Brandon M Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I was reading a description of a breed and it stated "Dewclaws should be removed". Im wondering why that would be specifically mentioned in a short description of a breed. The breed was Bernese Mountain Dog. I've heard of people having their BCs dewclaws removed as well. Dont they help the dog grip things to hold on? Or is it more of a danger of snagging it on something and getting hurt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WoobiesMom Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Woobie's don't touch the ground and the nails grow too fast. They're a pain, I wish they were gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catu Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I've heard of declawing of the front legs, but I don't think it is a must unless the dog present problems with the nails and maybe there is a breed tendency. All of my dogs manage to keep them short... I don't know how. In the case of front legs I think it has more to do with cosmetic reason than anything else. Yes, they can get stuck on things, but no more frequently than any other toe. In the case of hind legs , as someone said before me, "It's like wisdom teeth- some people's develop fine and other people need them all yanked out or else they'd be in pain the rest of their lives" There are also set-in bone-declaws and non-articulated declaws, in the first case the operation is very easy, but in the second one it is very painful and slow to heal. More frequently I've seen problem with supernumeraries toes, a sixth or even seventh toe, in that case I support dewclawing. Some dogs hurt the inner side of the legs with the opposite dewclaws of the hind legs or learn to walk with the legs exsessively separated to avoid to. ETA: Interesting article against BMD dewclawing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WoobiesMom Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Catu, I had a chance to check out your personal space. Wow! That's some amazing geography where you live, absolutely stunning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catu Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Thanks. The only thing I like of Santiago is that you can reach 12,000 - 16,000 ft. mountains in the weekend and 20,000 ones in few days for people more experienced than me. Those photos were taken on summer, I plan to achieve one almost as tall next weekend, this time on winter, so check the space in a couple of weeks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berocca Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Both of my dogs use their front dew claws to clean around the corners of their eyes and I've heard others say the same thing about their dogs. I think that if there is no problem with them they should keep them. Typical human nature though- "I don't want to have to cut them so lets remove them instead". I figure if they were dangerous to them and always got caught then natural selection would have got rid of them a long time ago. As far as I know, unless its a mutation in a particular dog of course, most breeds don't have rear dew claws. I know breeds like staffies, pitbulls, and similar terriers have them, as well as most of the mastiff breeds. Border collies should only have front ones. My sister's AmStaff has back ones as well, but they have never caused her any concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK dog doc Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Front dews, you mean? Unless it's a sled dog (wherein the booties will create a disaster area of the dew claws unless they are removed), or the claw or toe is abnmormal, or the dog is going to be worked in excessively shrubby terrain where the dews could get caught in the vegetation and injured, I generally do NOT advise removing the front dews. It is, IMO, an unnecessary surgery in most cases and may actually be harmful. Even though the dew claw does not engage the ground while the dog is walking, when the dog is turning at speed the dewclaw engages the ground and stabilizes the foot, and may help prevent toe dislocations. Rear dews are generally another matter... those are not normal toes and the majority of them DO stick out and could potentially get caught on things. Many of them are not articulated to the bones of the foot, but are just soft tissue and a small nubbin of bone from which the claw arises. Rear dews do NOT stabilize the foot and can pose a significant risk of injury in some cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyoBC Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I noticed that Black Jack's dews were taken off (front and back) when I got him. Personally I think it's better because he doesn't get them caught on stuff and doesn't catch his eye when he rubs it. But my parents dog (Sage) has all her dew claws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon M Posted July 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 there are times when Lance is at a full run and makes a turn when I'm sure he's using his dews. I think it's better to leave em, based on those observations. He's never gotten them caught on anything, and they seem to be handy agility wise. Lance wasn't born with rear dewclaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vickim Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Whisper's dew claws were gone when I got her. Her tail was docked, too (she doesn't even have a nub! Whoever took it off took it right down to the base!). I didn't even know that they had a particualr name until my SIL pointed out that they had been removed. My first dog (a husky/St Bernard mix) had hers, and they never bothered her. I don't know that she used them for an purpose, but they were not a problem, so we didn't do anything about them. Personally, I am against all unnecessary surgery on animals--docking tails, clipped ears (and don't even get me started about the