dew claw removal

Hi guys...

I'm not sure why I'm writing this now as this won't be an issue for at least a couple of years! Anyhoo...

Takara had her dew claws removed as a pup - most of the ads I saw for litters said 'dew claws removed' so I just figured that it was the norm and it's never bothered her - she's actually more dextrous than Eddy, who still has his and I do wonder if she'd have had trouble with them if she kept them because of the scrapes she gets into...

Eddy, my rescue, is an old boy and still has his. He doesn't use them (apart from he does tend to clean more like a cat than T does which I assume is because his dew claws are handy for scratching his face whilst Takara rubs her face on me or the floor when she has an itch)
Even as an old, arthritic dog, he's got his nails caught before (not ripped) and screamed I daren't think what he'd do if he actually ripped one!

I was talking to the vet who I work with and she was truly shocked that Takara had had her dew claws removed - she said it was only allowed for medical reasons.

Now I'm worried, obviously it's too late to do anything about it with T - she's fab as she is, and they're done so that's that.

I'm concerned as to what to do about my next pup which wont be for a few years but how painful is dew claw removal, is it actually allowed (not sure who did T's if it's not!) and is it worth it on a breed like a dalmatian that tend to get into silly scrapes?

In our breed i think its prefered for cleaner lines (thats it!) i have 3 that have, one that doesnt and i personally havent ever had a problem living wise or show wise..
I personally dont see the point i have heard of more peoples dogs ripping a toenail than i have a dew claw...

Lots of breeds do it, but it's a breeder preference as to whether they do or not. In very short coated breeds, it makes for cleaner lines, but then you can see a pink scar where they used to be, which for me I wouldn't like. We don't have them removed and dew claws make it easier for dogs to grip things, like bones etc, so they aren't useless

Makes me laugh this one.

I see the benefits of getting these claws removed and I see the benefits as i'm sure a lot of us do............


Hang on that thought.



What about tails then ..........


PLEASE - I'm not starting a docking thread as we've all done it before but the 'practical' reasons to remove claws (which seem accepted) are just the same as docking (which are debated)

Good point Phil

I agree, why remove any appendage ?

so it's a case of what's ok and what isn't then ?

I've had dogs with horrible dew claw problems that have resulted in them being removed.

I've had dogs with 'no' dew claws (fantastic)

I've had dogs with docked tails that have been fine and un-docked dogs tails with problems.

Must stress - don't wan't to discuss docking but dew claws are the same.

The brilliant thing about claws is a lot of people with breeds (not worky/ shooty) do the same thing and use the 'potential damage' reason to justify it but are against docking.

I'm not for or against. I think ethical breeders that previously docked had good reason too, although It's not something I think is right, but had it's reasons.

The same as Dew CLaw removal I think. But I know of far less problems with dew claws when they are left in tact. They are needed anyhow, and I don't like the unsightly scar it leaves.

JMO

I think there's (From my experience) more problems with claws than tails...........

I don't agree with the removal of either tails nor claws and have never done either. I've also never had problems with dew claws or tails but have had middle claws ripped off and damaged.
I think the risks for injury are minimal in the big scheme of things and I just wouldn't inflict that on a tiny puppy.
Becky

I snip the sharp ends off the dew claws and file them smooth- it dramatically reduces my JR catching them on things. Ive never had a problem since I started doing this.