~Midniara~ Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 (edited) Argh, another ridiculous law! :D If they introduce this in Tasmania I will stop breeding. We only remove rear dew claws as we've had very little trouble with the front ones. Mine actually use front dew claws for holding onto things like bones/toys etc. Some Belgians are born without rear due claws anyway which is handy. Rear dew claws are always clipped off at about day 3 but I like Steve's idea of doing them at birth. I just need to learn to do them as up until now we've always had a experienced gun dog man come over and do them. Vets charge way too much and don't do as good a job unfortunately. There is no way I'm taking a 3 day litter of pups over to the vets unless I absolutely have to. :D They are removed to avoid injury. Edited November 27, 2010 by ~Midniara~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allerzeit Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I can't remember the last time we had a pup born with rear dew claws - front dew claws, absolutely, but not rear. Rear dewclaws are a fault in rottweilers, so something we deliberately aim to avoid producing. We haven't removed front dew claws for a few years now, and we have 4 out of 5 dogs here with front dew claws, none of which cause problems - but all of their dew claws are attached by bone. If we had a pup with rear or front dew claws which were only attached by skin, then I would absolutely want them removed because of the risk for them tearing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Midniara~ Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I can't remember the last time we had a pup born with rear dew claws - front dew claws, absolutely, but not rear. Rear dewclaws are a fault in rottweilers, so something we deliberately aim to avoid producing. Yep forgot to mention it's a fault in the Belgians too (rear dews) but I'd remove them even if it wasn't. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodoggies2001 Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Only reason I get the vet to do them on mine is that I have seen so many in the fluffy breeds where the owner just forgot or didn't realise they were there & they grew into the skin. Very painful.Under the impression that the reason for doing dew claws & docking tails between day 3 & 5 was that the pups nervous system is not developed so they don't feel it ? If they are not removed properly, the whole joint, they will grow back. that's exactly what happened to my younger mini schnauzer Jasper and I had them removed when he was desexed. Years ago, we had a Great Dane and they caused him no end of trouble, always getting caught so we also had them removed when he was about 2. It becomes a major operation at that stage, and honestly, I can't understand why they aren't removed at a very young age by the breeder, because from what I can gather, they don't serve any purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPaws Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I don't understand why you would need to remove the dew claw, can someone enlighten me? I've always had medium/large breed dogs and have never found the dew claw to be a problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 , I can't understand why they aren't removed at a very young age by the breeder, because from what I can gather, they don't serve any purpose. They serve a purpose. Apart from being used in self grooming and to manipulate bones etc, they help the dog grip when turning at speed. Serious agility and overseas lure courisng competitors that I know all prefer them left on for this reason. That's the front ones, I doubt the hind ones have a purpose (but I don't really know). I have large very active dogs with front dew claws left on - their breeders' choice, not mine - and they have had no issues with them. But I think it does depend on how securely they are attached, which might vary between breeds and individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shazzapug Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 How do they intend to police this law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I guess ...guess that dogs with no front dewclaws would need a vet certificate or something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I had my sibe's rear ones taken off when he was desexed I wouldn't have bothered if they lay flat but they stuck out at right angles so were pretty much an accident looking for a place to happen. If you asked me to prove it was done at the vet I'd have to give you the name of the vet because paperwork in this house disappears into the abyss never to be seen again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochmad Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Jindi is the first purebred dog that we've had who still has her dew claws on. I like them removed and I forgot to ask the vet to remove them when she was desexed. It's not that big a deal, we ensure all her nails are trimmed weekly, but it would have been better to have them removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now