Pro and Cons of Removing Front dewclaws on working litters - Page 3

Thanks pod for input do you know the high points of that link you sent over would love to hear more on locomotion and ideas that front dewclaws can help on movement or not.

I was shocked, when I first got into GSDs, that the dewclaws were not removed.

In my other working dogs of various breeds they were supposed to be removed. Two of my field labs (sisters from the same breeder) had their dewclaws left on. They crashed through dense upland and plunged through marshes on icy retrieves. Never had a problem with them ripping their dewclaws. I suppose it's one of those things: if it happens once it's bad enough you never want it to happen again...

Pod,

Thanks for the article! Of course now I'll be comparing my GSDs and their dewclaws to my JRT and his lack thereof.

Mostly I see them use their dewclaws to grip items in their forepaws. In all my intact dogs, I noticed they brace chew-toys with their dewclaws. It's easy to see dogs with dewclaws grip items for gnawing on better than ones that had them removed.

Remove abnormal:

Prager Hans:
http://www.Alpinek9.com
 
Do not remove normal:

Thanks Prager for photo of the double is this double on a rear foot ? Is there such a thing on a front foot ? And thanks again for  everyones thoughts to remove fronts or not to remove.

Bundi, I don't really know any more than what's in the article, only that owners of coursing hounds see the front dewclaws as very important in locomotion, paricularly at the gallop.

Prager's first photo, the digit that is standing out from the leg is certainly a dewclaw but the larger one on side of the leg is the forth toe that has migrated up from the foot.  Hardly a normal toe but it looks to have good attachment.  I wouldn't want that removed.

 I had a Czech line dog I was keeping for a friend. He managed to rip off his dewclaw. Lots of blood, but other than that, no big deal. It actually grew back. He wasn't bothered by this ordeal in the least; it certainly didn't slow him down one bit. 

Removing front dewclaws that are not defective is not right, in my opinion. Dogs USE them. To hold things they're munching, to hold down toys, to get a better grip on something, when playing... It's their thumbs. When I see Gage use his I wonder why anyone would remove them. He would have such a hard time eating his meals if he didn't have dewclaws to hold it still with. It's just like docking tails and cropping ears, it's simply cosmetic, you'll hear "They get caught on things and ripped off." Me oh my, how do animals survive without humans to cut their toes off? Pro's VS Con's, there is little comparison. There is a chance the dog could hurt himself if you don't cut them off, and if you've got a dog who continually manages to damage the DC's, remove them... But to remove a dog's useful body part because you don't like the look isn't right.

Have had Shepherds, Huskies, Akitas and Shelties at various time of my life, and NEVER removed a front dew claw, rear ones yes.  Even though we Raced with the Huskies I never had a torn claw.  A pulled nail on a paw once or twice, but it wasn't a dew claw. 

Have to agree,  remove rear dewclaws at 2-3 days, leave front ones alone unless there's a strange claw such as Prager showed.