DogPaddle Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Tyr has wobbly rear dew claws that our ver suggested we have removed when we get him nuetered. Our other two boys don't seem to have any rear dew claws. I really don't know much about this so any help would be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Mama Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 I discussed this with my vet extensively. My dog has front dew claws but no rear. This is what she told me. There are two kinds of claws. Attached and unattached. When you say wobbly it makes me think yours are unattached. Anyway, attached means that the digit has bone that is attached to the joint. Unattached means the digit has not bone attached to the joint. To remove an attached digit is very invasive, painful and not necessary. To remove an unattached digit is easier and less painful but not painless. The advantage to having unattached removed also is that the unattached digits are usually the ones that end up getting caught on something and torn or ripped. So because my dogs digit is attached, I did not have hers removed. We keep them well trimmed and have never had it get caught on anything. If they had been unattached, I would definately have them removed while neutering. It is less painful than a possible injury later. My new puppy had his removed at 2 days so we have nothing to worry about. At that young it only hurts for a second and is over, just like a tail docking. Does that help? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouseatthebusstop Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 If it has to be done for medical reasons I am in favour but not just for cosmetic. I do not like tails docked either. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alicat613 Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 I am generally opposed to surgically altering the form of a dog, but my Dane's dews (front only) were removed at 3 days. With Danes the dews are so big they present a problem for humans and the dog. There are stories of them getting ripped off or really hurting their owners in play. My dog's dad did not have his done at birth but tore one off during play and it was very very painful for him. The pups were done at 3 days, in home (no exposure to vet clinic germs) with local anasthetic by a professional and I feel this is much less pain than if he were to rip it as an adult of catch it in my eye or something equally horrible. PS I voted for in some breeds. I think it depends on how the dews are situated and if there are ever problems like I mentioned with leaving them on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogPaddle Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 Anyone know how likely Tyr is to rip those little dew claws if I don't have them removed. If it's not very likely I'll probably leave them as they don't seem to bother him at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bk_blue Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 BK has had his rear dew claws removed, I suppose by his previous owners/"breeders". He has his front ones though. Are all dogs born with them? I don't believe in altering the form of any dog (except for neutering) for purely cosmetic reasons, but if the dew claws are easily caught on things, then it would be best if they were removed, I suppose. I really don't know a lot about them to be honest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogPaddle Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 Tyr hasn't caught his on anything yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Sam has rear dew claws and we've never had any problems in the 4 years we've had him. You just have to make a point of trimming the nail as it will not wear. His feel unnattached - they are very flexible and can be bent back. I guess its kinda gross for some people but I couldn't imagine Sam without his dew claws. They are part of who he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolk9s Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 I am for the removal of dewclaws IF it's done pretty much when they are newborn, a quick snip and it's over. This is one exception to my opinion on leaving dogs as nature made them. Brittany has front dewclaws, in 9 years she has only had a cut or tear once, it was minor, I cleaned it and put neosporin on it, all was well. Candy has front dews, no problems so far. Jesse has NO dews at all. Meant to add, if the dewclaws serve ANY purpose whatsoever for a breed, then of course I'd leave 'em on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin the musher Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Most Alaskans are born without rear dews, and I have the fronts removed because they can become torn or broken when the dog pulls through deep or crusty snow. It also helps to get booties on them, although trying to bootie my 8 dog training team can become quite a circus... :multi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogPaddle Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 Thanks so much everyone, I think we wil just leave Tyr as he is unless he starts experiencing difficulties with his dew claws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
science_doc Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Better late than never...... When I took her out to play, Abbie's front dew claws would often get all the skin scraped off and start bleeding. They weren't attached and when she would get runnning and slam on the brakes they would scrape on whatever surface she was stopping on, even grass. I would have definatley had them removed based on the advice of my vet. Again there would have been no bone involved....just a snip of skin and they would have been gone. I voted yes on removal, but not for cosmetic reasons, just for medical reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Pik Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Tyr seems to be ok with his dews attached, but to re-iterate, we will likely leave them on until they become a problem. Given his level of activity and low top speed/lack of brakes, however, I don't believe he ever will snag them on anything. I voted yes, but like most of you, only if they pose a threat to the dogs health (as minor as a cut or tear may be as a threat) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RescuerAndVetTech Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 As a vet tech, I almost always advise removal of back dewclaws. It can be very dangerous to leave them on, not to mention extremely painful for the dog, and more expensive to the owner if and when they cause problems. Especially "unattached" dewclaws. Of course it is best to have it done along with another surgery, so they only have to go under anesthesia once, but it's definately advised either way. A lot of times you hear the excuse about the dog not experiencing any problems. It isn't until the problems occur when the owners finally get a rude awakening(not to mention the animals). We've done a good bit of declaw removals, and it's definately for the better, and would not be considered cosmetic surgery. It's defiantely necessary and crucial to the well being of the animal. They serve no real purpose, especially in today's world. Recovery is usually very well received, and now that there is approved post op pain meds, that makes most people feel better. I have yet to see a case where there were complications from the dewclaw removals. The animals are able to walk out of the hospital jsut fine that night, and are able to get up and walk hours after the surgery. So, no it's definately not even remotely close to being inhumane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 [B]:niedowiary: My little Zeus has em on all four and an extra on his back right, and I say they should be removed on the back because on the back they stick out more and are allot looser and may catch on something easier and rip off. So we are getting it done when we take him in as soon as we can get him fixed while he is still little. We researched and it was also recommended by our vet. But not necessary for the front ones they are allot more sturdy and they don't stick out and are less likely to catch on anything.:wink: But it also depends on the dog and their dew claw, they are all different and it depends on how ya feel about the sturdiness or floppiness of it... lol! [/B] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckaroo123 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I am former military and my parents were taking care of my buddy Buck while I was overseas. They had him for almost four years and I saw him about once a year. On my short visits with him I never noticed that his dew claws were getting longer. When I got back into the states and was able to get him back I finally noticed them. His dew claws on all four legs were long and curled. They didnt do his grooming, the vet that they took him to did. His other nails were trimmed but it appeared that the vet didnt do a very good job of keeping the dew claws trimmed. After I moved into my new home with my new wife we met our neighbors. They have a small Jack Russell that Buck loves to play with. Buck is a Rat Terrier mixed with Gorilla. Hes fifty pounds and has the energy of the energizer bunny. One of the first times Buck and Franky, the Jack Russell, played together they started chasing each other around the yard. Buck ended up tearing off one of his front dew claws, even though I had trimmed all of them back as far as I could. Later on he tore off the other front dew claw. Neither of his back claws have had problems, and they were always longer than the front ones. I've only had him back for six months, so his vet date is coming up real soon. When I see the vet, were going to have a discussion about removing all dew claws. My only worry is if its as inhumane as removing claws from a cat. From what I've seen so far, it doesnt seem like it. I keep seeing people talk about the back claws being the concern. What I've experienced is that all the dew claws are a concern. After watching my best friend be in pain and bleeding everywhere from his front dew claws being damaged; I believe that if its humane to the animal then get all of the dew claws removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightymite Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 There's new evidence that dogs use their dew claws when galloping. Removing the dew claws puts the dog at greater risk of wrist injuries and onset of arthritis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.