scottbu Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 The more I read up on it the more I think it’s a better idea to leave few claws on. The best thing that’s happened to us hunting dogs owners is the wider use of military and police dogs, they have more money than us to study these things. ive read a few different studies and they are starting to link arthritis to removing the dew claws. Link to post Share on other sites
VizslavsBird Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 It might be, but I have had problems with dew claws being tore up during hunting on ever dog that didn't have them removed. Link to post Share on other sites
scottbu Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 I have 3 dogs in my kennel that have them and I haven’t tore one yet. I can see it happening though. But I wonder if the trade off is worth it. We have a dog with arthritis and she can’t hunt anymore because of it Link to post Share on other sites
Brad Eden Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 All the dogs I’ve had that hunted had them removed as puppies. I never noticed any compromise or any arthritis. They hunted into their later years. Our little Cav has them. They have to be payed attention to and cut diligently or they curl under and can pierce her leg. Link to post Share on other sites
bobman Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 I think there good evidence the dogs better off with them intact Brads spot on about keeping them trimmed that’s exactly what will happen if you dont Link to post Share on other sites
Fire Marshal Bill Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Well, if you talk to any FB breeder they will tell you that they have good veterinary backed evidence that removing dew claws will prevent arthritis when the dog ages. I have a FB coming in the Spring and it will have his dew claws intact. To be honest, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I personally don't like them, but I'm going to take a wait and see approach. I'm surprised we haven't heard from the people who have FB's. Link to post Share on other sites
bobman Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 https://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/do_the_dew__claws__rev_apr_10_2013__with_logo_.pdf Link to post Share on other sites
scottbu Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 All the research I’ve done and I’ve read a lot about it. I think we remove them just because we always have and we’ve been told we have to. From actual research they should be left in and trimmed Link to post Share on other sites
Brad Eden Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, scottbu said: All the research I’ve done and I’ve read a lot about it. I think we remove them just because we always have and we’ve been told we have to. From actual research they should be left in and trimmed Possibly true and likely so. But this can lead to more laws, like no docking of tails, no removing dew claws, no neutering etc . Some might like that. It think it should be left to the individual after discussing with their vet to decide. IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
406dn Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 I've had dogs with and without them. Most of the ones that had them removed did fine without them. One dog did battle arthritis in her carpel joints. By the time she got old,,, it had to hurt a lot. She was maybe 4 or 5 in this photo and you can see the swelling in her right leg. Over time it got noticeably worse in both legs. She also was carrying a prickly pear spine in her left paw when I took this photo. Dogs are tough customers, but we should do what we can to make their lot better. Link to post Share on other sites
Speaks Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 I have had dogs with and without, if given the choice I would leave them on, this is not high in my breeder selection process though so il likely never really make a choice on this. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now