There are currently more and more studies regarding the effects of dog harnesses on the movement of dogs. In connection with this, a summary article on the subject was published on http://doggearreview.com/article/norwegianvsshoulder/ on the 7th of May.
As the author of the article writes, this is probably one of the most controversial topics in the world of dog harnesses at the moment, and sadly, serious companies and veterinarians are trying to come up with artificial arguments and prove their point with photos and videos that clearly show that the dog harness is not the right size, is not well placed on the dog or simply that the experimental conditions were far from optimal. Then of course the erroneous conclusion is that the harness restricts the free movement of the dog’s shoulder, thereby questioning the suitability of Norwegian-type harnesses.
The author of the article also refers to the following study:
Study of the British Veterinary Association
https://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/lafuente_effects_of_harnesses.pdf
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of dog harnesses considered “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” on dog movement during walking and trotting on a treadmill.
The study finds that all dog harness types restrict the dog’s freedom of movement to some degree. What came as a surprise to the researchers, however, was that dog harnesses considered restrictive, restricted the movement of a dog’s shoulder much less than expected compared to the harnesses that were considered non-restrictive. That is, “while the allegedly non-restrictive harness restricted shoulder movement by 4.73 ° during walking and 9.31 ° during trotting, the restraining harness restricted by 2.16 ° during walking and 4.32 ° while trotting. “ The researchers point out that this result was unexpected, as it was hypothesized that the so-called restrictive harnesses were the ones that restricted the free movement of the dog’s shoulder to a greater extent: the result of the experiment, as they write, contrasts with negative opinion, so it would be important to revise opinions on these so called restrictive harnesses.
The research team examined the results of nine dogs and acknowledges that tests on the treadmill need to be done more thoroughly with more prepared dogs. They also suggest that the movement of the dog’s fur should also be considered when examining the restrictive role of harnesses.
Related studies:
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/the-science-behind-a-wet-dogs-shake/
https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-do-the-wet-dog-shake-1.11177
Comment of dog harness developer, Gyula Sebő:
As a dog harness developer, I basically don’t understand why research isn’t paying attention to the tasks in light of basic functions of a dog harness, as the market is flooded with rubbish products, the use of which are full of risks.
The main function of the dog harness is to replace the collar. It exerts less strain on the dog’s neck and facilitates easier breathing, while allowing the owner to control the dog at an optimal level. Why don’t experts look at how many dog harnesses don’t meet this basic requirement at all?
