Dew Claws??
- Thread starter dachshunds4me
- Start date
I read the first 5/6 pages of this, so if the thread since went off topic, please forgive me, but here is my input on dew claws. Rottweiler breed standard requires that the dog have NO rear dew claws. I haven't seen a Rottie with rear dew claws, not because they have been removed but simply because I have never known of a Rottie personally who was born with rear dew claws. They surely must exist, I just haven't seen it.
When I got my boy Leo I encountered a really rude woman who had JUST joined the Rottie club I go to. She firstly, insulted me about having Bella, and telling me it is ridiculous that I have such a small Rottweiler and she was down right rude about Bella not being spayed. Then she saw my dear boy Leo and she was awe struck that he had front dew claws and said she's disgusted I would have them on and she strongly recommends I have them snipped by the vet when I neuter Leo. Um? He is MY dog, go look at the other Rotties around the club there are about 3 or 4 out of 15-20 Rotties that have their claws out. There's nothing wrong with my dogs. HONESTLY! I chose to keep the claws on for the same reason I chose to buy a tailed dog. I like them with all their bits, thank you very much.
When I got my boy Leo I encountered a really rude woman who had JUST joined the Rottie club I go to. She firstly, insulted me about having Bella, and telling me it is ridiculous that I have such a small Rottweiler and she was down right rude about Bella not being spayed. Then she saw my dear boy Leo and she was awe struck that he had front dew claws and said she's disgusted I would have them on and she strongly recommends I have them snipped by the vet when I neuter Leo. Um? He is MY dog, go look at the other Rotties around the club there are about 3 or 4 out of 15-20 Rotties that have their claws out. There's nothing wrong with my dogs. HONESTLY! I chose to keep the claws on for the same reason I chose to buy a tailed dog. I like them with all their bits, thank you very much.
I believe I quite deliberately avoided demonizing rescues for choosing to do ped s/n in my earlier post...just said that it would be a deal-breaker for me and cause me to look elsewhere.
Anyway, just clarifying in case that was misunderstood.
Out of curiosity, could you link the info? Preferably peer-review studies by orgs that are not overtly biased.
^This. I already alluded to the response when I was considering not neutering Web; I ended up switching primary vets when Mira's co-owner and I decided to keep her intact because I got so sick of the lectures every time we visited...
True. Working to prevent it from happening is important but just as important is your contingency plan. Of the two "oops" litters I know of from people I would consider responsible, in both cases the pups were sold for a minimum fee (just to cover the birth->home cost of raising the pups) and those pups were carefully places and are supported and have a lifetime fallback home just like any other (planned) pup from their breeders. I don't really consider that a failure since those pups are highly unlikely to end up in the shelter system.
Anyway, just clarifying in case that was misunderstood.
Out of curiosity, could you link the info? Preferably peer-review studies by orgs that are not overtly biased.
^This. I already alluded to the response when I was considering not neutering Web; I ended up switching primary vets when Mira's co-owner and I decided to keep her intact because I got so sick of the lectures every time we visited...
True. Working to prevent it from happening is important but just as important is your contingency plan. Of the two "oops" litters I know of from people I would consider responsible, in both cases the pups were sold for a minimum fee (just to cover the birth->home cost of raising the pups) and those pups were carefully places and are supported and have a lifetime fallback home just like any other (planned) pup from their breeders. I don't really consider that a failure since those pups are highly unlikely to end up in the shelter system.
Yes that. ^^
I've had at least one intact dog my entire life. Right now we only have one but in the past we've had multiples of opposite gender. I'm not saying you can't prevent litters from happening but I see a lot of "You should not neuter, it's ENTIRELY management and responsibility that prevents litters". I'm not saying that's not true but I just don't expect that JQP will be as responsible as a breeder would. I've never personally had any sort of scare or pregnancy with my dogs but I know many who have and those are very responsible dog people. If responsible dog breeders are having litters unintentionally then JQP will have them tenfold. And JQP will not screen homes like a good breeder would.
