Hi, I wondered if anyone can help me. My bitch has given birth to a gorgeous litter of 4 puppies, it's been many years since I had a litter and apparently things have changed much since then. I took her and the babies down to the vets, thinking she would get a jag to expel any retained placentas as I couldn't be sure they'd all came out and the pups would have their dew claws removed. I was told that they don't give jags to expel afterbirths unless there is a problem, sign of infection etc. They also don't remove dew claws anymore except in adult dogs if they are causing problems. Is this now common practise? I hate dew claws, my two borzoi boys had theirs removed as puppies and they're only 4? I know I could do it myself but I'm a wimp at such things - any advice would be appreciated. Many thanks, Jane

Many vets are perfectly happy to take off dew claws before 4 days of age. I suggest you phone around.
:)

Unfortunately a lot of vets dont remove them nowadays.  I have found it is a bigger problem with younger vets.  I would ring around asap and find one to remove them as I am sure there is someone who will. :)

ditto thomas the spot....far too many of these awful doo gooder type vets about now :(  Luckily mine still comes out & does them without any trouble :)

Personally I would not remove "dew claws" which by the way are actually not dew claws but are fore claws, the equivilant of your thumb. One of my dogs had her fore claws removed before I got her and has nothing but trouble with her leg where it was, she is now 10 and a half and still has problems.
I have always kept working dogs, previously border collies and now working gundogs, I have retrievers and springers. I have never had a problem with any of my dogs injuring their fore claws. My daughters African dog has her fore claws and she uses them to do all kinds of things.
Is it so important to remove the fore claws? Why not leave them and see what the difference is to the dogs?

Two vets local to me also won't remove dew claws any more.

Thanks very much for all the replies. I would rather they were removed so will call around other local vets tomorrow. Thanks again, Jane :)

Is it front or rear dew claws?  In my last litter I got 2 with rear dew claws which even the Vet agreed would have caused a major problem if they'd been left on.  The only problem you'll have now is that they have to be removed within the first 48 hours of birth.  If it's front dew claws then I can't help I'm afraid as I leave them alone ~ I personally can't see why they should be removed?

I guess we all base our husbandry on our experiences. my experience with my working hounds is that the two I had with dewclaws left on have been utter nightmares for getting torn & caught whilst working, especially when jumping or scaling wire so now always have them done.

Likewise, Sam. Our old lab had terrible trouble with her dewclaws, several times ripping the nail from the quick. :( And she wasn't even a working dog!

My breed use their front ones.  Not starting up a debate but the pups scream when having their claws done but hardly make a sound when docked!  I've been there and heard it.  I would have their hind ones removed though if they ever had any but I've only ever had one dog with their back ones.

Yes the puppies do squel for a few minutes but once its done its done.  I have been there when one of my friends did it for me and they made no more fuss than when I cut Thomas' normal nails!!! I didnt have one of my litters done and they look awful.  I have also had a very bad experience when one of my dogs ripped their dew claws off and one of Thomas' children actually did hers on the vet bed at 3 weeks very nasty.

I think the general opinion amongst the  vets these days,especially the younger ones, is to leave things ie tails and dew claws the way nature intended ... personally I don't agree with dew claw removal or tail docking. My bitch had twelve pups by caesarian section and I did not say leave the dew claws on as I trust my vet to do the right thing, I thought if he removes them then fair enough, there must be a good reason. But they were left on ... he is a middle aged vet I might add. However, for the working dogs, it does sound as though the dew claws can present a risk of injury ... but it clearly hurts the pups when they are removed ... why can they not be given a local anaesthetic to make it a more human procedure ?

To be honest the pups squeal just as much when you lift them up to change the bedding - mine do at that age, anyway!

leave things ie tails and dew claws the way nature intended ... personally I don't agree with dew claw removal or tail docking

I guess on that basis you shouldnt have interfered with nature & had a C- section either!!! 

I dont know why they dont give a local but I am assuming it is because in the couple of seconds it takes to nip them off then it is less painful just to nip them off rather than mess around with injections. :)  None of my dogs are working dogs but in the long grass they can easily rip and I have also seen someones dog have on ripped off in the car on something.

with reference to the comment made by Sam that I should not have allowed the c-section due to that being an interference with nature .....

If puppies tails or dew claws are not removed by a vet and left as nature intended, the puppy would not come to any immediate harm as a result would it ?

HOWEVER had I ignored my vets decision to do the emergency caesarian section, the result would probably have been death of all twelve puppies and very possibly my much loved dog (the mother).

That was a very silly comment you made there !

I think Sam means that one either 'interferes with nature' or one doesn't. The consequences, whether immediate or not, differ in degree, but once the principle of 'interference' is established ...
:)

sorry but to compare dew claw removal/tail docking with an emergency c-section to save the life of the litter and her mother is plain ridiculous.
I am amazed anyone would even attempt to defend that sweeping statement.

