learn
Motiv. 2013;44(4):207–17.
13. Campbell K, Smith CM, Tumilty S, Cameron C, Treharne
GJ. How does dog-walking influence perceptions of health
and wellbeing in healthy adults? A qualitative dog-walk-
along study. Anthrozoös 2016;29(2):181–92. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08927936.2015.1082770
14. Westgarth C, Christley R, Marvin G, Perkins E, Westgarth C,
Christley RM, et al. I walk my dog because it makes me happy:
a qualitative study to understand why dogs motivate walk-
ing and improved health. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2017;14(8):936.
15. PDSA. PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report 2020. People’s
Dispensary for Sick Animals; 2020. p. 31.
16. Lim C, Rhodes RE. Sizing up physical activity: The relation-
ships between dog characteristics, dog owners’ motivations,
and dog walking. Psychol Sport Exercise 2016;24:65–71. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.01.004
17. Belshaw Z, Dean R, Asher L. Slower, shorter, sadder: a qual-
itative study exploring how dog walks change when the
canine participant develops osteoarthritis. BMC Vet Res.
2020;16(1):85.
18. Westgarth C, Christian HE, Christley RM. Factors associated
with daily walking of dogs. BMC Vet Res. 2015;11(1):116.
Available from : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1746-6148/
11/116
19. Cutt HE, Giles-Corti B, Wood LJ, Knuiman MW, Burke V. Bar-
riers and motivators for owners walking their dog: results
from qualitative research. Health Promot J Aust. 2008;19(2):
118–24.
20. Westgarth C, Christley RM, Christian HE. How might we
increase physical activity through dog walking? A comprehen-
sive review of dog walking correlates. Int J Behav Nutr Phys
Act. 2014;11(1):83.
21. Buckland E, Corr S, Abeyesinghe S, Wathes C. Prioritisation of
companion dog welfare issues using expert consensus. Anim
Welf. 2014;23(1):39–46.
22. BowenJ,GarcíaE,DarderP,ArgüellesJ,FatjóJ.Theeffects
of the Spanish COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets, and
the human-animal bond. J Vet Behav. 2020;40:75–91.
23. Owczarczak-Garstecka SC, Graham TM, Archer DC, Westgarth
C. Dog walking before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
lockdown: experiences of UK dog owners. Int J Environ Res
Public Health. 2021;18(12):6315.
24. Holland KE, Owczarczak-Garstecka SC, Anderson KL, Casey
RA, Christley RM, Harris L, et al. “More attention than usual”:
a thematic analysis of dog ownership experiences in the UK
during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Animals 2021;11(1):240.
25. ˇ
Rezáˇ
c P, Viziová P, Dobešová M, Havlíˇ
cek Z, Pospíšilová D.
Factors affecting dog–dog interactions on walks with their
owners. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2011;134(3):170–6.
26. Countryside and Rights of Way Act [Internet]. Statute law
database. 2000. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.
uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents
27. Williams KJH, Weston MA, Henry S, Maguire GS. Birds and
beaches, dogs and leashes: dog owners’ sense of obligation
to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Hum Dimens
Wildl. 2009;14(2):89–101.
28. Baneth G, Thamsborg SM, Otranto D, Guillot J, Blaga R,
Deplazes P, et al. Major parasitic zoonoses associated with
dogs and cats in Europe. J Comp Pathol. 2016;155(1, Suppl
1):S54–74.
29. Stull JW, Kasten JI, Evason MD, Sherding RG, Hoet AE, O’Quin
J, et al. Risk reduction and management strategies to prevent
transmission of infectious disease among dogs at dog shows,
sporting events, and other canine group settings. J Am Vet Med
Assoc. 2016;249(6):612–27.
30. Fearon R. Dog worrying and attacks increasing. Vet Rec.
2017;181(22):580.
31. Oxley JA, Evans B, Montrose VT. Prevention of sheepworrying
in the UK: rethinking the approach. J Vet Behav. 2017;19:61–3.
32. Thames seal death: QC ‘heartbroken’ over attack by her dog.
BBC News [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.bbc.
com/news/uk-england-london-56497801
33. Control of Dogs Act 1986. Control of Dogs Act 1986 [Internet].
1986 Dec 17. Available from: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/
eli/1986/act/32/enacted/en/print.html
34. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 [Internet]. Statute Law Database.
