Dew Claws??

So we have a purebred Dobie pup at our rescue, she's not quite 6mos. of age.
She has front dew claws but not rear ones.

And we've chosen an adopter - I think - they emailed today asking if we could have her dew claws removed!
I told her no, absolutely not! For gosh sake, it's an amputation at this point!

What in the world? I never even paid attention to her front dew claws - all our dogs have them except Tristan and you can see they were removed when he was a baby.

I mean - we've even had litters born here a few times, and never thought to remove the front dew claws.

Why would anyone - a potential adopter - be worried about them?

It reminded me of a few yrs. ago when we had a Dobie parvo puppy (owner surrender, they couldn't afford parvo treatment) and a rescue (of all things) wrote to us and said we should not neuter him prior to 1yr. of age, and when we did, we needed to remove his front dew claws!

WTF? I'm confused. Why are they such an issue? This pup's don't even stick out or anything!?

I don't get it, either. While I prefer not having to deal with dew claws (our two dogs before Caleb had dews), having them certainly isn't a deal breaker for me.

Kaiden has rear dews... I hate them they are an issue but no way would I have removed them when I got him. And that was at 5 weeks!

I prefer no dew claws, as our dogs are pretty active and Dally has ripped hers up many, many times (even managed to split one right up the middle once). However, both dogs have them and I wouldn't have them removed at this age. Obviously it would never be a deal breaker for me.

A lot of people choose to have dew claws removed at the time of spay/neuter. At least they get pain meds for it. I personally would love to never have to mess with dew claws, but both my dogs have them (front only). I don't see anything wrong with removing them, as long as it's done properly (and not just hacked off at 6 months old).

I have to wrap Logan's front dew claws to use boots on him otherwise they rub. If he weren't a show dog, I'd consider having them removed. I may anyway whenever I get around to neutering him, if I neuter him (it'll be a long time, either way). I'll just have to wait and see exactly how much of a problem they pose long-term with the boots.

Perhaps they go in a lot of areas where the dog could damage them? I think its quite a reasonable request in that case, better them removed in a safe operation than torn off out in the open.

I understand it if they plan on doing activities where they'd get in the way or would be more likely to be injured.... but for most pets, I don't think normal day-to-day activities pose a huge threat to the dews.

As far as I'm concerned it's just an extra nail to clip. Juno doesn't have her dews but Lucy does, and Molly did, and we've never had a problem with them.

The thing is, they are tucked up and high, you can barely even see them.
One of our Dachshunds (ironically, Conan!!) ripped one of his regular toenails off last summer, NONE of our dogs have EVER had a dew claw rip off. And that's years and years of owning dogs...it's not like they are out and exposed, now, the back ones, that's another issue and we had Libby's removed as a puppy but they were just floppy skin and not a big deal.
Our vet does remove rear ones if it's just skin, they glue the skin shut and that's done.
But with bone in them? No way.

i would never pre-emptively remove front declaws. they are functional digits that help stabilize the wrist when a dog is turning at speed. i'd consider removing them from a specific dog if they were a continual problem, but not "just in case".

Thank you for your input...I'm adding this to the adoption contract in fact.

Does this look okay?
*Special addendum: We agree that we will not modify this dog’s body/appearance, i.e. dew claw removal or ear cropping except in the event one of the aforementioned is injured and it is to the dog’s health benefit to do so._____________ (initial(s))

If it's just skin then I'd want them removed, but if it's attached to the bone? Yeah no way. All my dogs have them except Bernard. They don't cause any problems at all. They even all use them quite frequently.

If you plan on adding that addendum to all adoption contracts, I might stick docking in there too.

Is this dog already neutered? If not, then this addendum thing prohibits them from neutering, since chopping off his balls modifies the dog's body. So does removing a mass, removing a tooth, tattooing, etc. I might take out the "except in the event one of the aforementioned is injured" bit and just stick with "unless it is to the dog's health benefit to do so"

Personally I don't agree with prohibiting dew claw removal.

The fronts are usually attached with bone.

Pebbles, my avatar pup, has rear dewclaws attached by a large bony process - they're staying even when she gets her spay and knee surgery.

She'll be spayed Tuesday and ready for her home after that.
I've seen de-clawing cats in contracts before.

And her tail's already docked.

The last purebred Dobie we had in had a dock, but pointer length...really bizarre and definitely a home dock job

A little different scenario there.

Not really- the vets would agree that removing a dew claw attached with bone is an amputation and (ours anyway) would not even agree to do it.

Front dewclaws I've never had an issue with, rears are sometimes a different story. It really depends if the dews are "functional" i.e. attached with bone, or if they are essentially vestigial digits and only a bit of skin with a nail. If it's the latter, I'd get them removed at the time of neuter/spay, because they will end up causing issues. If they have bone associated with them, leave them.

I actually applaud that one particular rescue specifying no neutering that Dobe until further notice. Hormones do more than just allow a dog to procreate, they do play a VERY vital function in appropriate mental and physical growth.

Amputation, yes. But a front dew claw is non weight bearing, and there's only two of them. With declawing a cat, there's at least 10 (more on a polydactyl), and they have to bear weight on those toes.

Removing dew claws can prevent an injury later on (not saying that everyone should go out and remove their dogs dew claws, or that a dog with dew claws is guarnateed to get injured). Declawing a cat isn't really preventing an injury later, and very well may be putting the cat at a big risk (can't defend themselves very well).

I think a stipulation that dew claws aren't removed (and even that a cat isn't declawed) falls under the category of how badly does a rescue want to place animals vs how picky do they want to be. To me, a dog with a home but without dew claws or a even a cat with a home but declawed is in a lot better position than a dead dog or cat or even a dog or cat in a shelter environment.

This is a purebred Dobie PUPPY, a rarity in rescue, and yes, we can afford to be *very* picky.

Zoom, I understand the neuter thing, but you know what, by the time a dog is a year old it could have sired a few dozen litters, so that was a no-go.

It's a nice thought in theory but in practice (especially in rescue) there was no negotiating that. The only way would be to keep him in foster a whole year and needless to say that was not going to happen.

Besides-- I've seen updated pics of that boy and there's no way to tell he was altered young, he is absolutely stunning

I like dewclaws but I have thankfully never had a "loose" thumbed dog. all of my dogs used theirs.

I'm not opposed to removing them per say but I wouldn't encourage it.