If you have to cut a bit of the dog off in order for it to do its job it is not bred fit for function.

rune

I did not say it was so easy Chaz, I said the study will fit her porpose, If you had a slow motion video of a dog with or without dew claws turning, and depending on the breed type of dog , they would all look different, so that point would be void, my Boxers dont have dew claws, they can turn on a sixpence and would give your dogs a run for their money.the only plus your dogs would have is speed, they would outrun mine in a straight line.

My point is a dog can work /run and do everything else a dog with dew claws can do, they can hold a bone, scratch an eye, turn in a tight circle,, if you google you tube you will see Boxer dogs (just using them as an example) doing all manner of agility /herding work, they will all be docked and dew clawed..and they excel in what ever they do.

In my lifetime, having had dogs with and without both, I cant see where those without, have been at a disadvantage to those who had.



They do agility dont they?????

Did I give an impression otherwise, , the argument of some and the link given was that loss of dew claws was detrimental to joint and bone health, and as said the author was talking about performance dogs, (agility) and such. and the point was beign made that maybe the arthritis she sees may be due to heavy pounding on joints of agility dogs.

Just like humans, who take part in sports that pound the joints, you are going to see more wear on them than other peopel who are less active.



I did not not say it did, there is more to "fit for function" than a docked tail or dew claw removal

A dog fit for function should be structural and mentally sound, removal of digits and tails is just like tying your hair up out of the way of it getting tangled in machinery or such like.. its a safety measure, not a "fit for function" measure.

More importantly they DON'T suffer without them, ime.

Isla doesn't have front dew claws, Oscar does. There's absolutely no difference in agility between the two
of them.

Pickles had his front dew claws and suffered endlessly with them. He also had arthritis from about 11-12. He lived to 15. My last black and white Springer had her front dew claws removed (and yet had her rear dew claws intact??? ), she had no problems with arthritis and walked 3 miles a day until she was 13.

Research is all very well, but unless it is critiquely analysed and evaluated it's worth didely squat - just look at the problem the MMR/Autism research caused. Plus you will, 9 times out of 10, find some evidence out there that states the opposite of another batch of research. Like JB, I prefer to use the evidence right in front of me - my dogs. Having dew claws removed and tails docked (where appropriate) doesn't make my dogs suffer ime, so I'll continue to take each case on merit.
It does if the breed was traditionally docked in order for it to effectively fulfill it's function, which working gundogs were.

Someone said it is "not a problem" to remove dew claws from puppies at 3 days old !! It may not be a problem for the person doing it, but as sure as hell it's a problem for the poor puppies. Having bred a litter of GSP puppies many many moons ago, and saw the suffering inflicted on those wee mites when their tails were cut off with surgical scissors with no anaesthetic, and their dew claws removed, I will never ever agree that this is "not a problem". It is totally barbaric, and frankly anyone who could possibly agree to this barbarism without anaesthetic needs prosecuting in my opinion.

Maybe this is done under anaesthetic nowadays - I am going back nearly 3 decades - but I still will never consent to having bits unnecessarily chopped off my dogs unless there are very sound medical reasons.

Just saying a dog looks as agile as a dog without being mutilated is missing the point, you cannot say whether or not they are as agile as they would have been with their dew claws and tail
There shouldnt be a need for an argument that they do just fine without them
To justify chopping bit of a dog off it should be significantly to the dogs benifit to undergo the procedure

What are the stats on dogs injuring their dew claws and tails?? What exactly is the risk??
Of course there is going to be some risk - dogs damage eyes and ears, my mum caught her thumb in a car door when she was a child and it has never recovered - but we dont remove childrens thumbs incase. My sister got her ears caught in railings and had to be cut out by the fire brigade - should we remove childrens ears?
and if you dont know that then mibby you need to ask yourself why you are just following the rest of the croud and doing it because (as my grandad would say) 'its aey been done'

Oh now come on, I think you're becoming just a little over emotive now.

My Spaniel is docked (prior the ban) and she certainly copes well for a dog that has been "mutilated" as you put it.

At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, docking certain breeds and having dew claws removed is perfectly legal. You disagree with it, but it's not up to you to make the decision. It's up to those who work their animals and have to live and work with them. I will only ever do what I think is best for my dogs with reagrds to working them and if that means they're docked and dew clawed at 3 days old then that's what I'd do. I would take each case on it's own merit, depending on the breed and/or type of work it would undertake.

You shouldn't judge people when you know nothing of them and their working animals.

As far as dewclaws go, Flynn has none and the collies only have their front dewclaws. TBH, if I had a dog with rear dewclaws, I would have them removed regardless of the breed. I've seen dogs with them and they are far looser than front dewclaws and how they dont get them ripped off boggles my mind.

I dont really have any strong opinions about front dewclaws but for a working gundog, I would want them removed, just like their tails if thats what is traditionally done.

As far as stability goes, i've observed Flynn lose his footing many times when he's tried to make a sharp turn, his feet simply slide from under him. Jessie makes turns just as sharp and yet stays on her feet. I'm wondering now if that is anything to do with the fact Flynn has no dewclaws. Or maybe he's simply clumsy, i'll never know for sure.

Not missing any point at all?? your telling me that I "cant know" if a dog woudl be more agile if they had dew claws and were not docked, the same can be asked of you, how do you know one is more agile to another.

You will probable give an example, just as I do, so its assumption from your point of view, and experience of owning both from mine!!

Risk of injury to both tail and dew claws are there for all to see, it will be recorded by every person who has a dog that has sustained an injury to either??


Have to agree with Rips on the "mutilation" comment, a little Ott from you I think,

Comparing humans to dog in loss of ears/limbs and so on is also a bit of a non starter, they are not the same species and so not compatible.

If dogs are docked and dew claws removed at 3 days of age, they are going to know no different and so will be as agile and able as an undocked dog with dew claws. It's saying dogs without a hind leg are less able than dogs with all four legs. they get around, they adapt and learn how to do different things, like jumping, running etc.

There is studies to show that dew claw removal affects dog, I have seen no studies that show otherwise. I have read from experts that say that they have watched videos of dogs with and without dew claws running, and I think experts would take breed conformation into account.

Also dogs without dew claws, well its not natural for a body of anything to have a digit taken off, pups that have them taken off will have to have adapt and be different to other dogs, as they are having something that is used a lot taken away, its not there, they have no choice, but dogs are highly adaptable.

Also I'm afraid that unless someone has studied this extensivly, and proven that there is no effect its all opionions on their behalf. The human eye can not see all that is happening when dogs run, so we can not unless we have resources avaible what is happening at what point, but we can through research done by others learn what different affects happen because of something people choose to do to their dogs.