Admin: branched from the Docking - Your Views Thread.

  I was surprised to note that some breeders have had pups screaming when the dew claws have been removed.  Early this year, I wanted a vet to remove dew claws, and knew that he would refuse if over 3 days old.  The vet that I  wanted to carry out the procedure, was actually not on duty, but the surgery contacted him, and he arranged to meet me at the veterinary hospital (in his own time), to carry out the procedure.  The pups were actually 36 hours old when this was done.  He asked me if I was ok to assist, or if I wanted a nurse to hold them, but I didn't have a problem with it.  The biggest problem was the size of the breed, and the difficulty of holding the tiny paw just right!  I'm talking about pups weighing 4ozs.  I didn't hear even one tiny squeak!  Is this unusual then?

from my experience they definitely scream at dew claw removal and just let out a slight cry at docking!  But this is my experience.  I actually stopped my vet doing the dew claw removal years ago but still had the pups docked!  If my experience had been the same with docking think I may have stopped that too but it was nowhere near as bad.

When I bred ESS which were both docked and dew clawed, they always made more of a fuss when the dew claws were being removed and nothing when the docking was done..

The vet I used then went to banding the pups tails and they didnt make any fuss at all and I never had any problems with their tails, but they still cried when the dew claws were done...

Why do the dew claws have to be removed anyway?

I know all about docking and Im not a supporter - Ducks as something is thrown her way! :p - but thats just me and im not gonna force it on anyone, think its cause I've never had a docked breed!

Is it for the same reason that the dew claws are removed IE hunting etc?
Just curious!

As a dog groomer I've seen some horrific injuries with dew claws that have been torn/ripped off. Unfortunately a lot of owners think that because I cut nails I can deal with these too (when the dogs got blood running down its leg :rolleyes:) and seem surprised when I have to send them to the vet. Also with coated breeds, less vigilant owners can easily forget they are there, and the nail ends up growing and growing.. I had one client where the nail had grown so much into a full circle and ended up quite a few milimetres actually into the poor dogs leg. :( Although this is mainly due to the owners fault for not noticing I suppose.
One of my boys has his and the other doesn't. Because of what I've witnessed I'm glad Geordi doesn't have them.

Speaking of dew claws, Marley my rescue dog has an extra nail that actually sticks out of the back of his leg on his hock! Silly little thing it is, I wish that wasn't there!!

General observation :)

I think a good few of you may be very surprised to see the degree of 'movement' in dew claws of set breeds. The next time you are in a situation where there are alot of breeds around, try and take a close look at any dogs that do have dew claws. Don't forget to ask first though :)   Different breeds have different dew claws in as much as some are held rigidly against the dogs leg and others flap about on very loose skin. This is the difference and why some dogs do have them removed and some don't. I have breeds which have both types, including one breed whom has rear dew claws. The rear dew claws are very flexible and you can bend them right over with no pain or distress to the dog at all. There is little fear of the dews being ripped off as the dew claws can move so freely. On another breed, the movement will be limited to a few millimetres and you certainly could not bend them back on itself without causing serious pain and injury to the dog. This is the primary reason why dews are removed. I have known dogs to have them removed as adults and the healing process is very very slow with great distress to the dogs. Not to mention the mess! 

Don't forget, next time you get the chance - take a look and see. All will become apparent

Treating damaged dewclaws is certainly a very painful and long-drawn out procedure.

I have to say personally I can not stand to be around when they do the dew claws on my pups. I let OH help out he is tougher than me, but I only have the big doubles done on the hind legs and not the fronts, I find they are less likely to be a problem when older. They are removed TRADITIONALLY in my breed all round but I still refuse to do front ones and have not had an problem in the show rings.
I feel all kinds of different reasons for dew claw removal..yes they can snag and cause pain and possibly need removal at a later date, and yes they may look unsightly but if all these things are done for  a reason then why is it not consistant? Leo's have huge dew claws but they are not normally removed as do Pyrineans (Sp) but BMD's have theirs removed Some gun dogs breeds are docked but not others, I feel that many reasons are paraded around but in the end it all comes down to tradition within a breed and we should just tell the truth (Head down watching out for flying objects) I have my rear claws done as it's the accepted thing and they can be a problem, but do draw the line at front ones, never had a snag with them yet touch wood. But I do accept that the main reason I have for doing them is because everyone else does and thats the way they breed is seen...without them.
Aileen

I believe (also watches for flying objects!) that only if they are working dogs it need to be done, same with docking! :)

If they are simply show dogs it doesnt need to be done, and a breder knows when they have a litter if theyre breeding for working dogs or not, so if theyre not I think the dogs should be allowed the tails and claws god gave them!

