# Dew claw poll



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

As there seems to be very many different opinions on whether to leave Dew-claws on or not, and it actually seems to be favoring the leave them on crowd. I figured why not start a poll to see where the majority lies.


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

Seems so far that folks are not NEARLY as polarized about having them removed
as it once was considered uber-taboo(and amateurish) to leave them in place. 

Interesting. I'm pretty sure there is another poll a few years old that was MUCH more polarized on the issue.


/


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I think it is more indicative that lots just don't care to partake of the same ol' same ol anymore.


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

To me a good Vet is priceless. When mine told me she would NOT remove dews I had a choice. Find another Vet or leave dews on. Since I prefer my dogs to be kept healthy I reluctantly went along with my Vet. I asked for her info on why she does not want to remove dews and was given a copy of a study done by a respectable University that showed the possibility of wrist problems later in life for ones with dews removed. This being said I am 71 years old and have haad dogs since I can remember and have never had a dog tear a dew claw. I have had FT Pointers , hounds and Labs.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

If you ever get in the water with a dog you don't want one in the water with you which has dew claws. If the dog looks pretty and goes to dog shows as the primary function they are usually left alone.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm I missed an option on the poll, I should've put the other extreme. As In I want a dog with Dew-claws and would not purchase a pup which has them removed. Still seems as with most things, opinions are blending towards the middle, however majority preference so far reflects a ~80% removal preference. So seller & breeder wise, removal seem would seem the safest choice. As in you could lose sales, if you left the dew-claws intact. It would be interesting to see if you also lose them if they aren't left intact. I doubt that to be the case, but who knows.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I started removing them ages ago when I foxhunted and raised hound pups; the huntsman cut them off at 2 or 3 days with surgical scissors and removed them from the first 2 Chesapeake litters I had. He even showed me how, but being a tad squeamish I've had the vet remove them since then. Doesn't really make any difference to me; the one dog I own that has them hasn't really had any problems with them as hers are tight to her feet with small nails. However as I said in the last thread, two recent puppy buyers wanted them left on and since it was a small litter and the other buyers didn't care, I didn't remove them.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

Every dog here has and will have their thumbs, pretty show dogs, hunt test dogs and dogs in hunting homes alike. Crusty icy snow is horrible here (especially this year!), we train in all sorts of fields and swim in plenty of stick ponds.... no problems. I do swim with my dogs and funny enough have many friends with newfys that train for water rescue... all have dews.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> If the dog looks pretty and goes to dog shows as the primary function they are usually left alone.


I've found the opposite to be true--the show folks have stated they like the "clean" look of the front legs without them. It's a disqualification for CBRs to have rear dew claws, but I've never had any on my pups and only ever seen one CBR with rear dews. The two buyers that wanted them left on were avid hunters and believed the dew claws helped with traction in rough or icy terrain.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmm I missed an option on the poll, I should've put the other extreme. As In I want a dog with Dew-claws and would not purchase a pup which has them removed. Still seems as with most things, opinions are blending towards the middle, however majority preference so far reflects a ~80% removal preference. So seller & breeder wise, removal seem would seem the safest choice. As in you could lose sales, if you left the dew-claws intact. It would be interesting to see if you also lose them if they aren't left intact. I doubt that to be the case, but who knows.


I won't vote because none of your options apply to me.

I don't have a strong opinion right now about the dew claws but after reading through some of the responses I would lean towards keeping them on. But if I found a must-have pup, and the pup had had the dews removed, I would get it. At least that is how I feel today.

Does anyone know about the dews in other canid species like wolves? Wolves must do fine with them; the idea that they are a hazard in our pet pooches doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

mitty said:


> I won't vote because none of your options apply to me.
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion right now about the dew claws but after reading through some of the responses I would lean towards keeping them on. But if I found a must-have pup, and the pup had had the dews removed, I would get it. At least that is how I feel today.
> 
> Does anyone know about the dews in other canid species like wolves? Wolves must do fine with them; the idea that they are a hazard in our pet pooches doesn't make sense to me.