[cited 2022 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.
uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents
35. Guidance on the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. [cited
2017 Mar 8]. Available from: http://www.bhsscotland.org.uk/
uploads/5/4/5/3/5453271/control_of_dogs__scotland_act_
2010_guidance_17_feb_2011_final.pdf
36. Department of Jobs P and R. Domestic Animals Act 1994
[Internet]. Agriculture Victoria. 2020 [cited 2022 Jan 5].
Available from : https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/livestock-and-
animals/animal-welfare-victoria/dogs
37. Dog Owner’s Liability Act R.S.O. 1990 [Internet]. Ontario.ca.
2014 [cited 2022 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.ontario.
ca/laws/view
38. Willmott H, Greenheld N, Goddard R. Beware of the dog? An
observational study of dog-related musculoskeletal injury in
the UK. Accid Anal Prevent. 2012;46:52–4.
39. Jaffe A, BSSH warn of serious hand injuries from dog
leads and collars. The British Society for Surgery of the
Hand [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 May 7]. Available from:
https://www.bssh.ac.uk/about/news/142/bssh_warn_of_
serious_hand_injuries_from_dog_leads_and_collars#_ftn2
40. Pirruccio K, Yoon YM, Ahn J. Fractures in elderly amer-
icans associated with walking leashed dogs. JAMA Surg.
2019;154(5):458–9. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/
journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2727125
41. Forrester MB. Dog leash-related injuries treated at emergency
departments. Am J Emerg Med. 2020;38(9):1782–6.
42. Schermann H, Karakis I, Ankory R, Kadar A, Yoffe V, Shlaifer A,
et al. Musculoskeletal injuries among female soldiers working
with dogs. Mil Med. 2018;183(9–10):e343–8.
Veteri nary Record 9of10
43. Pilat L. Woman who sued friend after being hurt by dog
‘regrets legal action’ [Internet]. Evening standard. 2017. Avail-
able from: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/woman-
who-sued-friend-for-115000-after-being-hurt-by-her-
alsatian-regrets-taking- legal-action-a3674421.html
44. Kobelt AJ, Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Coleman GJ. A sur-
vey of dog ownership in suburban Australia—conditions
and behaviour problems. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2003;82(2):
137–48.
45. Tami G, Barone A, Diverio S. Relationship between manage-
ment factors and dog behavior in a sample of Argentine Dogos
in Italy. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2008;3(2):59–73.
46. German AJ, Blackwell E, Evans M, Westgarth C. Overweight
dogs exercise less frequently and for shorter periods: results
of a large online survey of dog owners from the UK. J Nutr
Sci. 2017;6:e11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC5465938/
47. German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats.
J Nutr. 2006;136(7):1940S–6S.
48. German AJ, Holden SL, Wiseman-Orr ML, Reid J, Nolan AM,
Biourge V, et al. Quality of life is reduced in obese dogs but
improves after successful weight loss. Vet J. 2012;192(3):428–
34.
49. German AJ, Woods GRT, Holden SL, Brennan L, Burke C. Dan-
gerous trends in pet obesity. Vet Rec. 2018;182(1):25.1–25.
50. Robertson ID. The association of exercise, diet and other fac-
tors with owner-perceived obesity in privately owned dogs
from metropolitan Perth, WA. Prev Vet Med. 2003;58(1–2):75–
83.
51. Chan CB, Spierenburg M, Ihle SL, Tudor-Locke C. Use of
pedometers to measure physical activity in dogs. J Am Vet Med
Assoc. 2005;226(12):2010–5.
52. Warren BS, Wakshlag JJ, Maley M, Farrell TJ, Struble AM,
Panasevich MR, et al. Use of pedometers to measure the rela-
tionship of dog walking to body condition score in obese and
non-obese dogs. Br J Nutr. 2011;106(S1):S85–9.
53. Morrison R, Penpraze V, Beber A, Reilly JJ, Yam PS. Associa-
tions between obesity and physical activity in dogs: a prelimi-
nary investigation. J Small Anim Pract. 2013;54(11):570–4.
