That makes a lot of sense and is another very good point. They can definitely cause a lot of problems for dogs and I can see why many prefer to remove them, especially since a lot of people seem to forget about the dew claws or not know their dogs have them and forget to trim them, which can definitely cause issues, but I think if you trim them regularly, they may be less likely to get caught on stuff? Idk, maybe not. I know our old dog never had his dew claws and he was fine and Gator had his and he was also fine and never got it caught or anything like that and he also used it to grip pillows and bones and stuff. So I guess it is just one of those things where everyone has a different opinion and I don’t think anyone is right or wrong. And I also personally think that the second video was a little bit dramatic with all the clips of the dogs flailing in the ice water and acting like they will drown without the dew claws. First of all, that was also just really thin, barely frozen “ice” so of course the dogs would fall through. It did seem to help the dogs who had them though but I think for most dogs, they will be just fine without them. Most dogs aren’t going to be hanging around frozen ponds very much anyway. And even for working dogs (hunting or herding), some people have said that in thick underbrush or if the dog is going over or under fences, they could get caught in the underbrush and have painful injuries. So then I read stuff like that and think maybe it is best to have them removed after all. I don’t really think there is a right answer after all. But then I have also read that in very active dogs like border collies and in agility dogs where the dog is making sharp turns a lot that the dew claws can actually help them because they dig into the ground on the turns and supposedly it can help prevent wrist injuries, I guess in agility dogs they said dogs with the dew claws had less wrist injuries than without them. But most pet dogs are not going to be doing agility or super sharp turns or out on the ice or climbing steep mountains or anything like that. There are so many opinions and horror stories either way (dogs tearing the claw off and having a painful injury, dogs possibly drowning from not having it, etc.), that in can be very very hard to decipher and know what the right thing to do is. Libby still has hers (I thought they were removed but after looking at some photos just now, she apparently does have them. I think her rear ones were removed though as she has the scar yet for some reason they left her front ones on. Idk why. But she has not torn them yet and she is very active, always leaping off the steps on the deck (it’s only a couple steps but still a bit worrisome when she launches off the deck but there is no way to stop her), sharp fast turns, leaping and jumping under and over everything, off furniture, wrestling with Frank, etc., and she has so far been fine but they do keep them very trimmed just like the rest of her nails. They are also lower down on the feet so maybe that helps. And she does use them to hold sticks and stuff. And because she is so active, I am glad she has that extra little bit of traction for sharp turns. And especially where they hike all the time, I think it helps on the mountains or if she ever found a frozen pond or something. Although the back ones would have helped too probably, idk why they were removed.
I am not sure if Frank has his or not. I think he does but idk. And he has one rear dewclaw. He has a lot of fur unlike Libby so they will have to keep a close eye on his, if he has them, and make sure to keep them trimmed or maybe remove them when he gets neutered.
And for the record, I don’t think dew claw removal is cruel or sadistic or anything, I understand that it is a very common procedure that the vast majority of breeders still do and most dogs never have any issues with it being removed. I also completely understand where in longer haired dogs where you maybe wouldn’t always notice the dew claw that it could be an issue. And that the injuries and negatives can absolutely outweight any potential “benefits” for most. But that said, I do think for dogs out working the ice a lot or dogs doing agility that may need a little bit extra stability on the turns, it can be useful and I think I would like to keep them but I am sure if I saw the terrible injuries some dogs get that I would feel differently. Idk. There is also a difference in dew claws, right? Some are very well attached to the foot with bone and tendon and stuff and may serve more of a purpose as to the floppy ones that just hang there and cause problems for dogs. And I know that it is done very very young so the puppies don’t even feel it. The only thing that I think is cruel is to totally declaw a dog, remove all of it’s claws, which I’m pretty sure is what that apartment was saying you had to do. To me that is ridiculous and absurd. Especially to do it to an adult dog. Removing one claw off a little puppy, especially to prevent injury, is one thing but to make someone hack all the claws off their adult dog because of it possibly scratching something is ridiculous. That was what I had the issue with. I accept that every one will have a different opinion on dew claws and different experiences with and reasons for doing what they do. Just like with spaying and neutering and diet and training and lots of other things. It is a lot like chickens in that regard, what works for one person may not work for another.
Educator
Spirit
Greeter
Friend