Renee what do you think about dew claws in our crusted over snow?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Steve Shaver said:


> Renee what do you think about dew claws in our crusted over snow?


Neither of my current dogs have dew claws, so I got nothin' to go on. We had a beagle that had his dew claws, never had a problem except once I caught his choke chain on it but that healed quick. I'm racking my brains trying to remember if our previous lab had dew claws or not. 

The crusty snow is terrible on their legs, dew claws or not.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> I've found the opposite to be true--the show folks have stated they like the "clean" look of the front legs without them. It's a disqualification for CBRs to have rear dew claws, but I've never had any on my pups and only ever seen one CBR with rear dews. The two buyers that wanted them left on were avid hunters and believed the dew claws helped with traction in rough or icy terrain.


not for labs.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I haven't voted because I think the jury is still out. All 3 of my dogs are "clawless". The older one, almost 9, has had on and off wrist lameness in the front right. A year or so ago I noticed a lump that had developed over the dew claw area. His lameness would appear after hard work. This one has always abused himself horribly with the way he runs, stops, turns and flips and it was not uncommon for him to be a little sore the next day. BTW, he can also pull himself up on just about any surface. But when the lump appeared I took him to the vet. He said that the dew claw on that leg had been removed "badly" (his words) and that a piece of it is under the skin, thus forming the lump. He could not tell me if it was in any way related to the lameness in that wrist area. So for the first time I am seriously considering whether dew claw removal is always a good thing. And Paul, he managed to slash me up plenty good enough swimming even with no dew claws!


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> however majority preference so far reflects a ~80% removal preference.


Hmmm....

Option 2 is more or less both for and/or against the question. 
Basically a Neutral, considering both options are available in the one option. 
Adding the top two options together and saying 80% or for removal seems to be in error. 

The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP]half of the question also means, they don’t care.
If you prefer but also don’t care that’s not entirely PRO Dew Claw Removal.

Using the second half of the sentence in option #2 
you could say;
“56% of voters, would consider a pup if Dew Claws were left intact”

And that would be a true statement based on the poll.


OR

You have 51 Voters who will not purchase a pup unless Dew Claws are removed,
and you have 68 Voters who would purchase a pup with Dew Claws intact.

... leaving those who demand dew claws removed to be in the minority.

STATS AND POLLS! all in the eyes of the beholder, much like our Mainstream Media 




/


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Dustin D said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> 
> STATS AND POLLS! all in the eyes of the beholder, much like our Mainstream Media


 Not sure I agree, Option 1 is an All or None, Option 2 is a personal preference for removal; not an absolute No, just what a person prefers. (Ex I prefer Black Females, doesn't mean I wouldn't consider a Yellow female, or even a male out of a _particular_ breeding, but given the choice I want a black girl). Thus they can be placed on the Pro dew-claw removal side of the spectrum. I assume most breeders want to make buyers happy, if a majority of people care enough about dew-claws to prefer their removal. It would make since to remove them, even if it isn't an all out stopping point for puppy purchase. 

Still I wish I had put the all- or nothing division on the to be left intact side, I do wonder how many people say NO to a breeding, simply because a breeder chooses to remove the dew-claws. I don't think I know anyone who would be that adamant about dew claws remaining intact.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

As a BUYER, I would prefer they were on, though wouldn't throw one out because they were removed. As a BREEDER, I leave them on. Caveat: They are tight on the leg in the dogs I have and their ancestors. If I was going to breed to a male that had loose dews or a history of them, I would remove them at birth. I don't want to set up my puppy buyers or the pup for failure and harm.

Show people used to prefer them OFF because it gave a cleaner look. That is slowly changing. Do I have a problem selling puppies with dews? No. It's a preference and if they don't want a pup with dews, then there are other well bred dogs with them off.