It's quite simple logic - one can object to tail docking/dewclaw removal if one wishes (it's a free country, and neither compulsory nor banned), but if a person has had their dog vaccinated on, or had surgery on it (for whatever reason) then the argument that some other procedure shouldn't be done because it's 'interfering with nature' is meaningless. That person is free to object on the grounds that they prefer the 'natural' look, for instance!

Any medical treatment is 'interfering with nature'.
:)

>why can they not be given a local anaesthetic to make it a more human procedure ?

When the doctor or dentist has given me a local anaesthetic (for stitches or a filling) it stings like b***ery till it's taken effect, usually after about 5 minutes. Within that time both dewclaws can be off and the pup back with the litter.
:)

I think I'd rather have the pups squeal for a few seconds than risk even a local anaesthetic on them. I've found an experienced breeder who has been removing dew claws for many years that has kindly agreed to come out and do them tonight. It seems to me on balance to be the best option. I would have preferred that my vet do it but as they won't then this is the next best thing...and of course this lady probably has more experience than most vets :)

I also agree Sam, No to Docking and No to Dew Claw Removal, I've experienced first hand both and neither is pleasant!  It may only take seconds to snip the dew claws off but it takes hours to settle them afterwards.......and a vet done the litters.

Dew Claws and docking BOTH hurt!

I have to agree definately with docking. Ban It, and if it comes in where its illegal to dock altogether and removing dew claws is included then I'll go along with it, BUT where dew claws are concerned at the moment, I see far too many long coated breeds coming in for grooming with dew claws curled right back round and growing into the flesh, all because of owners ignorance and probable lack of observation. Therefore I would never have my puppies have to put up with that, so I have them removed. Even though you can tell owners that bring their dogs in for grooming, till your blue in the face, its amazing how many forget or are squeamish where nails are concerned :( And the next time you see the dog, the nails are just as bad again.
Just something to bear in mind :)
Anne

I hate to get into this debate again, but why does it have to come down to "I dont like it so ban it". Why not "I do like it so make it compulsory"? We never hear that, do we? What is so wrong with CHOICE?

I've had 2 litters that have had their dew claws removed, yes, they squealed but put back to mum, they shut up straightaway and didn't squeal for hours after as has been written.  I'd rather a few moments pain as a young pup with an undeveloped CNS than a huge torn claw as an adult and the pain that the dog has to endure when it happens until it can get medical treatment.

Has anyone heard of the theory that dogs without dew claws have a higher chance of developing arthritis?  I read something and I cant remember where and would like to find out more.

I'd like to find out about that too, because my lab who still had her dewclaws had bad arthritis in her paws (she died at 13), and the dal we had at the same time as her and whose dewclaws had been removed, lived to 15 with no arthritis at all.

Ditto JG as my sister's ESS was dewclaw-less and lived until he was almost 15 totally arthritis free.    Asti, my eldest Munster on the other hand, has her dewclaws, is 14 years old and has some arthritis!

My flatcoat who lived until she was nearly 17 years and was a working dog, developed arthritus at around 15 years in her back legs but was as sound as she could be on her front legs, she had her fore claws left on. My 10.5 years bitch mentioned above who had her fore claws removed, has really bad arthritus already!

Yes, there is an article that was written by a Veterinarian which documents the correlation between dewclaw removal and carpal arthritis. http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/documents/dewclaws-injury.pdf This was enough reason for me to stop removing the dewclaws from my pups... my breed has a high enough incidence of arthritis without a breeder adding to it by removing parts of the dog.

Luckily my dogs have never read that article, because the only one who's had arthritic feet was the one whose dewclaws had been left on! :) :)

Mind you, she was the one (naturally enough!) whose dewclaws kept being ripped off by normal pet-dog activity, so infection may have snuck in then and triggered an arthritic reaction.

>It may only take seconds to snip the dew claws off but it takes hours to settle them afterwards

Then the vet didn't know how to do it! When the vet's done mine the pups have been silent as soon as they're replaced in the nest, and when mum's come back in she hasn't noticed anything's happened, and the pups are suckling again straight away. All calm and peaceful within 5 minutes of completing the claws of a litter of 10 - not a murmur.

Well, the deed is done, puppies all have their dew claws removed and had settled down and were suckling 5 minutes later - no different than when you have to move them to give them clean bedding! I'm really glad I found someone to do it :)

Your experience is definitely the norm, chaumsong. Rest assured, your pups will have come to no harm.
:)

Far better than a operation to have them removed after they have torn.  :)

Quite, although it may be momentary sore at a very young age the bone is not connected.  As an adult it is and bone has to be cut through.  Although, obviously, this is done under GA post operative discomfort is going to be far greater and bone surgery is always risky.  Any infection is very problematic to treat as bone does not have the blood supply to carry antibiotics to the source and the difficulties of keeping a dogs lower limb clean and dry are transparent.

