What are the opening hours?

Monday 10am - 6pm Tuesday 10am - 2pm 6pm - 9pm Wednesday 10am - 6pm Thursday 10am - 2pm Saturday 1pm - 5pm Sunday 10am - 1pm

Believe In Magic Dog Training & Behaviour, London (2026)

28/01/2026

Last night I attended the APDAWG parliamentary meeting on extreme conformation, welfare, and the Innate Health Assessment (IHA).

I want to share a few reflections from inside the room, in a way that holds both care and complexity.

I agree that the IHA is best understood as a starting point, not a finished solution.

A simple, accessible framework that helps the public recognise when a dog’s physical structure may compromise basic function has value. It opens a door. It raises awareness. It creates a shared language for bodies that need to work. The IHA is a voluntary 10-point checklist intended to raise awareness of extreme conformation traits that can limit breathing, movement, communication, sleep, eating, and other normal functions. It is not a substitute for breed-specific health tests, such as the Royal Kennel Club Nose-to-Tail schemes.

Where I hold some caution is around how any such framework might be implemented in the real world.

From lived experience, local authority enforcement is already inconsistent, under-resourced, and in some areas deeply unreliable. Expecting councils alone to become the primary gatekeepers of nuanced welfare assessment is, in my view, neither realistic nor sufficiently safeguarded.

Bodies, welfare, and function are complex.

They cannot be robustly assessed through visuals alone.
They cannot be meaningfully separated from movement, behaviour, and context.
They cannot be safely reduced to tick-box enforcement.

There was also a repeated statement that the IHA has been misunderstood or “cherry-picked” by some commentators. While clarification is helpful, the very need to clarify highlights that if a tool is widely open to misinterpretation even among engaged professionals, then it is not yet robust enough to carry sole responsibility for welfare decisions.

Clarity, consistency, and resistance to subjective interpretation are not optional extras. They are fundamental if any framework is to build trust.

Last night this lack of clarity visibly resulted in many passionate, responsible breeders feeling frightened about what the IHA might mean for their breeds, their lines, and their life’s work. That matters. Responsible breeders are not the enemy. Any welfare tool that unintentionally alienates the very people already investing in health testing, careful selection, and lifetime responsibility needs further refinement.

If IHA-informed approaches are to move forward, I believe they must sit within a wider, multi-disciplinary system that includes veterinary involvement, independently assessed behaviour and training professionals, breeding and genetics expertise, stronger regulation of commercial breeding, and public education at point of purchase.

One area I am still sitting with, and would genuinely welcome further clarity on, is how a voluntary, non-legislative IHA framework meaningfully reaches the roughly 80% of puppies bred and sold outside licensing schemes, kennel club registration, or recognised breeder networks, the ones who need education and oversight most.

During the discussion I suggested that veterinarians could be well placed to carry out IHA-style assessments, as every legally sold puppy must be microchipped and a large proportion will also be vaccinated and presented to a vet at some point in early life. In reality, almost all dogs will see a vet at some stage of their lives. This creates a repeated, natural point of contact that already exists. If we are serious about education rather than enforcement alone, that contact should be used purposefully.

This was met with understandable hesitation from many vets around being positioned as enforcers of any legal mechanism. Shortly afterwards, it was clarified that the IHA is not intended to become law.

But the practical question remains. If the IHA is voluntary and vets do not wish to act as gatekeepers, and local authorities are not a reliable enforcement body, what is the realistic delivery pathway into the unregulated majority?

Public-facing tools alone may influence some buyers. They are unlikely to influence high-volume, profit-driven sellers. For me, this points toward education being most powerful where people already seek help: in veterinary practices, with trainers, behaviourists, and welfare organisations. These professions already have trusted relationships with owners and spend time explaining health, behaviour, and quality of life.

I also left with a specific concern about how cross-breeding was discussed. There appeared to be a gap in acknowledging that crossing a pug with a Jack Russell, Beagle, or other high-drive breed does not simply create a “healthier pug.” It creates a dog with very different behavioural needs and motivational systems. Focusing solely on physical appearance risks overlooking this entirely. Temperament, arousal profiles, sociability, and drive do not disappear because a muzzle becomes longer. They combine. Any meaningful framework must hold both physical and behavioural welfare.

From my perspective as a Clinical Animal Behaviourist, I see the downstream effects of physical compromise every week. Dogs who struggle to breathe struggle to cope. Dogs in chronic discomfort show lower thresholds to stress. Dogs whose bodies restrict movement, communication, or rest often present with behaviours that are then labelled as “training issues.” By the time many of these dogs reach me, the shape of their body has already shaped the shape of their life.