I know torn dews happen. In 20 years I haven't had one. I've had 3 rip off complete nail capsules, though, leaving nothing but quick, and that makes me cringe. Ugh...painful and bloody....and 

Embarrasing when it happens on a beautiful sunny day, in the middle of a fully packed, busy Rest Stop, on a busy interstate and the dog is screaming bloody murder and blood is flying all over the place....Oh yeah....and the dog is light yellow.

Ahhhh.....memories....

Sue Puff


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

Sundown49 aka Otey B said:


> To me a good Vet is priceless. When mine told me she would NOT remove dews I had a choice. Find another Vet or leave dews on. Since I prefer my dogs to be kept healthy I reluctantly went along with my Vet. I asked for her info on why she does not want to remove dews and was given a copy of a study done by a respectable University that showed the possibility of wrist problems later in life for ones with dews removed. This being said I am 71 years old and have haad dogs since I can remember and have never had a dog tear a dew claw. I have had FT Pointers , hounds and Labs.


If its good enough for Otey then its good enough for me. My puppies will keep their dew claws.

L Spann


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Thus they can be placed on the Pro dew-claw removal side of the spectrum.


..AND on the Pro Dew Claw Intact spectrum
since you also include that in the same question.

See what I'm saying?

Option #2 is faulty when determining Pro/Con since it provides both.

It could be used for or against either side of the argument. 

Do you work for MSNBC? I kid, I kid lol


----------



## Marissa E. (May 13, 2009)

I prefer dew claws.

I also do not care for docking or cropping. Just my personal preference. 

Dogs have ears, tails, and... dew claws. It's part all part of having the dog. And I love having a dog! 

Funny, because I'd bet labs just as often rip off dew claws as need tails docked due to injury. Yet they don't dock all their tails as puppies


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Marissa E. said:


> ....
> 
> Funny, because I'd bet labs just as often rip off dew claws as need tails docked due to injury. Yet they don't dock all their tails as puppies


True enough!  

As to the snow comments, we experience winter late Oct to late April. Dewclaws take a little time to toughen up to snow conditions like the rest of the foot does. Our dogs hunt in the late fall when snow/ice is around, hunt sheds and hike in the deep winter snow, and pull the dog sled. Dews are no more of an issue on an acclimated dog than any other toenail, in my experience.


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

I would much prefer to have a dog with dewclaws left on! I have never removed dewclaws in my litters (not had any rear dews in my pups so far). I have also never had a single dewclaw injury. I have however had a few instances of other toenails getting ripped (and I keep nails super short...I dremel them twice a week!). One dog had a knack of getting her nails stuck between boards of my deck LOL

Although I have not turned down buying a dog because dewclaws were removed, if I had 2 equally good breedings to choose between, with one having dewclaws removed and one with them left on, and everything else totally identical about how they are raised etc, I would go with the litter with dewclaws. Heck, I would even pay more for the litter with dewclaws left on!

All my dogs currently living here except the lab have their dewclaws, and they ALL use their thumbs. Compared to the rest of my gang, I do feel that the dewclawless dogs that have lived here have been at a disadvantage in many ways


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

No way would I want them. I have seen them torn off bleeding many times over the years on folks dogs that had them. Chuker hunting in the steep rocky hills your lucky if you keep their padds good. Add crusted snow and 16-25 miles in a day and you have a hurting dog. I guess for a good number of folks dogs it wouldn't matter either way. I cannot see any advantage to having them at all.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Many years past when I was into the pointer arena, they were removed. One day I ask the ole man the question on why and the answer I got was from his eyes....Today...It's up to the person to gain as much knowledge he or she contemplates and then make a formal decision base on that... 
I didn't vote on the poll...I sense my dad's eyes still implanted in my mind.


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

..prefer them on...


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

while the majority of the commenters prefer them on the poll obviously does not reflect that as 80% prefering them removed (45% insisting upon it)


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

I have never had or seen an issue with dw claws on hunting dogs. If you research the latest info on sports related injuries, especially the research done recently on injuries with agility dogs, there is a data there that indicates that dew claws play an important role in how dog distribute their weight, especially when stopping and taking tight turns. It is very interesting reading and goes along with the recent information about the effects on early spay neuter on dogs structure and the tendency for increased injuries with practice. My dogs all have their dew claws intact and I have had relatively few orthopedic injuries despite their competing in field, obedience, agility and hunting.

