Pro and Cons of Removing Front dewclaws on working litters - Page 4

GSD's USE their front dew claws, almost like thumbs, but not opposable. To remove them would be a disservice to the dog.

I'm kinda having this debate with myself right now.  I have a female Malinois and I'm getting a male in April/May and the breeder has directed me to this thread.  My female doesn't have dew claws on the front as they were clipped off when she was a couple days old.

I'd like the new guy I'm getting to be the same.  Here are my thoughts:

1. He's going to be an indoor dog primarily - I'm worried about it getting caught on something
2. I personally like the look and I think it looks "cleaner"
3. I'm worried that it will get caught on something in another situation - although from the research I've done this seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Also seen much mention here of not removing the DC's because of show requirements for GSD's.  I know this is not considered a fault with Mals.  I championed my female, but do not plan on showing the new guy.

Anyways, that is my opinion.  

 By all means, chop off anything  you don't like the look of. 

Here is a brief, easily understood article regarding dew claws:

Do the Dew(claws)?
M. Christine Zink DVM, PhD, DACVSMR
I am a vet that works exclusively with performance dogs, developing rehabilitation
programs for injured dogs or dogs that have had surgery as a result of performance-related
injuries. I have seen many dogs now, especially field trial/hunt test and agility dogs, that have had
chronic carpal arthritis, frequently so severe that they have to be retired or at least carefully
managed for the rest of their careers. Of the over 30 dogs I have seen with carpal arthritis, only
one has had dewclaws. The others have all had them removed.
If you look at an anatomy book (Miller’s Guide to the Anatomy of Dogs is an excellent one –
see figure below) you will see that there are 5 tendons attached to the dewclaw. Of course, at
the other end of a tendon is a muscle, and that means that if you cut off the dew claws, there are
5 muscle bundles that will become atrophied from disuse.
Those muscles indicate that the dewclaws have a function. That function is to prevent
torque on the leg. Each time the foot lands on the ground, particularly when the dog is cantering
or galloping, the dewclaw is in touch with the ground. If the dog then needs to turn, the dewclaw
digs into the ground to support the lower leg and prevent torque. If the dog doesn’t have a
dewclaw, the leg twists. A lifetime of that and the result can be carpal arthritis. Remember: the
dog is doing the activity regardless, and the pressures on the leg have to go somewhere. They
can be absorbed by the dewclaw, or they will move up and down the leg to the toes, carpus,
elbow, and shoulders.
Perhaps you are thinking, “I never have had one of my dogs have carpal pain or arthritis.”
Well, we need to remember that dogs, by their very nature, do not tell us about mild to moderate
pain. If a dog was to be asked by an emergency room nurse to give the level of his pain on a
scale from 0 o 10, with 10 being the worst, their scale would be 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Most of
our dogs, especially if they deal with pain that is of gradual onset, just deal with it and don’t
complain unless it is excruciating. But when I palpate the carpal joints of older dogs without
dewclaws, I almost always elicit pain with relatively minimal manipulation.
As to the possibility of injuries to dew claws. Most veterinarians will say that such injuries
actually are not very common at all. And if they do occur, then they are dealt with like any other
injury. In my opinion, it is far better to deal with an injury than to cut the dew claws off of all dogs
“just in case.”
Anatomical diagram viewing the medial side of a dog’s left front leg demonstrating the five tendons that attach to the dewclaw.
— from Miller’s Guide to the Dissection of the Dog


I could not get the diagram to copy over - but, you can google the information to see it...

I have been to one of Chris Zink's seminar and she shows an interesting slow motion video of dogs ultilizing their dew claws.  I have ACDs and in my breed the working people tend to leave them on and the show people tend to remove them arguing, in part, that the leg looks "cleaner" with the dew claw removed.

I have one dog that had hers removed (I got her when she was two) and I have noticed that as she ages (she turned 13 today)  she tends to lick the area where the dew claws were removed from.  The rest of my dogs have always had them and I prefer to have them.  It is actually a consideration for when I look at a breeder.  Luckily, all the breeders I have gotten dogs from don't remove so I have never had to cross that bridge. 

I have heard the argument about injuries, catching on something, etc and it just does not really fly for me.  I compare it to the arguments that idiots who dock ACDs tails make when they say that the tails are likely to get caught in gates or grabbed by irate livestock hence the reason for docking.  Guess my ACDs are smarter since their tails have never been injured - nor have their dew claws for that matter ;-)

I don't believe in the removal of front dewclaws...That's like cutting off your child's thumbs so they never whack them with a hammer.  It makes no sense and is cruel in my opinion.  Of course, docking tails that are uninjured, cropping ears, and other cosmetic procedures on dogs, to me, are unnecessary and cruel.  Rear dewclaws aren't a big deal to me, though they do get injured more often than fronts...Breeds such as the Great Pyrenees are required to have double rear dewclaws, or they are not considered purebred.

Bottom line is, if it's there, there's probably a reason, and they should be left unless they are injured severely or are deformed, as Prager pointed out.

Crys