That is why I care about any initiative that moves us toward bodies that function. And that is also why I care deeply about how those initiatives are delivered. Because the dogs most affected are rarely coming from the systems that already engage with best practice. They are coming from the spaces where oversight is weakest.

I am supportive of the IHA as a conversation starter and as a supplement to existing breed health schemes. But I am less clear on how a voluntary scheme, on its own, disrupts the part of the system doing the most harm.

For me, this reinforces that stronger regulation of breeding itself, better resourcing of enforcement, clearer national standards, and cross-sector involvement are not optional extras. They are central.

I share this not as opposition, but as a genuine request for joined-up thinking.

If we want to reduce suffering at scale, the mechanisms matter as much as the message. And I think it is okay, and necessary, to keep asking how those mechanisms will actually function in the real world, together, not in conflict.

For dogs.

I also want to say thank you to Beverly, Sharon, Lauren, and Laura, three breeders of very different breeds (Chihuahua, German Shepherd Dog, and Shiba Inu) whom I had not met before, for their thoughtful conversation, openness, and company on the night.

07/01/2026

This is not a training-methods discussion.

This is a professional responsibility and liability discussion.

When trainers or walkers promote or use tools such as pinch collars, slip leads used punitively, or electronic collars, the issue is not whether they believe the tool “works”. The issue is whether they can demonstrate that any negative fallout was not foreseeable, and that they acted with reasonable care and skill in line with current professional knowledge.

In law, harm does not need to be intentional to create liability. What matters is foreseeability. Pain, stress responses, behavioural suppression, increased anxiety, redirected aggression, and physical injury associated with aversive tools are well documented in the research literature and acknowledged by veterinary and welfare bodies. Because these risks are known, they are foreseeable.

That matters.

If a dog is injured physically or behaviourally and the equipment or method used can reasonably be linked to that harm, a practitioner may be exposed to claims of negligence or breach of duty of care. This can apply even where an owner agreed to or requested the use of the tool. Client consent does not remove professional responsibility.

There is also a consumer law angle that is often overlooked. In the UK, services must be provided with reasonable care and skill. Where a service causes harm, is misrepresented, or falls below that standard, owners may have remedies. That does not mean behaviour change can be guaranteed or that every outcome leads to a refund. It does mean professionals must be able to justify their choices and demonstrate that safer, evidence-led alternatives were considered.

Insurance is another quiet risk. Many policies exclude or restrict cover where aversive methods are used or where work falls outside recognised welfare-led practice. If a claim arises and cover is declined, liability can sit with the individual.

This is why this conversation matters.

If you choose to promote or use higher-risk tools, the responsibility sits with you to evidence why harm was not foreseeable, how risks were mitigated, and how your practice aligns with current knowledge and professional standards. Professional choices today are judged against current knowledge, not what was common ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago. It is what is defensible now.

This is not about shaming. It is about protecting dogs, owners, and professionals themselves from avoidable harm and very real fallout when things go wrong.

References include Ziv (2017), Cooper et al. (2014), BVA and RSPCA guidance, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

23/12/2025

When Behaviour Changes Quickly but Welfare Pays the Price

In dog training and behaviour work, speed of change is often mistaken for quality of outcome. A behaviour stops. A response reduces. A dog appears calmer, quieter, more compliant. On the surface, this can look like success. But behaviour professionals have a responsibility to look beyond what behaviour does and consider what the dog is experiencing physically and emotionally while that change occurs, and what the long-term cost may be.

Dogs do not behave independently of their bodies or nervous systems. Behaviour is shaped by movement, pain, learning history, emotional state, and environmental pressure. When behaviour changes without those factors being assessed or addressed, it is often because expression has been suppressed rather than the underlying experience resolved.

One of the most concerning developments in modern dog training is the increasing normalisation of methods that interrupt behaviour through aversive stimulation delivered remotely. These approaches are often described as precise, controlled, or minimally intrusive. In reality, they rely on the dog finding the sensation sufficiently unpleasant to change what they are doing. That unpleasantness is not incidental. It is the functional mechanism through which learning occurs.

From a physiological perspective, exposure to unpredictable aversive stimuli activates the stress response system. This includes increased cortisol levels, activation of the sympathetic nervous system, elevated muscle tension, and reduced capacity for behavioural flexibility. Research shows that dogs subjected to these methods often display stress-related behaviours even when outward compliance improves. A reduction in visible behaviour does not necessarily indicate improved welfare. Suppression can easily be mistaken for calm.