Dawn


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

As an interesting aside, check out the Norwegian Lundehund - http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/0f3a8bec#/0f3a8bec/1

They have extra toes for climbing steep cliffs to retrieve birds.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Grasshopper said:


> As an interesting aside, check out the Norwegian Lundehund - http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/0f3a8bec#/0f3a8bec/1
> 
> They have extra toes for climbing steep cliffs to retrieve birds.


The Puffin hounds...LOL. A dew claw hater's nightmare









I saw a mini clip on this breed last year (I think it's in the process of getting AKC recognition) and in addition to the strange feet with the extra digits, it has several other unusual characteristics found in no other breeds and a fascinating history. More here


As for dew claws, the poll results are consistent with my own feeling that most people prefer them removed so that's what I'll continue to do with litters. It's such an inexpensive and simple process when done shortly after birth. 

Interestingly, the Canadian KC recently changed the Chesapeake breed standard so that rear dew claws are no longer a disqualification (as they are in the U.S.) I can't help but wonder if this is animal rights driven..... the way docking and ear cropping are no longer allowed in certain countries thanks to the animal rights lobby.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> The Puffin hounds...LOL. A dew claw hater's nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It is my opinion that the environment of this dog has dictated that dew claws are necessary and these look very much like they could be functional but for the most part our dogs have evolved away from this due to the lack of need for them to something that is still there yet not so functional.


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

blake_mhoona said:


> while the majority of the commenters prefer them on
> the poll obviously does not reflect that
> as 80% prefering them removed (45% insisting upon it)


And/Or

44% would NOT consider purchasing a pup with dew claws intact,

56% would.

See?


----------



## thelast2 (Dec 7, 2012)

While I prefer having them removed by the breeder, I would purchase a pup with them intact and have the removed at the first time they needed sedation due to an injury, while having hip x-rays or spay and neutering if I have no intention of breeding. Like I said in the other thread I have had my YLM tear the dewclaw, with his light colored nails it was never an issue keeping them trimmed short. So certainly wasn't caused by the nail being to long rather a hard charging dog going through brush who caught a branch and nearly tore all the tendons loose.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Dustin D said:


> And/Or
> 
> 44% would NOT consider purchasing a pup with dew claws intact,
> 
> ...


but 32% of that 56 would no doubt have them pulled at first oppurtunity. if they didnt then there would be no reason to have that preference in the first place

like my original quote said 80% PREFERRED them to be removed as per the wording of the second option.


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

blake_mhoona said:


> but 32% of that 56 *would no doubt have them pulled at first oppurtunity.*


Where in option 2 did you read that?


----------



## deadriver (Mar 9, 2005)

I am with Julie R. The stats show that for those of us that breed, it makes the most sense to continue to remove them and it fits with my own experiences on long, multi-day hunt trips. A few of the dogs that have traveled with us for OOS hunts have had dew claws intact and we had problems with 2 dogs with both feet dew claws torn. It took the dogs out of the last several days of hunt. That said, we have cuts around base of the nails on all the dogs also, but can usually let them keep hunting. The dew seems to be a more severe injury when it does happen. For many people, i would imagine it is not an issue. The minority opinion that adamantly oppose, i wonder how much of it is actually from a belief that is physically better with claws on, vs. not liking the practice from psychological. If anyone has multiple independent and peer reviewed journal articles, please post them. Citing one article is scientifically questionable and i would want to look at the stats and their method of statistical analysis to see if it pans out. Having published several scientific journal articles, i can say without a shadow of a doubt that most scientific debates have more than one side and their are publications that support and claim statistical significance for their view. Frankly, as i close in a doctorate and have read hundreds of peer reviewed articles, it is dis-enchanting how much bias exist in our science. I have even been told by a journal reviewer which citations i needed to add, all of which had one common author, and the citations were not even relevent for my article. I withdrew my submission and went to another journal. Scientific articles are great for digging up facts, but the statistical support and how they derived conclusions play a big part in how much i buy into the conclusions....

