sorry, but it's not melodramatic or silly to worry about a dog's comfort and health. Although strangulation is unlikely, injury is not. Many injuries go unseen, but still cause discomfort.

Neck muscles, like others, take time to develop. During that time in particular, injuries are likely to occur with frequent pulling on the neck and more so jolting on the neck - young, untrained pups have a habit of pulling out unexpectedly. Spreading the pressure by use of a harness is, in my honest opinion, the safest way to contain a dog at least until loose lead walking is established.

http://taylor.uurnet.net/pipermail/c...ch/000122.html

An interesting study

Im not arguing period. Harnesses are a bloody nuisance and completely unnecessary. We see more dogs who are totally out of control because people think a harness is a good thing than anything else. We also have seen damaged tendons under dogs front legs, widened fronts and other soft tissue damage.

Dont be sorry, its your opinion and youre entitled to it. I just dont agree with it!

You see more damage done to dogs by harnesses than ANYTHING ELSE?

Sorry - I find that a bit hard to believe.

And there are countless stories of collapsed trachea, laryngeal paralysis, not to mention AGGRESSION caused by dogs pulling on the lead.

I am not sure if you are aware but when a dog pulls on a collar it restricts the intake of oxygen to the brain which can then cause behaviour changes, quite often aggression?

This was discussed at a seminar I attended earlier this year with Tony Nevin on handler restraint, where the pros and cons of collars, harnesses and head halters were debated.

It was also part of the Christine Zink seminar.

Now I agree that anti pull harnesses may damage dogs and those which are poorly designed ie with the shoulder and/or humerus restricted; buckles etc on the point of shoulder and overly bulky ones are not to be recommended.

But that is down to the DESIGN of the individual harness and poor fitting rather than harnesses per se.

The same can be said for collars and head halters.

So "WE" (as in owners;breeders; trainers; health professionals) see soft tissue damage and worse in ALL types of handler restraint.

There is no need to demonise a piece of equipment just because some designs are poor, fitting is poor and use is poor.

If this was the case we could so the same with ALL equipment.

That is why some of us bother to continually educate ourselves in order to provide the best advice for dogs and their owners and to learn how to inform people of all the pros and cons of the equipment choices out on the market.

Which is a little more useful I believe than sweeping generalisations which do not adequately enumerate the pluses and minuses.

Yeah, but then some people would just opt for the easy option and use a prong collar! Seen that too.

Believe what you like. Have you managed a boarding kennels for 20yrs that boards up to 116 dogs?

I have NEVER seen a dogs damaged neck because of a collar, I have seen MANY cases of ruined front and soft tissue damage, particularly in young animals, because of owners being towed about with dogs on harnesses. Whether you believe it or not, holds no interest for me.

So a dog that is out of control on a harness would suddenly turn into a model citizen on a regular collar? surely an out of control dog is an out of control dog regardless of what equipment it is wearing.

Is the neck/throat area, which to me is logically a more fragile part of the body than the dogs upper torso, not susceptible to damaged tendons and soft tissue damage then?

Are you a vet then Borderdawn?

How are you able to diagnose a dog with soft tissue/tendon damage? or able see the state of a dogs neck to determine whether it is damaged or not?