54. German AJ, Blackwell E, Evans M, Westgarth C. Overweight
dogs are more likely to display undesirable behaviours: results
of a large online survey of dog owners in the UK. J Nutr Sci.
2017;6:e14. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/
product/identifier/S2048679017000052/type/journal_article
55. Menor-Campos DJ, Molleda-Carbonell JM, Lopez-Rodriguez
R. Effects of exercise and human contact on animal welfare in
a dog shelter. Vet Rec. 2011;169(15):388.
56. Protopopova A, Hauser H, Goldman KJ, Wynne CDL. The
effects of exercise and calm interactions on in-kennel behav-
ior of shelter dogs. Behav Processes. 2018;146:54–60.
57. Graham L, Wells DL, Hepper PG. The influence of olfactory
stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shel-
ter. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2005;91(1):143–53.
58. Binks J, Taylor S, Wills A, Montrose VT. The behavioural effects
of olfactory stimulation on dogs at a rescue shelter. Appl Anim
Behav Sci. 2018;202:69–76.
59. Angle CT, Wakshlag JJ, Gillette RL, Stokol T, Geske S, Adkins
TO, et al. Hematologic, serum biochemical, and cortisol
changes associated with anticipation of exercise and short
duration high-intensity exercise in sled dogs. Vet Clin Pathol.
2009;38(3):370–4.
60. Amaya V, Paterson MBA, Phillips CJC. Effects of olfactory and
auditory enrichment on the behaviour of shelter dogs. Ani-
mals 2020;10(4):581.
61. Rooney N, Bradshaw J. Canine welfare science: an anti-
dote to sentiment and myth. In: Domestic dog cogni-
tion and behaviour [Internet]. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag; 2014 [cited 2017 Sep 26]. p. 241–74. Available
from: https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/chapter/
10.1007/978-3-642-53994- 7_11
62. Duranton C, Horowitz A. Let me sniff! Nosework induces
positive judgment bias in pet dogs. Appl Anim Behav
Sci. 2019;211:61–6. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0168159118304325
63. Meehan CL, Mench JA. The challenge of challenge: can prob-
lem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Appl Anim
Behav Sci. 2007;102(3):246–61.
64. McPeake KJ, Collins LM, Zulch H, Mills DS. The canine frus-
tration questionnaire—development of a new psychometric
tool for measuring frustration in domestic dogs (Canis famil-
iaris). Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:152. Available from: https://www.
frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00152/full
65. González-Martínez Á, Martínez MF, Rosado B, Luño I,
Santamarina G, Suárez ML, et al. Association between puppy
classes and adulthood behavior of the dog. J Vet Behav.
2019;32:36–41.
66. Shalvey E, McCorry M, Hanlon A. Exploring the understand-
ing of best practice approaches to common dog behaviour
problems by veterinary professionals in Ireland. Irish Vet J.
2019;72(1):1.
67. China L, Mills DS, Cooper JJ. Efficacy of dog training with
and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive
reinforcement. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:508. Available from:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.
00508/full?fbclid=IwAR14g3rUOwpm4fGtECUcwbG75pfR0U
7ry5iRL5n26WdiXdHKIsHiTmax19U
68. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods:
their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and
welfare. Anim Welf. 2004;13(1):63–70.
69. Castro ACV de, Araújo Â, Fonseca A, Olsson IAS. Improving
dog training methods: efficacy and efficiency of reward and
mixed training methods. PLoS One. 2021;16(2):e0247321.
70. Schalke E, Ott S, Salgirli Y, Böhm I, Hackbarth H. Comparison
of stress and learning effects of three different training meth-
ods: electric training collar, pinch collar, and quitting signal.
J Vet Behav. 2010;5(1):43–4.
71. Grohmann K, Dickomeit MJ, Schmidt MJ, Kramer M. Severe
brain damage after punitive training technique with a choke
chain collar in a German shepherd dog. J Vet Behav Clin Appl
Res. 2013;8(3):180–4.
72. Herron ME, Shofer FS, Reisner IR. Survey of the use and
outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training
methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors.
Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2009;117(1–2):47–54.