i would love to see peer reviewed articles statistically comparing injury with and without. Everything comes at a price, so removal of dew claws probably increases some other risk. But having put dogs on the truck with torn dew claws and never had one develop foot problems, i hedge my bet on less injury without dew claws in 15 mi hunt days.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

deadriver said:


> I am with Julie R. The stats show that for those of us that breed, it makes the most sense to continue to remove them and it fits with my own experiences on long, multi-day hunt trips. A few of the dogs that have traveled with us for OOS hunts have had dew claws intact and we had problems with 2 dogs with both feet dew claws torn. It took the dogs out of the last several days of hunt. That said, we have cuts around base of the nails on all the dogs also, but can usually let them keep hunting. The dew seems to be a more severe injury when it does happen. For many people, i would imagine it is not an issue. The minority opinion that adamantly oppose, i wonder how much of it is actually from a belief that is physically better with claws on, vs. not liking the practice from psychological. If anyone has multiple independent and peer reviewed journal articles, please post them. Citing one article is scientifically questionable and i would want to look at the stats and their method of statistical analysis to see if it pans out. Having published several scientific journal articles, i can say without a shadow of a doubt that most scientific debates have more than one side and their are publications that support and claim statistical significance for their view. Frankly, as i close in a doctorate and have read hundreds of peer reviewed articles, it is dis-enchanting how much bias exist in our science. I have even been told by a journal reviewer which citations i needed to add, all of which had one common author, and the citations were not even relevent for my article. I withdrew my submission and went to another journal. Scientific articles are great for digging up facts, but the statistical support and how they derived conclusions play a big part in how much i buy into the conclusions....
> *
> i would love to see peer reviewed articles statistically comparing injury with and without.* *Everything comes at a price, so removal of dew claws probably increases some other risk. But having put dogs on the truck with torn dew claws and never had one* *develop foot problems, i hedge my bet on less injury without dew claws* in 15 mi hunt days.


Good post......


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

A few have mentioned that they have seen far more injuries to regular nails than dew claws. To me the reason for that is rather obvious. Regular nails are pounding the ground at every stride. Just shows which is actually functional.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Dustin D said:


> Where in option 2 did you read that?


it was an inference. if u prefer them to be removed then u have an opinion about them in a negative light. otherwise u would not care one way or the other and select option 3. thus that leads one to believe if you had the option for them to be removed (if dog was under anesthesia for any reason spay, neuter, injury, etc) then you'd prolly take advantage of the situation and have them removed

dew claws are just weird in my opinion. it has been awhile since ive seen a dog with them. my sister brought her australian shepherd over and i was petting it and trying to teach it shake for her and i noticed the dew claws. they are just dangling and feel like u could brake them off with your pinky and thumb. the nail is like 3x longer and sharper than the rest and just feel weird. her vet told ger when she takes it in to get spayed that he would advise her to get dewclawed i said good for your vet and you should. its just going to get hung up on something or scratch someone.


----------



## Henlee (Feb 10, 2013)

This is the video that convinced me that they ought to be kept on. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4XflsMEk-k


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Henlee said:


> This is the video that convinced me that they ought to be kept on.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4XflsMEk-k


This video has its own thread with 3 pages of discussion. I wasnt fully convinced

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...our-dogs-in-ice-water-another-dew-claw-thread


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Steve Shaver said:


> A few have mentioned that they have seen far more injuries to regular nails than dew claws. To me the reason for that is rather obvious. Regular nails are pounding the ground at every stride. Just shows which is actually functional.


Another thing that needs to be took into consideration is that they have 16 regular toe nails ,in comparison to 2 dewclaws. So the chances of injury to a regular toe nails is higher by percentage.