story I heard about people getting their dogs' de-barked so they couldn't bark anymore) just to meet a breed standard. Is there really a medical reason why Aussies, Rotts and other dogs get their tails cut off? I mean that as a sincere questions--not a sarcastic one; stories I've read take different sides of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSmitty Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I wouldn't have front dews removed, but Alex came with rear dew claws, and those had to go. They were an accident waiting to happen: The surgery to have them removed was minor. He was in and out in one day, didn't even have stitches, and didn't need the pain pills the vet sent home with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clara Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Oddly, Ling had her tail docked before I got her, but had intact front dew claws. I've heard about the fact that they do engage the ground and help turning at full speed, which is great because she does that a lot. Also, I have watched her use her dew claws to help hold bones or toys while she's chewing on them. So either they evolved to be helpful in a couple of ways, or my dog is just brilliant and has found a way to make another use of a 'useless' appendage. I suspect the former. Having a dog with a docked tail that should NOT have been docked, I will just say that I'm not a big fan of the "lets cut something off the dog because it MIGHT get injured" school of thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journey Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 As far as I know, unless its a mutation in a particular dog of course, most breeds don't have rear dew claws. I know breeds like staffies, pitbulls, and similar terriers have them, as well as most of the mastiff breeds. Border collies should only have front ones. My sister's AmStaff has back ones as well, but they have never caused her any concern. Why do you think that Border Collies should only have front dews? Of all of my dogs only 1 has "not" had rear dews. And three of them are not related. Karen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheRuffMuttGang Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 All 8 of my dogs have front dews and I won't be removing any of them unless a certain dog has repeating issues (none have). Two of my dogs (one of which is purebred BC) have rear dews. I have had this dog for 3 years and they have never presented a problem so I have no reason to remove them. The other dog with rear dews has only been here a few weeks and so far, so good. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is my opinion. If I ever have a reason to remove them, I will. But so far, the front dews are the only dews that I have had any (minor) problems with at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSmitty Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 If it ain't broke, don't fix it is my opinion. Having a dog with a docked tail that should NOT have been docked, I will just say that I'm not a big fan of the "lets cut something off the dog because it MIGHT get injured" school of thought. Well, let's just say that after having seen Jack rip most of an *attached* toenail off, I could picture the ugliness that would result if Alex had done the same thing to one of those *unattached* dews. I am not one to ever do something for cosmetic reasons, but this was a safety issue for me. Luckily, my vet agreed with AK Dog Doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Crazies Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Although I am typically opposed to cropping and tail docking, and whatnot, I too would have done the same thing in Paula's situation with Alex. If the rear dews had been tight to the leg I might would have thought twice, but from the pictures I've seen they were loose and floppy - and truly an accident waiting to happen. Nick was born with rear dews (the only one of the litter) which were removed pretty much immediately. While I'm usually one to not fix what not's broke, in a case of a floppy-out-from-the-body type dewclaw (rear) I'd personally have it taken off. In the case of a tight-to-the-body rear I might wait and see. I always leave front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheRuffMuttGang Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 With my first dog with rear dews (he is almost 6 now) he was already neutered when I got him so I wanted to wait and see if the dews became a problem before I put him under anesthesia to remove them. They are definitely floppy and not close to his leg at all, but as much as he runs through the woods, plays frisbee and flyball, runs through the yard, sleeps on the bed and blankets, etc, he's never once snagged a rear dewclaw (knock on wood, right?). I think I made the right decision with him. Is it possible the nails could become a problem? Sure. But so far they have not been and I see no reason to think of removing them now. The other dog I have with dews is still under a year old and needs to be neutered. I -may- have his removed when he is neutered but I am not entirely sure just yet about that. His are also floppy and not close to his body but so far he's also not snagged them on anything. So for now, we'll just wait and see how it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 Dogs who have their front dewclaws removed are at greater risk of carpal (wrist) sprain. Atheltic dogs like BCs typically use their dew claws, and there is some great video footage on the net if you can find it of a running sighthound - the dew claws are definately in use. Greyhound people have shown that dogs with front dews left on are faster - they also use them. My dogs wear there dewclaws at the same speed as the rest of the nails. Rear dews can be an accident waiting to happen, and I've had them removed on pups. I've seen both single, and double, rear dews in purebred BCs. I question now