Even pet dogs living an ordinary pet life can suffer very painful injuries when they rip the dewclaw.

Thats pretty rare tho isnt it, or rather Ive never heard of it!
Another example is It's like saying dogs could get theyre ears caught in thorns while chasing a ball, why dont we crop theyre ears Just incase?

See what I mean? I dont see the benefot of the dew claws being removed.
With tails and working dogs OK, but why dew claws if it is so painful?

>Thats pretty rare tho isnt it, or rather Ive never heard of it!

I work in a vet's surgery and can assure you that dewclaw injuries aren't rare at all!

I think it depends on the breed - or even the lines within one breed!  Some dew claws are tight to the leg but others, even in the same breed, can be more loose and floppy.  I think it's these that cause the majority of problems.  I have all my dogs with dew claws on and have never had a problem with any of them.  The Border Collies go mental chasing their toys on any sort of ground and the hounds, well they go everywhere and anywhere at top speed and turn on a sixpence :d  The Pharaohs, and the Cresteds when I had them, all use their dew claws when chewing bones or 'killing' toys, etc.  I would, however remove all rear dew claws as these are more than likely to cause problems whatever the breed, unless they have a mass of thick hair on the legs.

Debs

I'm kind of in the middle on this one.  I'm anti-docking in non-working dogs, and can't wait till the day I can finally rehome a whippy-tailed dobe :p

But with dew claws, I think it depends not only on whether the dog will work or not, but on the breed.  Of mine, I have two with and two without dew claws - the two without are my dobes, the two with are my rott mix and labracollie.  Neither of them have any problems at all with their dews, and the claws are small, neat and close-set.  They use them to keep chews and things stable.

But having been a groomer, I've seen the flipside - I've seen pyrenean mountain dogs with huge, very freely movable front and rear dews that could easily catch on something; and I've seen cavvies with horrendously long dews that have been hidden by long fur.

In addition, my first dog had to have hers removed - she ripped them several times digging in soft earth.  She was a springer X irish water spaniel, and hers were fairly large and motile.

Sadly not rare at all

for example, i've just had a friend phone to say that overnight with the panic of the fireworks one of her girls has ripped her due claw off when trying to get out of the kitchen where she usually sleeps.

Dog is extremely traumatised by this (and the fireworks) and is currently in the vets having it stitched up.

Not that rare at all!!  I've had 2 of mine (dif. breeds) damage dew claws and have seen the pain they go through.  Much better to remove them as young pups.

rach some of us breed litters that are dual purpoose, and i have always had dew claws removed as they can get terribly damaged hunting. However my import dog has full  dew claws, and, due to a mis understanding, my current litter gave all retained theirs. Several of these will be worked so it will be intereting to see if i get any problems.

I'm still dithering - I'm hoping for a litter of Cavaliers (hope the breed is ok to mention, it's relevant because the experts can hopefully tell me whether this breed is prone to dew claw injuries) and am trying to decide whether to have them removed. My vets doesn't do this, so I will either have to register at another vet just for that, or keep them. Of my 2 adults, one has his dewclaws and has never had any trouble, and my girl has had them removed. I have seen a Lab with a torn dewclaw though that was very messy and painful. I am also a groomer and I do see dogs with overgrown dewclaws and have encountered owners that were surprised at the news that they need to be trimmed. :rolleyes: But I'm tending towards keeping them on, and just putting in my puppy notes to the new owners to point out that they do have them and yes they need trimming, and more often than the other claws!

My breed uses theirs to grip things, turn round etc.  I've only known of 2 to have injured them.  Up to now mine never have :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:  Am I tempting fate!

they don't have to be removed and are not in my breed, but are traditionally removed from the front in many breeds.  

Most breeds except those required to have them will have rear ones removed if they ahppen to be born with them, as these often seem to cause problems with getting caught up and ripped.  I don't know any breed with big loose front dews that would need taking off.  Of course any toe can be injured in the way of things.