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

blake_mhoona said:


> it was an inference. if u prefer them to be removed then u have an opinion about them in a negative light.
> otherwise u would not care one way or the other and select option 3. thus that leads one to believe if you had the option for them to be removed (if dog was under anesthesia for any reason spay, neuter, injury, etc) then you'd prolly take advantage of the situation and have them removed


You are still applying way too much of your own opinion/ideal situation into it.
Which is perfectly fine, it just doesn't apply to everyone else who chose option #2.

I chose option 2 b/c while I might prefer them removed, 
I wouldn't turn a pup down(all other things considered) if he had them on.
Nor would I remove them if not already done so as a pup. If not done as a pup, they stay on.

I_ prefer _Dark Roast, 
but if Medium Roast is all they got,
I'll pour a cup of it.

See? No negative connotation 
towards the opposite of what I prefer.
Just an_ initial_ preference, that's all.








/


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The wussification of America in action...


----------



## zeekster (Jun 15, 2009)

I watched the video and it didn't fully convince me, I guess because I don't hunt in ponds like that. I've also never seen a problem with a dog getting back on the ice.
I've never seen a dew claw torn off either but I have heard horror stories about it.
As a breeder I will continue to remove them but in answer to the poll I would choose option 2.

Dave Beacock


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> The wussification of America in action...


What the? lol


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Dustin D said:


> What the? lol


Dew claws have no practical purpose and pose a risk of injury.

Why WOULDN'T we remove them?

For the same reason some people prefer to be Pez dispensers...


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

If you're able to read, you'd see that they DO have a practical purpose. By your logic, we should remove everything that poses a risk of injury.... I hope you enjoy carrying around an earless stump.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> Dew claws have no practical purpose and pose a risk of injury.
> 
> Why WOULDN'T we remove them?
> 
> For the same reason some people prefer to be Pez dispensers...


People used to think that tonsils and the appendix had no purpose. A lot of parents still circumsize their male infants because it "might" get infected, thinking that it has no function. Modern research says these assumptions are wrong.

If you are going to ridicule people for wanting to leave dogs the way they are born, the burden is on you to prove that cutting them does no harm.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

No ridicule Renee. I just think that the whole movement away from docking tails, cropping ears and removing dew claws is about human emotion, moreso than practicality or scientific research. Same goes for supposed "positive only" training.

I personally could care less about the issue. Just pointing out the direction in which we as humans are moving these days. 

Right or wrong? I don't know. That applies to a lot of issues including politically correct speech, accommodation of minority groups in schools, so called racial tolerance and a number of other topics.

I guess future generations will ultimately either reap the benefits or pay the price for our slow migration leftward.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The only article I've read about the dew claws in a positive light, was that they seem to result in less carpal injury in agility dogs. The sample size was pretty small and the statistics while enough to show a correlation, it was a very minor correlation, and there were a lot of variables that were not addressed, how much a particular dog was campaigned, etc. The research is continuing, but they really do need a larger sample size. That said agility is pretty much setting a dog up for wrist injury, and over a period of time carpal arthritis, and degradation. The sharp turns at high speed ect. are a very unnatural movement. I haven't know a single dog who is heavily campaigned in agility who hasn't suffered some accident and or been out for lameness, at one time or another. As a dog ages continued joint abuse will show a tendency toward arthritis. It is a very intensive sport. I also question if most of these injuries are ever rested completely before the dog is campaigned again. Still people do like their sports, but I question if this is the arena to test and prove that the absence of dew-claw has a tendency to push a dog toward more carpal injury, and later arthritis etc. Most dogs are never put under the same stress that agility dog are, as such people might be putting a tad too much value in this particular study.

Another perhaps better study might be to show a correlation, with dew claws and injury-carpal degradation in FT & HT, these are also intensive sports, however it is more a natural movement, that doesn't put undue stress on the carpal joints. If a statistical difference was observed one way or another such results would be more noteworthy.