I don't know, I am just very very leery of making spay/neuter out to be a bad thing that is only needed if you're not responsible. And I have seen it done a LOT on forums (particularly another one but some here too). I have seen people almost demonized for having a younger dog neutered. And I actually see that much more often than I see people get piled on for having an intact dog.
Perhaps smaller rescues in a less overpopulated area can screen more, but in our case it's either screen more and kill more dogs and puppies or neuter them to prevent them from adding to the amount of oops litters the shelter has to take in the next spring... Personally, I do believe there are risks with pediatric spay or neuter but there are risks to leaving that many puppies you're adopting out intact. I would rather take the risks with the pediatric spay/neuter instead of take in litters from even a small fraction of the dogs we adopted out the next year. I have seen many of our puppies get neutered at 8 weeks and grow up just fine. Maybe there's a problem we don't see or maybe not, but they seem to have a fine quality of life anyways. I know some people would rather screen more because they feel if the home isn't ideal then the dog would be better off dead, but I disagree with that. I am not one to think that if you can't handle an intact dog then you shouldn't have a dog. I think the last thing we need is to make it harder to get a shelter dog. So for me alive with the risk of the pediatric spay or neuter is much more preferable than dead, which is the only other alternative I can see.
I've had at least one intact dog my entire life. Right now we only have one but in the past we've had multiples of opposite gender. I'm not saying you can't prevent litters from happening but I see a lot of "You should not neuter, it's ENTIRELY management and responsibility that prevents litters". I'm not saying that's not true but I just don't expect that JQP will be as responsible as a breeder would. I've never personally had any sort of scare or pregnancy with my dogs but I know many who have and those are very responsible dog people. If responsible dog breeders are having litters unintentionally then JQP will have them tenfold. And JQP will not screen homes like a good breeder would.
I don't know, I am just very very leery of making spay/neuter out to be a bad thing that is only needed if you're not responsible. And I have seen it done a LOT on forums (particularly another one but some here too). I have seen people almost demonized for having a younger dog neutered. And I actually see that much more often than I see people get piled on for having an intact dog.
Perhaps smaller rescues in a less overpopulated area can screen more, but in our case it's either screen more and kill more dogs and puppies or neuter them to prevent them from adding to the amount of oops litters the shelter has to take in the next spring... Personally, I do believe there are risks with pediatric spay or neuter but there are risks to leaving that many puppies you're adopting out intact. I would rather take the risks with the pediatric spay/neuter instead of take in litters from even a small fraction of the dogs we adopted out the next year. I have seen many of our puppies get neutered at 8 weeks and grow up just fine. Maybe there's a problem we don't see or maybe not, but they seem to have a fine quality of life anyways. I know some people would rather screen more because they feel if the home isn't ideal then the dog would be better off dead, but I disagree with that. I am not one to think that if you can't handle an intact dog then you shouldn't have a dog. I think the last thing we need is to make it harder to get a shelter dog. So for me alive with the risk of the pediatric spay or neuter is much more preferable than dead, which is the only other alternative I can see.
I couldn't agree with you more. I know someone who has had an intact bitch for 5 years and does not understand a bitches heat cycle! :yikes:
He had her out in standing heat the other day and when I told him he should take her home he said, and I quote "It's fine, she is not bleeding anymore"
People like him should be shot!!!
He had her out in standing heat the other day and when I told him he should take her home he said, and I quote "It's fine, she is not bleeding anymore"
People like him should be shot!!!
Perhaps your rescue just needs to learn to better screen it's adopters. As it stands now, you seem to hold people as little more than drooling morons playing with wooden blocks, who are incapable of managing an intact animals. 
It's amazing how all the reputable breeders on this board aren't just drowning under a flood of puppies!
It's amazing how all the reputable breeders on this board aren't just drowning under a flood of puppies!
I totally 110% agree with this.
As a rescue, I would NEVER adopt out a dog intact. It's just too risky.
