Hiya not sure if it is spelt correctly but what do people think about having dew claws removed?? is it better for the dog or just cosmetic? does it varie with the breed?? just a thought ... wondered what you all think :)

I think dew claws were provided for a purpose, no need IMHO to remove them. Have had dogs with and without, never been a problem.  If you watch a dog with dew claws they often use them for holding things like bones etc.  So as far as I am concerned it is just cosmetic. 

Mine have never damaged them in the thickest cover so I see no point in removing them "just in case"

I'm with tohme on this one - if they aren't causing a problem, leave em on.  I have one dog with and one dog without dewclaws, and not only do they not cause any trouble to the one with them, I also prefer the look :)

If they get torn a lot I'd still recommend having them removed though  I used to have a springer X irish water spaniel who had to have hers removed as she used to rip them horrendously digging in the garden - but the girl I have now digs a lot with no trouble.

Some people won't remove them regardless, however - I know a boxer X rhodesian who is constantly tearing his dewclaws, even just when chasing a ball in a flat field - but the owners refuse to have them removed because the vet said it's like amputation at his age (7, and it is), despite the fact he's always doing it and it hurts him.

I agree with the vet, it is an amputation later in life because the bones become fused.  Of course it now involves an aneasthetic but the greater risk I feel is the surgery to bone as this is always problematic in terms of avoiding infection in something as dirt attracting as a dog foot and dealing with it when it occurs as bone does not have the necessary blood supply to properly deliver antibiotics to site.  For this reason I think it best to remove them as pups and avoid all that risk.  If a breed has been traditionally dealt with in this way it is generally for a reason relating to its lifestyle or habits.

Having had a bitch who repeatedly ripped hers causing her a lot of pain (screams from a dog who didn't bat an eyelid about cuts from barbed wire), and my husband being injured (he needed several stitches in his eyelid because he could see through the hole even with his eye shut) by another dog's dew claws when they were playing, I'd take them off every time. :)

Let me get this right, you take dewclaws off because your husband once got injured by a dog with them? Well thats one I havent heard before lol What was your husband doing to get such an injjury? Most breeders of working dogs take them off so that they wont get ripped off or injured in later life when the dog is working, and thats the only valid reason to remove them as far as Im concerned.

No, I take dewclaws off because my dog injured hers several times, and it was extremely painful for her. She wasn't a working dog either. The vet said that he'd take them off if she needed a GA for anything else, but as it's serious surgery when they're adults it's not to be undertaken lightly.

The pet labrador whose dewclaw nearly blinded my husband's eye was jumping around as he lay on the floor as a teenager playing with the family pet. As a family we tend to have our dogs in the house with us and interact with them rather than shutting them away. :) It's just an example of how they can (because they tend to be sharper than the weight-bearing claws) injure humans as well as the dog itself.

What a terrible accident sounds awful.

Tara,had front & back ones. she was always catching her back ones & because they were quite secure ones hurting herself. at the time the vet said i may aswell get them ALL off,not just the back ones,so i did, i HONESTLY think ive disabled her front legs now, she can still hold onto things but it must be harder,wish id kept her front ones on :(

Nellie has nice ones on her front ,but had alfull loose HUGE ones on her back legs which were bearly attached,so if she caught them they just flipped up & she never hurt herself,so although her back ones were unslightly i kept them on until she was spayed at 3 years. left the front ones on (dont want two disabled dogs)

Flynn just has lovely neat front ones,born with none on back. :D

Agree with Jeangenie and the others they really are an accident waiting to happen.  My springer cross has recently had both front and back claws taken off (he had already caught a front claw just playing in the garden with the other dog the screaming was unbelievable and not something I ever want to hear again !) and our boxer pup had his removed when he was born - although one front one has grown back but he will be having this removed after christmas.

I prefer to remove them and do.

I had 2 that have caught theirs. I never bred these.

Through time just like humans dogs are evolving and quite a few dogs are now born without them. Like humans some never get their wisdom teeth.

I've had two dogs that ripped dew claws right up their legs and had to have GAs. I always have them off puppies at 2-3 days

Are we talking front or rear dews here? 

Have never had one of my breed born iwth rear dewclaws, though buhunds nearly all have them. 

Have only ever once had a pup born without front dewclaws.

We don't remove front dew claws in the UK or in Scandinavia, and breeders don't in the USA, though have heard of the odd pet owner having them removed.

Front ones. Luckily I've never had a dog born with rear dew claws, although I always check.

I was really more interested in teh comment by Blue that more dogs are now born without dewclaws, and wondered iuf she menat front ones, as I had only ever had this oen pup born iwthout and was rather worried at the time, vet just thought it an advantage :D

Sorry never replied Brainless :-) 

IS this the bit ;-)

>just like humans dogs are evolving and quite a few dogs are now born without them.< 

Yes it is true some dogs are now born without the front ones it won't be great numbers yet but I have had 1 in a litter. 

As time evolves the things that the body doesn't need stops growing in all creatures .. I read an interesting article about wisdom teeth and in a few generations humans will not grow at all. :-)

If you think of all the people who are middle aged before their wisdom teeth arrive.

I'm one of those people, over 40 and never had, or will have wisdom teeth. GREAT! A dental specialist years ago told me I was further up the evolutionary scale!

I have them on the left side of my mouth, top and bottom, but not on the right. And they're not on x-rays either ... don't know what that says about my evolutionary status - probably that I can't decide whether I'm coming or going! :D :D

:-D :-D

Yes that was it.  You are the only other person I have spoken to that ever had a pup born without front dewclaws.

A puppy we recently bought in has one on the left and the right one isn't there either :-)

I think there are quite a few I think perhaps it isn't discussed or doesn't crop up in conversation. Some breeds probably will continue to get them over others depending I guess on their use.

My boy has front dewclaws and they're a terrible nuisance to keep clipped as they seem to grow at a slightly odd angle. My girl hasn't got them and it's much easier!

I always have them removed, with the American Cockers, especially in full coat, they are an accident waiting to happen, it just takes a knot in the coat of the opposite leg to catch the claw when running!  With the pugs I have never personally seen a dew claw accident, but 2 less claws to clip on a hysterical pug has to be a bonus (multiplied by number of clips each year ;) )
bye
Gwen

I'm glad my dog hasn't got them.  Somehow this afternoon she has torn one of her toenails (don't know if that is right name for it) but anyway she is lying on the floor and everytime I approach her she lifts her foot for me to take a look.  It looks really sore and I imagine it would like ripping a finger nail at the bed.

though buhunds nearly all have them.
Not just rear dewclaws but DOUBLE rear dewclaws - just occasionally get a puppy with "only" 5 dewclaws