73. Rooney NJ, Clark CCA, Casey RA. Minimizing fear and anx-
iety in working dogs: a review. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res.
2016;16:53–64.
74. Beerda B, Schilder MBH, van Hooff Jan ARAM, de Vries HW.
Manifestations of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl Anim
Behav Sci. 1997;52(3):307–19.
75. Kwan JY, Bain MJ. Owner attachment and problem behaviors
related to relinquishment and training techniques of dogs.
J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2013;16(2):168–83.
76. Kubinyi E, Wallis LJ. Dominance in dogs as rated by own-
ers corresponds to ethologically valid markers of dominance.
PeerJ. 2019;7:e6838.
77. BSAVA. Aversive training methods [Internet]. British Small
Animal Veterinary Association. [cited 2021 Sep 1]. Avail-
able from: https://www.bsava.com/Resources/Veterinary-
resources/Position-statements/Aversive-training-methods
78. AVSAB. Why we don’t punish. American Veterinary Society of
Animal Behaviour; 2007.
79. Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills D. The
welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with
remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward
based training. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e102722.
80. Blackwell EJ, Bolster C, Richards G, Loftus BA, Casey RA. The
use of electronic collars for training domestic dogs: estimated
prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner per-
ceived success as compared to other training methods. BMC
Vet Res. 2012;8(1):93.
81. Lafuente MP, Provis L, Schmalz EA. Effects of restrictive and
non-restrictive harnesses on shoulder extension in dogs at
walk and trot. Vet Rec. 2019;184(2):64.
82. Leerburg blog: negative reinforcement and the curse of sisy-
phus [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 1]. Available from: https://
leerburg.com/blog/2017/04/07/negative-reinforcement-
and-the-curse-of- sisyphus/
10 of 10 Veteri nary Record
83. Masson S, de la Vega S, Gazzano A, Mariti C, Pereira GDG,
Halsberghe C, et al. Electronic training devices: discussion on
the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the posi-
tion statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical
Ethology. J Vet Behav. 2018;25:71–5.
84. ESVCE. Electronic devices: ESVCE position statement.
85. Association BV. BVA policy – electric shock collars and train-
ing aids [Internet]. British Veterinary Association. [cited 2021
Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.bva.co.uk/take-action/
our-policies/electric-shock-collars-and-training-aids/
86. Hunter A, Blake S, De Godoy RF. Pressure and force on the
canine neck when exercised using a collar and leash. Vet Anim
Sci. 2019;8:100082.
87. Carter A, McNally D, Roshier A. Canine collars: an inves-
tigation of collar type and the forces applied to a sim-
ulated neck model. Vet Rec. 2020;187(7):e52. Available
from: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/early/2020/
04/17/vr.105681
88. Grainger J, Wills AP, Montrose VT. The behavioral effects of
walking on a collar and harness in domestic dogs (Canis famil-
iaris). J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2016;14:60–4.
89. Liu N-C, Troconis EL, Kalmar L, Price DJ, Wright HE, Adams
VJ, et al. Conformational risk factors of brachycephalic
obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS) in pugs, French bull-
dogs, and bulldogs. Staffieri F, editor. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):
e0181928.
90. Krecny M, Tichy A, Rushton J, Nell B. A retrospective survey
of ocular abnormalities in pugs: 130 cases. J Small Anim Pract.
2015;56(2):96–102.
91. Packer R, Murphy D, Farnworth M. Purchasing popular pure-
breds: investigating the influence of breed-type on the pre-
purchase motivations and behaviour of dog owners. Anim
Welf. 2017;26(2):191–201.
92. Packer RM, Tivers M. Strategies for the management and
prevention of conformation-related respiratory disorders in
brachycephalic dogs. Vet Med Res Rep. 2015;6:219–32.
93. Shih H-Y, Phillips CJC, Mills DS, Yang Y, Georgiou F, Paterson
MBA. Dog pulling on the leash: effects of restraint by
a neck collar vs. a chest harness. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:
1002.
94. Beerda B, Schilder MB, van Hooff JA, de Vries HW. Manifesta-
tions of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci.
1997;52(3–4):307–19.