Both of my males are not neutered, and I ended up getting Emma spayed because I didn't want to take the risk of my tiny dog accidentally getting pregnant. I'm a responsible owner... I KNOW how to manage my dogs... but accidents can still happen. I've seen it on this forum, and I've seen it on others.
IF rescues/shelters had to keep watch on adopters following through with neutering agreements, they wouldn't have much time to devote to saving other dogs.
I'm not a fan of pediatric spay and neuters, but in the case of rescues/shelters, I think that ALL pets should be adopted out altered.
As a rescue, I would NEVER adopt out a dog intact. It's just too risky.
Both of my males are not neutered, and I ended up getting Emma spayed because I didn't want to take the risk of my tiny dog accidentally getting pregnant. I'm a responsible owner... I KNOW how to manage my dogs... but accidents can still happen. I've seen it on this forum, and I've seen it on others.
IF rescues/shelters had to keep watch on adopters following through with neutering agreements, they wouldn't have much time to devote to saving other dogs.
I'm not a fan of pediatric spay and neuters, but in the case of rescues/shelters, I think that ALL pets should be adopted out altered.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 574
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
Early Spay & Neuter
Early Spay / Neuter How Young is too Young?
I'm posting these for you because you asked to see.
Believe me, we have done our research and aren't making a blind decision to do pediatric spay/neuter.
There are benefits to pediatric s/n and benefits to waiting, they really negate each other (in terms of health risks v. benefits) so our decision is based upon the additional benefit of completely avoiding any "oops" litters.
If people here want to take THAT STATEMENT as a slam against them personally, that is their business, but I don't see how you could. We are talking about rescued (unwanted) dogs here, and that in no way compares to someone's beloved OWNED dog.
I'm not going to defend our rescue policies against a board of complete strangers I will likely never even meet, when it works for us. In fact, in the 3yrs. we've done pediatric (8 weeks/2lb) we have not had one single mortality. The closest mortalities we've had and 1 single mortality during spay/neuter were adult dogs or past 4mos. of age. As the one article states, it's so safe, there are actually less complications for puppies than adults. I know one of our adult dogs who went in who ended up with a huge incision and days of pain because there was so much fat accumulated around her organs (and this was an underweight Newfoundland) it took the vet forever to find everything and get it out.
Once again for those unaware, you HAVE to spay/neuter your pets before they leave to maintain a PETFINDER page. Since that is important, we will always alter and if some potential adopter doesn't like that idea, they can always find a puppy elsewhere.
I am glad its working for you. BUT the risks are not just death. I would love to see some long term research as how this affects dogs. Its great that it prevents puppies, but what if it causes health issues earlier on in life? Would it still be worth it (I dont' know, but logically it could create issues, to my knowledge no one has studied this)
There are quite a few studies that show that early spay neuter (before maturity) does increase the risk of quite a few diseases, not sure if it would be large scale enough to bother people though)
There are quite a few studies that show that early spay neuter (before maturity) does increase the risk of quite a few diseases, not sure if it would be large scale enough to bother people though)
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 574
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
They make exceptions for municipalities, I worked 3yrs. as animal control and we had a PF page.
Sad but true. I think they ought to hold them to the same standards but maybe they couldn't even get a PF page then. We wouldn't have been able to, since we didn't alter.
I tried to get a program in place and of course the council didn't care to hear it.
Sad but true. I think they ought to hold them to the same standards but maybe they couldn't even get a PF page then. We wouldn't have been able to, since we didn't alter.
I tried to get a program in place and of course the council didn't care to hear it.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2010
- Messages
- 574
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 16
I believe PFs stance is that puppies can go out unaltered - on a contract to alter.
We have to send our contract in to PF as part of the process to get a page.
What I think is nuts is where some of the rescues will ask a fee PLUS make you pre-pay an alter.
On the few times in the past we sent out intact animals, I took PFs suggestion that we ask a normal fee and refund part of it when the animal is fixed, rather than ask less for unaltered pets than altered ones.
So you ask more, in essence, and charge an "intact pet fee", at least that's what we called it. which got refunded upon s/n being completed.