From a learning theory perspective, these approaches operate through positive punishment and negative reinforcement. For behaviour to change, the dog must experience the stimulus as aversive enough to avoid it in the future. This does not teach emotional regulation, coping skills, or choice. It teaches avoidance. Numerous studies have demonstrated that dogs trained using aversive methods show increased stress, fear responses, and poorer overall welfare outcomes compared to dogs trained using reward-based approaches.

What is particularly problematic is not only what these methods do, but what they allow practitioners to bypass. They bypass assessment of pain and movement, despite the strong links between discomfort and behaviour. They bypass consideration of arousal thresholds and nervous system capacity. They bypass the need to teach foundational skills such as disengagement, recovery, and self-regulation. Responsibility for change shifts away from professional observation and adaptation, and onto the dog’s ability to tolerate discomfort.

This matters because behaviour that is interrupted without being understood does not disappear. It is stored. It often resurfaces later as anxiety, shutdown, learned helplessness, or behavioural fallout that appears disconnected from the original context. The absence of behaviour in the moment tells us very little about the dog’s long-term welfare.

As understanding of canine behaviour and welfare has progressed, many veterinary and professional bodies have taken a clear position on this issue. Increasingly, legislation has followed. These decisions are not driven by sentiment or ideology. They reflect an evidence-based evaluation of risk, welfare impact, and the availability of effective alternatives that do not rely on pain, fear, or suppression to achieve change.

I discussed this publicly in my interview on This Morning, where the focus was not on condemning individual tools or practitioners, but on raising the standard of how we understand behaviour. When we prioritise movement, physical comfort, emotional safety, and skill-building, methods that rely on aversive interruption become unnecessary. Not because they are prohibited, but because they are incompatible with good practice.

Ethical training is not defined by how quickly behaviour changes. It is defined by whether change is achieved without compromising the dog’s physical or emotional wellbeing. That requires observation, patience, and a willingness to work with complexity rather than override it.

If this article has prompted you to reflect on behaviour changes that seem fast or effortless, The Way They Move explores how subtle changes in posture, gait and physical comfort often explain behaviour long before escalation occurs.

If you are a professional holding these ethical questions quietly, mentoring offers a space to reflect, integrate evidence, and strengthen confidence without needing to simplify or defend your values.

References

Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills DS. The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with aversive remote stimulation compared with reward-based training. PLOS One. 2014;9(9):e102722.

Schalke E, Stichnoth J, Ott S, Jones-Baade R. Clinical signs caused by aversive stimulation tools on dogs in everyday situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007;105(4):369–380.

Ziv G. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017;19:50–60.

AVSAB. Position Statement on the Use of Punishment for Behaviour Modification in Animals.

BSAVA. Policy statements on canine welfare and aversive training methods.

19/12/2025

Why Demonising Dog Food Brands Misses the Point

Ingredient Lists, Nutrition Myths and the Cost of Oversimplification

Dog food has become one of the most polarised conversations in the dog world. Certain brands are routinely dismissed as poor quality based on ingredient lists, while others are elevated through language such as natural, premium, or vet approved. What is often lost in the noise is evidence, context, and the simple reality that dogs are individuals.

Nutrition is not ideology. It is applied biology. The question is not which food sounds best to us, but which food has evidence behind it, what testing it has undergone, and how the individual dog in front of us responds.

Why ingredient lists are not a measure of dog food quality

One of the most common claims made online is that foods produced by large, research-led companies are inferior because the first few ingredients are not an easily recognisable whole protein. This interpretation misunderstands how pet food is formulated and regulated.

Ingredients are listed by weight before processing, not by nutritional contribution. Fresh meats contain a high proportion of water, which inflates their position on the label. Ingredients such as meat meals or hydrolysed proteins may appear less appealing to a human reader, but can provide consistent, highly digestible amino acid profiles once processed. A food does not nourish a dog because it looks good on the label. It nourishes a dog because it delivers the required nutrients in the correct balance and remains digestible, stable, and safe over time (FEDIAF, 2023).

Focusing on ingredient lists alone ignores formulation, nutrient bioavailability, digestibility, and quality control. These factors matter far more to the dog than whether an ingredient name sounds familiar.

What makes research-led diets different

Veterinary and research-led diets are formulated by teams that include animal nutrition scientists, food technologists, and veterinarians working within established nutritional and safety frameworks. These diets are subject to feeding trials, digestibility testing, shelf-life evaluation, and ongoing quality control.