if it was necessary because the Maremmas and similar breeds are certainly super atheletic and don't have issues with hanging there rear dews at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 My dogs wear there dewclaws at the same speed as the rest of the nails. This is absolutely the same with my dogs' front dewclaws. I would not remove fronts that were firmly attached unless there was a recurring problem. Loose hind dewclaws would be reasonable (and likely beneficial) to remove. I have seen posts from good working Border Collie folks who experienced issues with their dog's front "wrist" joint after the front dewclaws were removed. They appear to serve a very good purpose for traction and joint protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth G Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 I don't see the point in removing the fronts on an average dog, but my first dog, a rescued Lab/JRT mix dog, came with the rears left on. She tore one off jumping over a log at 6 months. So when they knocked her out to spay her a couple days later, they just removed them all. They ARE an accident waiting to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon M Posted July 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 She tore one off jumping over a log at 6 months. Owie! Imagine your little toe being ripped off. It's gotta feel something like that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Peep Posted July 13, 2007 Report Share Posted July 13, 2007 My male lost one of his jumping out of the canopy window of the pick-up when I had a female in heat outside. The window was so small, but he was determined. From then on, he had trouble making fast turns on the field with them, so when I had a litter of pups I had them taken off 2nd day. Usher doesn't have any, so they must have done his also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK dog doc Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 FWIW, just today I had a dog in with double rear dews on both hind. The ones on the right were badly infected from one of the nails growing around and back into the pad. Mind you, the owner (a harried mother of six, including three boys under the age of four) was maybe not the most observant about details (for instance, while generally well cared-for, the dog in question had one spay suture that hadn't been pulled from her spay, which was done back on June 20th.... of 2006.) Apparantly they had a friend "who is an expert" take the sutures out. I suggested that maybe the friend wasn't as much of an expert as all that, since they pulled one suture and merely cut the top off the other, leaving the suture buried under the skin. For 13 months. Without the owner noticing the moist seropurulent discharge. Or the holes wherefrom the drainage arose. But I digress. The point is that the dog had a significant infection and pain from the ingrown claw, which is another relatively common risk of the rear dews. Some people are detail-oriented enough (and/or have sufficient common sense) to make sure they trim the nails, which usually eliminates the ingrown-toenail risk (as well as decreasing the risk that the dews get caught on anything, because those long raptor-style hooked claws snag like mad.) However, as some have noted, the loose/floppies tend to catch on things more than the tight-to-the-leg version, and controlling the nail length only diminishes that problem, not eliminates it. Still, on an individual basis, each owner can assess their risks and choose what seems best for them. Every choice has consequences. You just have to pick the ones you prefer to live with. Pepper had some prize-winning double dews originally. She never tore any of them off, but she DID do some excessive licking of them from time to time, and it wasn't uncommon for me to find the area mildly to moderately inflamed (despite good nail care). I took them off of her when she was under two. I've never had cause to regret that, and once they healed she's never shown any of her previous excessive interest in that area. Pepper has a way of going that tended to clash the dews against her opposite leg in certain gaits. I imagine that had to be annoying. Genreally speaking, I've seen enough of them cause problems that if I have an animal out for another procedure - like a spay or neuter or dental or what have you - I suggest that we remove them. It's less expensive for the owner and less work for the dog, and if you think you MIGHT want them taken off, it's easier for everyone (and cheaper for the client) to do it at the time of the other surgery. You could argue that I'm cutting my financial throat by suggesting the least expensive route to the owner, but I'm funny that way. I like to at least OFFER to be efficient. The client today paid about $300 to have the dews removed (done as a single procedure, not coupled with a spay or other routine procedure). Had she done it at the time of spay, adding in the dews would have cost her about $90. OTOH, in this particular case I'd have been seeing the dog eventually for the infected retained spay suture, so in her case it might have made no difference in the ultimate cost... However, for the "normal" client, doing it when the dog is spayed or neutered (assuming that's in your plans) will save you about 2/3 the cost, at least at our clinic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon M Posted July 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 I'm getting it straight that you refer to the rear dews being removed and not all, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhys Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 Rhys had double dewclaws. The double dewclaws were removed from his right hind leg when the left leg was amputated. The cost of having them removed while he was out for the amputation was $23.82. After reading AK dog doc's post, that was money well spent. 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.