----------



## Dustin D (Jan 12, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> The *wussification of America *in action...





DarrinGreene said:


> I *personally could care less about the issue.*
> Just pointing out the direction in which we as humans are moving these days.
> 
> Right or wrong? I don't know.
> ...



...Mkay there bud. That's enough internet for you today.

We're talking about Dew Claws here. What are (you) talking about?











/


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

mitty said:


> People used to think that tonsils and the appendix had no purpose. A lot of parents still circumsize their male infants because it "might" get infected, thinking that it has no function.  Modern research says these assumptions are wrong.
> 
> If you are going to ridicule people for wanting to leave dogs the way they are born, the burden is on you to prove that cutting them does no harm.


no modern research says _you _are wrong. people still dont know what the appendix does. doctors and researchers still can't agree on its actual purpose.

and circumsizing has been proven to be the healthier option. first off leads to less UTIs and other infections. on top of other benefits

but that is another thread all together


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

blake_mhoona said:


> no modern research says _you _are wrong. people still dont know what the appendix does. doctors and researchers still can't agree on its actual purpose.
> 
> and circumsizing has been proven to be the healthier option. first off leads to less UTIs and other infections. on top of other benefits
> 
> but that is another thread all together


Have you actually read original research about these issues? Or are you looking at some Dr. Mom website that tells you what you want to hear?

Do you think we should circumcise our dogs, too?


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

mitty said:


> Have you actually read original research about these issues? Or are you looking at some Dr. Mom website that tells you what you want to hear?
> 
> Do you think we should circumcise our dogs, too?


Without pulling out my wife's textbooks (which i can do if you please when i get home)

webMD:
Benefits:
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).


Risks (only inherent risks are at the time of surgery no lasting effects):


Pain
Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
Irritation of the glans
Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
Risk of injury to the penis


WebMD:
The function of the appendix is unknown. One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses. Other experts believe the appendix is just a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. Surgical removal of the appendix causes no observable health problems.


----------



## Terri (May 28, 2008)

I voted to remove the dew claws. I think a lot of dogs who are injured in agility have poor structure. Did the dew claw blamed injuries really result because of no dew claw or was it poor structure? 

Terri


----------



## ChessieMom (Aug 28, 2013)

O My Goodnesss!!!!!!!!!!! Too many pages, with no resolution......

In my opinion, Dew claws obviously have a purpose, and are used by dogs. 80 % of dogs in America could probably keep theirs and have no issues, because they're in pet homes or in homes where those dew claws come in handy, like in agility dogs. In the rest of the working dogs, like represented here, I'd say it's a personal decision, to be based on experience with dogs having dew claw injuries, their frequency and severity, and the ability of that injury to heal appropriately. I don't think it makes sense to take them off just because people think they'll get hurt. If the dew claw is getting ripped off, I'm guessing there's probably a high likelyhood that the leg itself would've been injured in the same situation. Bottom line though, I think working retrievers are possibly much more likely to get them snagged while running.... It all comes down to a personal decision.


----------



## ChessieMom (Aug 28, 2013)

blake_mhoona said:


> Without pulling out my wife's textbooks (which i can do if you please when i get home)
> 
> webMD:
> Benefits:
> ...


This is so not the place for this argument, but I have to point out (since I've had to research this issue, lol) that WebMD's information on this subject is not very comprehensive, and there are many risks due to having this surgery that are not represented in your quote... One risk of the surgery that isn't listed, is "DEATH". Yes, it does happen....more frequently than docs would like to admit., though thankfully, that is quite rare. The "DEATH" side effect is absent when not choosing this cosmetic surgery. One cannot die from not having it done for cosmetic reasons. There are also side effects that happen after surgery, which WebMD hasn't mentioned at all. 