If they need doing later, there is also the risk of gen. anaesthetic, stitches and a large bill.

ive never bred a dog or had a bitch but why would you want to get there due claws removed ?

Mainly to save them from ripping them in later life. Have you ever bent your fingernail back so far that it bleeds? If so, how much did it hurt? It's the same for dogs, and not an uncommon occurrence.

Apart from that, they can cause nasty injuries to people - my husband had his eyelid ripped open by his pet lab's dew claw when she tripped stepping over him as he lay on the floor.

i am totaly lost now i have a bullmastiff he has his due claws should they have been removed or is it o.k that he has them ? i have never heard of this practice

I don't know enough about bullmastiffs, I'm afraid. There are very few breeds where the standard demands that they should be left on - in most breeds it's left to the preference of the breeder. Smooth-coated breeds are more likely to have them removed than others, simply because they're more noticeable.

please dont think im being funny i honestly have never heard of this,im really sorry about your husband but have all your litters got to pay the price because of an accident,if this is a common problem im sorry but this is the first ive heard of this

nuttyhousewife 20 years ago this used to be the norm to have dew claws done, I can also remember on a number of occassions when our Pomeranian's had theirs done a number of veterinary nurses asking whether we wanted their tails doing at the same, boy how times have changed.  Wouldn't mind but this wasn't even a breed that should be docked, and it wasn't only one surgery that asked this all those years ago.

We used to have our pups dew claws done years ago but it has been proven that the do actually use theirs in my breed so they are now kept on and I don't know of any that have had any problems.

>have all your litters got to pay the price

I try to protect all my dogs from avoidable pain to them. My husband's accident is neither here nor there - just an unfortunate side-effect (though I bet you wouldn't be thrilled if it was your son's eyelid ripped open, so that he could see through it when his eye was shut ...). But yes, dewclaws being torn off is quite common.

Nutty, if you read up from your post you will see why dew claws are removed. They used to be removed from every litter, and responsible breeders still do remove them - although there are a few breeds where dew claws are required. Dew claws are not needed by most breeds, they can catch and cause a great deal of pain if ripped out later in life. They don't wear down naturally and some owners don't notice them so they can actually grow right round and into the dogs leg - again causing pain. I have a friend who is a well respected bullmastiff breeder and removes her dogs dew claws. Don't worry now about your dog still having his, but do remember to keep clipping them.

Nuttyhousewife
This is a subject all breeders feel strongly about one way or another. I have been invloved with dogs since 1969 and in all that time have never had any fore claws as they are properly known, (see the Kennel Club Breed Standards Guide for judges), not one of mine has ever had a fore claw ripped or damaged.
My dogs work all through the shooting season and I do know that many shooting people do not remove the fore claws. I think everyone here has their reasons gained from their experiences. My experience has been that the only dog I have ever owned which had it's fore claws removed, has had nothing but problems with her front legs and now at 10.5 years has arthritus! So my advice is to leave well alone. However obviously other people here have had different experiences.
On your bull mastiff it would be very likely he/she has not had them removed but then again what do you do with your dog to cause concern that it might accidently rip it's fore claws?
Where I walk regularly there is a border collie called Bingo, who ripped out a toe nail, not a fore claw, and this dog constantly has problems as the new nails will break off as they grow, due to damage in the nail bed. So should we therefore remove all dogs toe nails just in case they have an accident? Of course not, which just goes to show that this argument is based on personal experiences not on what we consider right or or wrong. It's like using statistics to prove an argument, everyone can use them, and come out with different results, depending on what they believe to be right.
Take dog bites for example, I fell over out walking my dogs and put my hand out to stop my fall. As I did so I ripped my hand on barbed wire, (and no I haven't had my hand removed! lol), however it was a large and deep cut going right across the palm of my hand. I needed to go to the local hospital for treatment. I was asked how the accident had happened. I told them I was walking the dogs and fell and caught my hand on a barbed wire fence. Their reaction was to say, "OH right it was a dog bite then" I objected to this and said it was not, but they would not put it in my notes as anything else. So when the dog bite statistics which the media are so fond of using come out I often sit here wondering and just how many of the alleged incidents are in fact dog bites and how many are accidents which happened in the presence of a dog? See what I mean about statistics and experience?

I have yet to see any dog with it's dewclaws intact use them...............    This argument is given to me by Munster people but yet my dogs that have had them removed by my vet as babies, work no less efficently/less agile etc. than those that have there's kept in.    The dew claw used to be a fifth toe on the dog but evolution has moved it up the leg so I fail to see how it can be of any use to the dog?  

And anyone who has had a particularly amorous large breed male try to mount them will know how sore dew claws jabbing in them can be!  ;)

>And anyone who has had a particularly amorous large breed male try to mount them will know how sore dew claws jabbing in them can be!

They can cause nasty wounds to a bitch, too.

Mine use them like thumbs when holding a bone to chew etc.