Jump to content

Dew claws and arthritis?


Recommended Posts

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
  • scottbu changed the title to Dew claws and arthritis?
VizslavsBird

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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.

 

89B3E50D-9BC5-4D56-AC66-D2E121B9CB49.thumb.jpeg.1df64a06890844751f556bf144442344.jpeg

 

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

 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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...