This is why such diets are used clinically for gastrointestinal disease, allergies, renal disease, and other medical conditions. They are not perfect, and they are not right for every dog, but they have been through regulatory and scientific processes that many marketing-led foods have not.

By contrast, phrases such as vet-approved often mean very little. In many cases, this simply indicates that a single veterinarian has agreed to be associated with a product. It does not mean the food has undergone clinical trials. It does not mean long-term outcomes have been evaluated. It does not mean the food is appropriate for dogs with specific medical or digestive needs.

Dismissing research-backed diets while elevating untested alternatives because they sound better is not evidence-led decision making.

There is no one-size-fits-all in nutrition

One of the most damaging myths in dog nutrition is the idea that there is a single best way to feed dogs. There is not.

Dogs vary enormously in digestive tolerance, immune response, metabolism, and health needs. Even within the same litter, individual dogs may thrive on very different diets. One may do well on a raw or fresh diet. Another may develop chronic gastrointestinal upset. One may require a hydrolysed protein diet to manage allergies. Another may cope perfectly well on a standard commercial kibble.

This is not a raw versus kibble debate, or fresh versus wet. It is a suitability debate. What matters is what suits the individual dog, not what aligns with trends, belief systems, or online consensus.

Why algorithms and rankings fall short

Increasingly, owners are directed to online scoring systems that rank foods based on ingredient lists or perceived naturalness. These tools do not assess the individual dog. They do not account for health history, growth stage, digestive sensitivity, or medical need. They also do not evaluate whether a food has undergone feeding trials or regulatory scrutiny.

Nutrition decisions should be guided by evidence, observation, and professional input where appropriate. Coat quality, stool consistency, appetite, weight stability, energy levels, and behaviour provide far more meaningful feedback than a numerical score generated by an algorithm.

Nutrition also interacts with behaviour and wellbeing. Diet influences gut health, immune function, and stress physiology, all of which can affect behaviour and coping capacity (Pérez-Camargo and Butterwick, 2021). Repeated diet changes in pursuit of a perfect label can increase gastrointestinal upset and stress, particularly in sensitive dogs (Morelli et al., 2022).

Stability matters. Evidence matters. Individual response matters.

Why trainers need to tread carefully

As trainers and behaviour professionals, we have a responsibility to exercise caution when providing nutrition advice. Blanket statements that label certain brands as rubbish or promote others as superior without evidence can undermine welfare, particularly for dogs with medical or digestive vulnerabilities.

Very few people specialise in canine nutrition in the UK and Europe, and there is no direct equivalent to the American board certification system. This makes it even more important to rely on established regulatory frameworks, published research, and collaboration with veterinary professionals rather than marketing claims or online consensus.

Confidence should always be proportional to expertise.

What can owners do instead?

Look beyond ingredient lists and ask what evidence supports the food. Has it undergone feeding trials? Is it formulated in accordance with recognised nutritional guidelines? Is it used clinically?

Observe the individual dog rather than following ideology. Digestive health, coat quality, weight stability, and behaviour matter more than trends.

Consult your veterinarian when there are health or digestive concerns, particularly for puppies, adolescents, and dogs with medical conditions.

Be wary of absolute claims. If a food is presented as perfect for all dogs, that is a red flag.

Avoid frequent diet changes unless there is a clear reason. Stability supports both digestive and emotional well-being.

There is no moral hierarchy in dog food. There is only evidence, suitability, and the dog in front of you. When we centre the dog rather than the narrative, better decisions follow.

If you are a professional navigating complex conversations around health, behaviour, and wellbeing without wanting to default to trends or certainty, mentoring offers a space to think critically and work ethically without simplifying the science. If you are interested in how digestion, physical comfort, and movement intersect with behaviour, The Way They Move explores how the body often explains what behaviour alone cannot.

Acknowledgement

With thanks to Dr Jacqueline Boyd for her time and for offering general feedback on an early draft. This article reflects my interpretation of the evidence, and any inaccuracies are mine alone.

References

Boyd, J. (2023) Canine Nutrition: Food Feeding and Function. The Crowood Press Ltd

Case, L.P. (2019) Dog Food Logic: Making Smart Decisions for Your Dog in an Age of Too Many Choices. Chicago, IL: Dogwise Publishing.

FEDIAF (2023) FEDIAF Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Food for Cats and Dogs. Brussels: European Pet Food Industry Federation. Available at: https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/nutritional-guidelines/ (Accessed: 13 December 2025).

