I agree Chaz, unless you can give scientific and medical /veterinary studies to prove one way or the other , then its all speculation on our part.

Can you post all the links you have to support these studies ???

Hal had double dew claws on both his back legs and never once tore them, cut them or harmed them in any way. He was a very athletic dog, frequently jumping high fences, gates and not infrequently even barbed wire fences, much to my horror. He would leap through the crop bounding high above it like a gazelle to flush out rabbits, and particularly in the case of rape, one would think that were dew claws as tenuous as you think, he would have ripped them clean off. But no, he was born with them, lived with them quite happily for 10 years, and died with them still intact.

I take the simple view that if dogs were not meant to have dew claws, then they would not have them.

Neither would a baby know any different if doctors snipped off a little finger, but they sure as hell would scream blue bloody murder and anyone who did such an appalling thing should be impaled on a large sharp stake. Would you like me to do that to your 3 day old child?

I don't hold strong views either way in regard to the agility argument - although I do recall Hal using his double dew claws to bring down rabbits and also when jumping up my parents' ha-ha from the field into their garden. My strong views are based solely in the unnecessary cruelty and inflicting of unnecessary pain camp.

As many dont have hind dew claws!!

Thought Hals double dew claws were on his hind legs, ??

Do dogs bring down rabbits with their hind legs???

Also not sure why people have to compare human children to dogs, to suport their argument..

I don't agree with taking them off unneccessarily either. I would only agree with removal if it was loose or it was damaged, and only under anaesthetic. I don't agree with docking unless done under anaesthetic.

What I'm saying is that pups docked and dew clawed won't know any different. Doesn't mean its right to take them off though.

One question, are 3 day old pups given a local anaesthetic around the tail area to dock them and around the feet area to dew-claw?

I've just got to rush out, but one of the links that I put up before was from a person who is a DVM, PhD. I don't have the evidence of their work, but there are more studies online supporting this.

Also are you saying that if a baby lost one of its digits when it was young that it wouldn't have to adapt from what is natural, that it wouldn't have to make up for this missing digit?

Totally agree. But the point here is that Hal DID ... and never tore them, damaged them, harmed them in any way, despite the fact he was an extremely athletic dog in terms of jumping obstacles.

Yes they do !! Hal used to use his dew claws on the back legs to get a grip on the back end of the rabbit. He would somehow concertina his body into a tight shape such that his back dew claws would be used on the back of the rabbit. He also used them to climb seemingly impossible heights, such as my parents Ha Ha. They were to him an invaluable part of his toolbox, and I would never ever have even considered their removal.

Well they certainly weren't when my GSP pups were docked and de-declawed. You could have heard the screams miles away. It is a nightmarish sound that I shall never forget, and I vowed then that I would never ever have any bits chopped unnecessarily off my dogs. It is totally cruel and barbaric. However, maybe now they do use anaesthetic, which certainly makes it more acceptable - but I personally still would not do it, simply because I do not see any reason to do so.