I accept that breeds do vary, and the litter that I had dew claws removed from, was on the advice of my mentor, who both shows and judges the breed.  Just because I've had dogs for many years, didn't mean that I wasn't grateful for help and advice when taking on a new breed.  But I have other dogs, and there is a huge difference in how loose the dew claws seem to be attached.  I have a 7 year old Beardied Collie who has had so many problems, that even my vet feels sorry for her!  She is always tearing them!  It is quite messy, and very painful.  Yet my 2 year old Border Collie boy amazes me with his dexterity.  His are much smaller and closer, and he actually uses them as I would use my thumbs.  My Beardie girl can't use hers in the same way at all.  My question was just because it was the first time I had ever been present when having them removed, and there wasn't a single sound from the pups during the procedure.  I just wondered if it was because they were done so young.  I wasn't asking whether it was right or wrong, because everyone will have a different viewpoint - to which they are entitled.

>I just wondered if it was because they were done so young.

It's best done between 3 and 5 days; legally it can't be done after the pups' eyes are open without a GA.

Our old labrador ripped the nail of her dewclaws from their nailbed several times - they were the only times she cried from pain, despite having been attacked and bitten, requiring stitches, and when she ripped herself on barbed wire. The vet was going to take them off if ever she needed a GA for anything else, but he didn't want to operate specially for them because it's such a difficult and painful recovery.

Thanks Jeangenie.  They were only 36 hours old, so maybe that does have a bearing.  But he does seem to be very reluctant to remove them in an adult dog.  I got the impression that he sees it as a very painful procedure with recovery taking so long, which ties in with what you're saying.  Funnily enough, he won't even consider doing it at 4-5 days.  He is adamant that it has to be before 3 days, or they stay!

On a slight tangent; what is the actual procedure for dew clas removal in pups?  I'm curious, are there different ways to do it (not that I can imagine there would be that many!) that result in different scarring?  Just looking at my dobes, Remy's scar is relatively small and unnoticable, but Soli's is about an inch long and obvious.  By the same token, her tail end is much neater, only a titchy bald spot, whereas Remy's was very badly done and has a hard, bald end.

Is it the same with dews?  Different methods (of different levels of experience) lead to different aesthetic results as the dog grows?

I'm having a curious day :)

This shows the dewclaw removal in a dalmatian puppy. My vets have never felt that ABs were needed, and we've never had any problems with infection.

My present whippet cross has ripped his dewclaws 5 times and next time I am definately having them removed (last time he had to go for an op because it was half on half ripped off,  didn't think of having them removed then!)
My litter of pups (large working) had theirs removed and it wasn't pleasant but having seen the injuries or my various dogs over the years (all sorts of breeds) I would opt for removal at birth everytime!

It really amuses me that so many believe that docking/dew claw removal should be done for "certain working breeds". Either it is cruel when it is done or not - no half measures. I cant see how it can be okay for some but not for others. This is double standards at its worst.

Either it is cruel when it is done or not - no half measures. I cant see how it can be okay for some but not for others. This is double standards at its worst

As I read the situation I think that those with working breeds who remove dew claws do so because they feel it is more cruel to leave them on and thus cause far more pain and trauma to a dog who is working in conditions where it is more than likely going to rip it's dew claws.

Our dog split one his rear claws lengthwise when rushing around in the woods. It became infected and he had to have ABs - the vet was very concerned that the infection would spread to his bone and result in the amputation of two toes. It wasn't a dew claw and he still has these on his front legs but I could see from this incident how easy it would be to damage a dew claw. He is a gundog and spends most of his walks ploughing through the undergrowth - a bank of brambles is a walk in the park to him :)

Many dogs - not just gundogs or terriers who work - plough through the undergrowth, which is my point, and it applies equally to docking and dew claws. Dogs who work are no more likely to get these injuries than dogs who dont but who are allowed to follow their breed instincts. 

Which is why docking and dew claw removal should be allowed to be continued to avoid problems for pet and working dogs of breeds where these appear to be an issue.

I would never remove the front dewclaws in my breed, but they are very neat and tight against the leg and could only cause a problem if neglected (nails not cut, though they will chew them themselves).  We never get them on the hindlegs, but a similar breed the Buhund are born with bunches of rear ones that flap about and would cause problems if left on.

But I bet dew claw removal too will be outlawed in the future.

Well at the moment you don't even have to have it done by a vet.

Which goes to show how stupid the laws are.

That's because they're written by people with no knowledge and usually little interest in the subject.