Hello,
This is the first time posting on here sorry if it's in the wrong section,
I recently had a litter of puppies, and they have now gone to new homes, they were 11 weeks on Saturday,
I have been emailed by one of the new owners to say that he wants me to pay to have the puppies dew claws removed, normally I remove the dew claws when they are a couple of days but I couldn't with this litter due to having two puppies born with no anus, we had booked in to see the vet to have them removed but had to cancel and go to our vet as an emergency to have the two put to sleep, so missed the appointment with the other vet, and he was out of the country so couldn't re arrange, it was stated in my advert that the dew claws weren't removed on this litter, he is saying that I didn't disclose this with him, he also says that it states in my contract that I would cover costs which in my opinion doesn't, I was just looking for some advice on where I stand

If the advert clearly stated that the dewclaws hadn't been removed then the puppy was bought in the knowledge. If the new owner wants them removed that his choice and will be at his expense.

>he also says that it states in my contract that I would cover costs

What costs would you normally cover after sale?

It doesn't state that I would cover any cost, just that if their vet found something wrong with the puppy that renders a puppy unfit for sale then I would take back for full refund.

Surely he noticed the dew claws when he came to view the puppy and again when he collected the puppy?

I don't see how he can now ask that you to pay for their removal.

Just reply and say there are no health reasons to warrant  removing the claws and so you are not going to pay to have them removed.

Clearly dewclaws are neither a health issue nor make a puppy unfit for sale. If he wants them removed he should pay for it. If he doesn't want a puppy with dewclaws he should return it (offer a full refund if he returns it, and all the paperwork, immediately).

Thanks for the replies, That's what I thought, he has also had her for a little over 3 weeks now and only just emailed to say.

Just reply and say there are no health reasons to warrant  removing the claws and so you are not going to pay to have them removed.

I'd agree with this and take it further as unless this is done within days of birth, it's going to involve a general anaesthetic which I'd NOT put any dog through, just for dewclaws that weren't injured!!   Ridiculous - shakes head.  Obviously these people should have noticed the dewclaws at the point of purchase, if it's so important they had been removed in the breed?   So two points - 1. These dewclaws don't need to come off now and 2. If this is something these owners prefer to have done, it should be at THEIR cost, again suggesting putting a puppy through surgery and a g/a for this kind of operation, isn't desirable.

>It doesn't state that I would cover any cost, just that if their vet found something wrong with the puppy that renders a puppy unfit for sale then I would take back for full refund.

Having dewclaws does not make a pup unfit for sale.

Are these rear claws, if not then absolutely no problem and the front ones can happily stay on as they do on most dogs (there is evidence to suggest that they should stay on especially with Agility dogs etc).

Rear ones can be a nuisance and MAY cause trouble.  They do not have to be removed and in some breeds are even required, so no the owner can do at own expense, or leave them in place, perhaps have them off if dog ever goes under GA.

> just that if their vet found something wrong with the puppy that renders a puppy unfit for sale then I would take back for full refund.

Pups have dew claws! It's not anything wrong and any vet which says they have " found something wrong" with this would face disciplinary measures.

I can't believe a buyer would feel they have the right to insist this is done for their selfish sake.
I'm sorry but I'd be right round with cash in my hand and have this puppy back. This buyer may have given you signals before this, think back...all a learning curve.

It's just the front ones

>It's just the front ones

Then they really ought to stay on, dogs use and need them.

Even in breeds where people often removed them, no longer do, gone out along with whisker removal on breeds whose faces are not clipped..

Tell him you don't believe in mutilating puppies unnecessarily.

Most vets these days would refuse to do front ones (some even refuse rear ones unless they are actually injured) as there is no therapeutic reason.

I agree with the others, front dewclaws don't need to be removed as a rule and most vets won't do it anyway.

Sounds like a "friend" may have been airing their knowledge. I bought a Beardie/Border x pup who had front and rear dew claws, I never thought about having them removed even when I was told by a "friend" they would cause terrible problems and must be removed.

I smiled nodded and thought "Aye right" Never caused any problems

Show them this article which details how dogs with front dewclaws removed are more prone to injury!
http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/documents/dewclaws-injury.pdf

I never have front ones removed. Both my breeds get giant rear ones (like an extra toe, same thickness) and the vet always asks me if I want the front ones removed at the same time, my answer is always no. In decades of owning dogs I have only ever had 3 dogs have temporary problems with dewclaws -two injuries and one nailbed infection, all of which healed. That is out of around 50 dogs I have owned in my lifetime -not counting pups I sold.

It never occurred to me to take of my dog's front dew claws,  and in this breed many show breeders do.

In 14 years of owning and breeding them,  it's never been a problem.

I never had any of my other dogs' dew claws removed either and never had a problem with them.

I have to admit to never seeing any back dew claws on my dogs,  but have seen them on other breeds and they are actually required,  so I doubt they'd be a huge problem unless they were very loose.