Morelli, G., De Marcante, M.C., Zaghini, A. and Caldin, M.B. (2022) ‘Raw meat-based diets for dogs: A review’, Animals, 12(16), 2030. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9379419/ (Accessed: 13 December 2025).

Pérez-Camargo, G. and Butterwick, R. (2021) ‘Diet and behaviour in dogs: A scoping review on the impact of nutrition on canine behaviour’, Appetite, 159, 105113. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195561621000164 (Accessed: 13 December 2025).

15/12/2025

I am really happy to share that I have now successfully completed independent assessment for the Clinical Animal Behaviourist role with The Animal Behaviour and Training Council, Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors - APBC and TCBTS.

This marks an important professional milestone for me, but the heart of my work remains exactly the same. Thoughtful, evidence based, welfare led support for dogs and their owners, with care taken over the whole picture, not just the behaviour we see on the surface.

Thank you to my clients, class members, colleagues, and dogs for the trust you place in me every day. I am very proud of this step and quietly excited about what comes next.

14/12/2025

Why behaviour support requests increase over the holidays and what helps most

Every year, without fail, enquiries increase during the holiday period. Owners often tell me their dog has suddenly become more reactive, restless, snappy, withdrawn, or unable to cope in ways they had not seen before. What looks like a sudden behaviour change is very rarely sudden. The holidays create a perfect storm where overwhelm, pain, and reduced coping capacity finally become visible.

Routines collapse. Sleep is disrupted. Homes are busier and noisier. Walks happen at different times, on different surfaces, often in the dark or cold. Dogs are asked to tolerate visitors, changes to space, different resting areas, and increased handling. At the same time, colder weather and reduced movement can exacerbate underlying pain or stiffness. When a dog’s physical comfort drops and their nervous system is under sustained load, behaviour is often the first place this shows.

Importantly, many dogs cope until they cannot. The holidays remove the buffers that normally keep behaviour manageable. That is why calls increase now, not because dogs are being difficult, but because their capacity has been exceeded.

Top tips that genuinely help during the holiday period
Prioritise rest and predictability. Protect sleep and downtime as much as possible. Quiet, undisturbed rest is not a luxury, it is regulation.

Watch movement closely. Shortened stride, stiffness after rest, reluctance to move, pacing, or changes in posture are all information. Behaviour does not exist separately from the body.

Lower expectations. This is not the time to push training goals, social exposure, or “being good for guests”. Stability matters more than progress right now.

Reduce social pressure. Tolerance is not enjoyment. Give dogs choice about interaction, space away from visitors, and freedom from being handled for photos or greetings.

Be cautious with walks. More walking is not always better. Choose quality over quantity and aim for decompression rather than stimulation.

Do not add more enrichment to fix overwhelm. A dysregulated nervous system does not need more input. It needs safety, predictability, and recovery.
Seek support early. Behaviour that appears during the holidays is often a signal that something has been brewing underneath. Early assessment, including physical comfort and emotional load, prevents escalation later.

If there is one message I would want owners and professionals to hold at this time of year, it is this. Holiday behaviour changes deserve curiosity, not correction. They are often the clearest communication a dog has that something is too much.

If this post has made you look differently at how your dog is moving, resting, or coping right now, The Way They Move will help you learn what to observe, what changes matter, and how movement links to behaviour long before problems escalate. https://www.believeinmagic.dog/challenge-page/61c2bb88-5ae0-433c-a945-5f915b59edd5?programId=61c2bb88-5ae0-433c-a945-5f915b59edd5

If you are a trainer or behaviour professional noticing these patterns and feeling unsure how to respond ethically or confidently, mentoring offers a space to reflect, integrate knowledge, and make decisions without holding the complexity alone. Find out more about our mentoring support. https://www.believeinmagic.dog/dog-training-professional-mentoring

If behaviour changes have appeared recently or suddenly, especially during the colder months, a veterinary check to rule out pain or physical discomfort is an important first step. You can book in your consultation with Eryn www.believeinmagic.dog

12/12/2025

There has been a growing trend in the dog training world to publicly bad-mouth collars while positioning harnesses as the ethical or welfare-friendly alternative. I want to pause that narrative, because it oversimplifies a complex issue and risks replacing one welfare myth with another.

Yes, the canine neck contains vital and delicate structures, and excessive pressure, repeated jerks, or sustained tension on the lead are not acceptable. That is not in dispute. What is far less often discussed is that dogs are quadrupeds whose movement and propulsion come primarily from the forequarters and shoulders. When a dog pulls, force is not removed by a harness. It is redistributed.