Overall, WebMD is pretty good on most things, but not on everything. There's better info out there.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

ChessieMom said:


> This is so not the place for this argument, but I have to point out (since I've had to research this issue, lol) that WebMD's information on this subject is not very comprehensive, and there are many risks due to having this surgery that are not represented in your quote... One risk of the surgery that isn't listed, is "DEATH". Yes, it does happen....more frequently than docs would like to admit., though thankfully, that is quite rare. The "DEATH" side effect is absent when not choosing this cosmetic surgery. One cannot die from not having it done for cosmetic reasons. There are also side effects that happen after surgery, which WebMD hasn't mentioned at all.
> 
> Overall, WebMD is pretty good on most things, but not on everything. There's better info out there.


i agree this thread has taken a wrong turn.

but the death option yes is always possible. but it is also possible by not getting it done. all the risks listed by not having it done in some way or another can lead to death. particularly the cancer one. this is not a "cosmetic surgery" (one that is purely done to look better) it is a preventative surgery or a religious ceremony for some

if for some strange reason this topic is still relevant at 8pm when i'm at home i'll get out the med school textbooks. if it however returns to the original topic then i shall say no more to the matter


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Dustin D said:


> ...Mkay there bud. That's enough internet for you today.
> 
> We're talking about Dew Claws here. What are (you) talking about?
> 
> ...


no reason we should be discussing dew claws... that's what I'm talkin 'bout...

no conclusive evidence medically one way or the other as to their usefulness

tons of anecdotal evidence that they tend to get caught on things and injure the dog

decades of removing them in working dogs 

now all of a sudden... we think twice 

you see the same trend all throughout society these days

it bears thinking about

why fix what ain't broken?

more anthropomorphic trends in dog care and training, brought to you by the same people who think there should be no winners and losers in little league baseball 

that is all, carry on


----------



## Terri (May 28, 2008)

No one has addressed the structure issue I brought up. Also I would add that there is no reason a pet needs the dew claw. My daughter's dog had to have the dew claws removed at 8 months, Vet advised removal because they did not lay flat causing a greater risk of tearing. 

As for the circumcision I was thinking maybe that can be another poll question, but it might need to be moved to the political side of the board. Poll question: do you like your dog's altered (ears, tail, neutered, and dew claws) and your man left as God made him. lol!

Terri


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

blake_mhoona said:


> Without pulling out my wife's textbooks (which i can do if you please when i get home)
> 
> webMD:
> Benefits:
> ...


WebMD? This is your idea of an original research article? 

Google "prepuce human function" and check out the articles published by Wiley or that show up in pubmed. Tons of true facts and research about its function, from aiding in intromission to Ig A secretions. The WebMD statements about the appendix is consistent with what I wrote---the idea that the appendix has no function is being challenged by new research. You can google that too. 

The point is, if we all assume that dew claws have no function, and no one bothers to investigate whether they have a function, then we cannot make informed choices about what to do.

Meanwhile I'm tired of speculating...I am checking out of this thread!


----------



## ChessieMom (Aug 28, 2013)

mitty said:


> WebMD? This is your idea of an original research article?
> 
> Google "prepuce human function" and check out the articles published by Wiley or that show up in pubmed. Tons of true facts and research about its function, from aiding in intromission to Ig A secretions. The WebMD statements about the appendix is consistent with what I wrote---the idea that the appendix has no function is being challenged by new research. You can google that too.
> 
> ...


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Terri said:


> No one has addressed the structure issue I brought up. Also I would add that there is no reason a pet needs the dew claw. My daughter's dog had to have the dew claws removed at 8 months, Vet advised removal because they did not lay flat causing a greater risk of tearing.
> Terri



That also was my response years ago when Chris Zink came out w/ that paper. It was not a study. There were no statistics (how could there be?). She was merely observing agility dogs-- many of whom were likely rescues or BYB border collie/aussie types that may have had terrible pasterns.... I asked around at the time on a lab club chat board and several of us who had bred MACH, etc, dogs who had dews removed have never had carpal arthritis late in years. In fact, the only dog I remember that did have carpal arthritis still had his dews. Had weak pasterns though... So I definitely feel structure is the underlying cause.


----------



## pheona (Jan 22, 2009)

Great thread/ I have removed dew claws in the past on my litters. But have learned they really need them to help pull them self's out of water onto Ice .


----------