I agree with Brainless.  Nowadays a lot of vets wont even do it.  It was one of the things many of them stopped along with docking! At this age I would be surprised if the vet would do it anyway (or a reputable one) as it would be a cosmetic operation.  My breed used to always have them removed but more and more don't bother both here in the UK and in Europe and the dog will not be knocked for having them in the ring. 

Personally I always have the front ones off at 3 days - I've seen plenty of dewclaw injuries in my time - but I bought a puppy that still had them I wouldn't necessarily have them removed. I'd wait and see how things progressed, and if they were causing problems have them taken off when the dog needed a GA for something else.

Uhm.... I don't know enough to get into the dewclaw or not to dewclaw part of this thread but.. I'm a big believer that you do your research, you find your breeder, you visit/see the puppy, choose, collect your pup looking it over well and that once you leave with that pup in your arms, paid and agreed, then from that minute onwards that dog is 100% your responsibility financial and otherwise, whether it turns out to be unwell or not - although I accept that not all dog owners think like that and obviously in terms of breeders/show-kennels its a whole different board game and dogs can move about in their lifetime amongst other breeders/kennels but still there is always someone responsible at all times on behalf of the owner.........but these are simple pet owners,yes, not a deal to lend or swap with another kennel? 

Because if the dog was bought to be a pet then I would have serious concerns about those new owners and perhaps consideration of retrieving the puppy might possibly be necessary (depending on what you know of the owners).  Afterall, if they complain after-the-fact about dewclaws in order to try and get money from you, despite being told up-front that they hadn't been removed and despite already having the pup in their possession/care for some days - then it sounds like gaining money is their issue more than the puppy or the dewclaws - and if they are the sort of people who try to claw back money they are not entitled to in this way- then are they the sort of person who will always put the needs of the dog first above the monetary cost throughout its lifetime? Spend money on operations that are preventative and therefore not covered by insurance? Spend money on alternative therapies where necessary like swimming? Spend the money on high quality food, flea and worm treatments, boosters, grooming regularly?

Legally I believe that if your advert said specifically that the puppies had dew claws, the owner physically took possession of the puppy themselves on the day and had an opportunity to look the pup over before leaving with it (and of course in this case all the time since without a mention of it), and you made no additional contract with the owner that stated you would pay for the removal of the dew claws specifically or any agreement that you would pay for any vet treatment/intervention for any issue that was not a genuine medical fault or disease at the time the pup left your ownership - then the new owner doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as I can see. Dewclaws are afterall not a fault - they are supposed to be born with them. 

>I'd agree with this and take it further as unless this is done within days of birth, it's going to involve a general anaesthetic which I'd NOT put any dog through, just for dewclaws that weren't injured

Too right!  Shaking my head too!  My vet would not even contemplate removing them in a dog that is over 3 days old.   He believes that it won't be too long until a vet can be prosecuted for removing them (just like tail docking now.)

Before anyone shouts me down, I'm not talking about working dogs.  I'm talking about pet dogs.

My boy had his front ones removed by the breeder, that's almost 8yrs ago now, not sure why tbh as never had a dog which has had issues with front dew claws.

I can understand rear ones or if they are double rear ones, as said above I wouldn't be paying a penny to have front ones removed now they've had the pup for some many weeks. Clearly a vet check which they should have had didn't pick this up either ;-)

>not sure why tbh

Generally cosmetic reasons, as some breeds traditionally had them off for a cleaner look, especially in smooth coated breeds.

they were often breeds that were4 docked so they simply snipped everything off at the same time.

Since the docking ban many people have reassessed their reasoning for removing FRONT dewclaws, as really there is almost no justification.

Now rear ones where they are not part of the bred standard are a different matter.  Some breeds like mine never have them anyway, some breeds get them and they tend to cause trouble, so are best taken off.

>He believes that it won't be too long until a vet can be prosecuted for removing them (just like tail docking now.)

It'll be some time, because at the moment anyone over the age of 18 can rmove dewclaws. No vet will be prosecuted for doing so.

Injuries to the rare hind dewclaws appear much less painful, are easier to repair and are quicker to heal than the more common injuries to front ones.

The first time I got rear dewclaws (have had them in pretty much every litter of BOTH breeds, and I get full sized extra toes, not smaller ones -will have some removed on Saturday in fact of latest pups) I asked my mentor about them. She said she'd once left them on and that dog ended up getting his hindlegs stuck together every now and then as the dewclaws got caught in each other, and since then she always removed them.

Not responding anyone specifically

I think this can be very much breed dependant. Virtually all remove front declaws(they dont grow rear ones) on my breed.
My mother does ours, she trained whilst in kennels some 54 years ago, to remove dewclaws & dock tails. She stopped docking tails when the talk on a ban started. Whilst there is no ban on taking off dewclaws, we will continue to do so, at the appropiate age of 3 days!!

I wondered about having the dew claws removed after the breeder whose stud dog I used told me I could take the pups back to her at 2 days old to have them removed - before that I had never even thought about it. Looking on the KC website for advice, they say that there is no real reason to remove them for cosmetics, and since my vet said they do not remove them and I would need to ask another vet, I figured there was no 'necessity' to do it, so I wouldn't.