Most commonly used harness designs load force across the scapula, sternum, ribs and thoracic spine. The canine shoulder is not a fixed joint but a muscular sling that relies on free movement for normal stride length. Research and gait analysis have shown that even well-fitted harnesses can restrict shoulder extension and alter stride length, particularly when a dog is pulling. Changes in gait are not neutral and may increase compensatory loading elsewhere in the body.

Studies frequently cited to condemn collars often measure peak pressure under artificial conditions using rigid models rather than living dogs. They do not compare this with harness-related pressure, harness-induced gait changes, or long-term musculoskeletal impact. Even within this research, the authors consistently emphasise that the core issue is pulling itself and that dogs should be trained to walk on a loose lead, with equipment discussed as management rather than a welfare solution.

What concerns me most is that equipment-focused messaging distracts from the actual causes of the behaviour. Dogs do not pull because they are wearing a collar. They pull because of arousal, reinforcement history, frustration, fear, pain, or unmet needs. A harness does not teach loose lead walking and can increase mechanical advantage, allowing dogs to pull more effectively using the chest and shoulders. A flat collar used with skill, appropriate reinforcement, and a dog trained to maintain slack in the lead may involve minimal pressure on the neck at all.

As trainers and behaviour professionals, we need to be careful about the narratives we promote. Demonising collars while presenting harnesses as inherently safe encourages fear-based decisions rather than informed, individualised choice. Welfare is not about choosing the “right” piece of equipment. It is about reducing tension, force and conflict through training, emotional regulation, and addressing why the behaviour exists in the first place.

A truly welfare-led approach is not collar versus harness. It is training first, assessment first, and skill building first, with equipment selected thoughtfully for the individual dog and used as management, not as a substitute for teaching.

References and further reading:

1. Pauli, Bentley, Diehl & Miller (2006) – Collar vs Harness intraocular pressure
It’s not freely open-access but is the authoritative index for the article.
Pauli AM, Bentley E, Diehl KA, Miller PE. Effects of the application of neck pressure by a collar or harness on intraocular pressure in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2006;42(3):207–211.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16611932/

2. Carter, McNally & Roshier (2020) – Collar pressure on a model neck
This is the PubMed entry for the Nottingham Trent University study on collar pressures:
Anne Carter, Donal McNally, Amanda Roshier. Canine collars: an investigation of collar type and the forces applied to a simulated neck model. Vet Rec. 2020;187(7):e52.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32303668/

If you need the institutional PDF, this repository version is available:
https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/39713/

3. Lafuente, Provis & Schmalz (2018/2019) – Harness effects on shoulder extension
This PubMed entry gives citation details (including DOI) — full text usually requires journal access:
M Pilar Lafuente, Laura Provis, Emily Anne Schmalz. Effects of restrictive and non-restrictive harnesses on shoulder extension in dogs at walk and trot. Vet Rec. 2019;184(2):64.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30455191/

4. Peham C, Limbeck S, Galla K, Bockstahler B (2013) – Harness influence on gait/pressure
This Veterinary Journal article is the likely correct match for the “Peham et al.” study you referenced. It’s not freely open access but does exist and is indexed on Scopus/ScienceDirect:
Peham C, Limbeck S, Galla K, Bockstahler B. Influence of harnesses and head-collars on the kinematics of the canine gait. Vet J. 2013;198(3):e93–e98.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023313004681?via%3Dihub

If you don’t have access via ScienceDirect, you may be able to request a PDF via ResearchGate or an institutional library.

5. AVSAB Position Statements (humane training & equipment)
The general resource page for position statements (including humane training and equipment use) from the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB):
https://avsab.org/resources/position-statements/

6. Nottingham Trent University press article (“Collars risk causing neck injuries in dogs”)
If you want the actual research report rather than the press release, the NTU repository (IRep) has the PDF that is accessible:
https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/39713/

If you want evidence on pulling / gait mechanics more broadly, there are a few other indexed studies (e.g., Cavalieri review on gait effects with harness and head-collars) that are accessible via PubMed Central.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Believe In Magic Dog Training & Behaviour

28/01/2026

07/01/2026

23/12/2025

19/12/2025

15/12/2025

14/12/2025

12/12/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	10am - 6pm
Tuesday	10am - 2pm
	6pm - 9pm
Wednesday	10am - 6pm
Thursday	10am - 2pm
Saturday	1pm - 5pm
Sunday	10am - 1pm