95. Haug LI, Beaver BV, Longnecker MT. Comparison of dogs’
reactions to four different head collars. Appl Anim Behav Sci.
2002;79(1):53–61.
96. Ogburn P, Crouse S, Martin F, Houpt K. Comparison of behav-
ioral and physiological responses of dogs wearing two differ-
ent types of collars. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1998;61(2):133–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-1591(98)00113-0
97. Vieira de Castro AC, Barrett J, de Sousa L, Olsson IAS. Car-
rots versus sticks: the relationship between training meth-
ods and dog-owner attachment. Appl Anim Behav Sci.
2019;219:104831.
98. Degeling C, Rock M. ‘It was not just a walking experience’:
reflections on the role of care in dog-walking. Health Promot
Int. 2013;28(3):397–406.
99. Townsend, L, Dixon LM, Chase-Topping M, Buckley L. Owner
approaches and attitudes to the problem of lead-pulling
behaviour in pet-dogs [Online]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 7].
Available from : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
340478244_Owner_approaches_and_attitudes_to_the_
problem_of_lead-pulling_behaviour_in_pet-dogs
100. Shih H-Y, Georgiou F, Curtis RA, Paterson MBA, Phillips CJC.
Behavioural evaluation of a leash tension meter which mea-
sures pull direction and force during human–dog on-leash
walks. Animals 2020;10(8):1382.
101. Boyd C, Jarvis S, McGreevy P, Thomson P, Church D, Brodbelt
D, et al. Mortality and relinquishment ascribed to unde-
sirable behaviours in young dogs in the UK. In: BSAVA
Congress Proceedings 2016 [Internet]. British Small Animal
Veterinary Association; 2016 [cited 2019 Feb 27]. p. 559.
Available from : http://bsavalibrary.com/content/chapter/10.
22233/9781910443446.ch71sec6
102. Oselinsky K, Duncan CG, Martinez HE, Graham DJ.
Veterinary-prescribed physical activity: feasibility and
acceptability among veterinary staff and dog owners. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2339.
103. Lord MS, Casey RA, Kinsman RH, Tasker S, Knowles TG, Da
Costa REP, et al. Owner perception of problem behaviours
in dogs aged 6 and 9-months. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2020;
232:105147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105147
104. Aitken E. Client education benefits all: patient, client and
practice. Vet Nurs J. 2014;29(5):178–80.
105. Riemer S, Heritier C, Windschnurer I, Pratsch L, Arhant C,
Affenzeller N. A review on mitigating fear and aggression in
dogs and cats in a veterinary setting. Animals 2021;11(1):158.
106. Denenberg S. Appendix C5. Muzzle, head halter and body har-
ness training. Small animal veterinary psychiatry. Oxfordshire,
UK: CABI; 2020. p. 329–37.
107. Teach your dog to wear a harness | training | Dogs Trust | Dogs
Trust [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 1]. Available from: https://
www.dogstrust.org.uk/help-advice/training/harness-
training
108. ABTC – Animal Behaviour & Training Council [Internet]. [cited
2021 Sep 7]. Available from: https://abtc.org.uk/
109. Walking nicely on the lead: how to stop your dog pulling on
the lead | help & advice | Dogs Trust | Dogs Trust [Internet].
[cited 2021 Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.dogstrust.org.
uk/help-advice/training/walking-nicely-training
110. How to train your dog or puppy not to pull on the lead [Inter-
net]. [cited 2021 Sep 1]. Available from: https://www.pdsa.
org.uk/taking-care-of-your-pet/looking-after-your-pet/
puppies-dogs/training-dogs-not-to-pull
111. Ryan S, Zulch H, Baumber P. No walks? No worries!: maintain-
ing wellbeing in dogs on restricted exercise, Veloce Publishing
Ltd; 2014. 96 p.
112. Roshier AL, McBride EA. Veterinarians’ perceptions of
behaviour support in small-animal practice. Vet Rec. 2013;
172(10):267.
How to cite this article: Tow nse n d L, Dix o n L,
Buckley L. Lead pulling as a welfare concern in
pet dogs: What can veterinary professionals
learn from current research?. Vet Rec.
2022;e1627. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.1627