It became more hassle than it was worth and as Laurelin mentioned, we got burned doing it so now we just blanket spay/neuter.
We have to send our contract in to PF as part of the process to get a page.
What I think is nuts is where some of the rescues will ask a fee PLUS make you pre-pay an alter.
On the few times in the past we sent out intact animals, I took PFs suggestion that we ask a normal fee and refund part of it when the animal is fixed, rather than ask less for unaltered pets than altered ones.
So you ask more, in essence, and charge an "intact pet fee", at least that's what we called it. which got refunded upon s/n being completed.
It became more hassle than it was worth and as Laurelin mentioned, we got burned doing it so now we just blanket spay/neuter.
What I have read indicates that spay and neuter increases SOME risks but you need to look at the numbers, not just percentages. I don't have the actual numbers on me but the increase in risk is pretty miniscule when you start crunching the numbers. And as said before there are risks and benefits. To put is shortly, I don't think there is enough evidence to say one way or another what the risk really is. Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think hormones are important or play a role in a dog's development. I'm not convinced it will actually affect a dog's quality of life at all. If it does cause a problem, then it is likely in a very small portion of the dogs that are neutered early anyways.
For me, yes it is still very worth it. You are in Canada though so I doubt you have the severity of overpopulation we do here. I would allow a small risk to an individual dog's health if it would help the population as a whole. Maybe it changes your opinion when you live and work in an area that routinely euthanizes healthy dogs and puppies...
For me, yes it is still very worth it. You are in Canada though so I doubt you have the severity of overpopulation we do here. I would allow a small risk to an individual dog's health if it would help the population as a whole. Maybe it changes your opinion when you live and work in an area that routinely euthanizes healthy dogs and puppies...
IMHO, a lot of what we do with our animals is a risk/benefit analysis. It's possible that micro chips could have some links with cancer. However, for me the risk that my dogs could run away and need to be found is greater than the risk that they could get cancer from the chip. There is s risk of parvo when taking a young pup out of the house, but more dogs are euthed for issues caused by lack of socialization than dogs die of parvo, so I chose to socialize my puppy (not taking him to the dog park, etc, of course). There is a risk of injury in turning horses out with other horses, but IMHO the mental benefits outweigh the injury risks.
Altering at any age is a surgery, and therefore carries risks for the animal. IMHO, neither early or late altering has been studied enough to definitively say that one is better or worse and state it as a fact. We altered Jack at a year old, which was younger than I wanted to. However, he had a condition that very well could have been genetic and passed on to his pups if there was an oops of any kind, and that was not a risk I was willing to take.
IMHO, when it comes to a rescue dog the benefits of altering before the dog is adopted out simply outweighs the risks.
Altering at any age is a surgery, and therefore carries risks for the animal. IMHO, neither early or late altering has been studied enough to definitively say that one is better or worse and state it as a fact. We altered Jack at a year old, which was younger than I wanted to. However, he had a condition that very well could have been genetic and passed on to his pups if there was an oops of any kind, and that was not a risk I was willing to take.
IMHO, when it comes to a rescue dog the benefits of altering before the dog is adopted out simply outweighs the risks.
That is true. I met someone recently who used to work in a shelter in my area and now works in a large shelter in a major US city. They said its unbelievable there. We do have a bit of an over pop problem, but not the same. Which why I said I am not sure it would be a large enough problem for people to care.
Which brings me to another issue. Perhaps what other countries are doing should be studied to see if it can be something that can be used to help the US.
Which brings me to another issue. Perhaps what other countries are doing should be studied to see if it can be something that can be used to help the US.
This is very well said, Laurelin.
Until the risks are better studied, individual people have to make their own decisions for their individual pets according to their own biases (and I don't mean biases in a negative sense, here).
But in a way, rescues and shelters are really practicing herd health/management with limited resources. Most simply don't have the luxury of making decisions on an individual animal basis and are trying to do the best they can for the most animals. It's a completely different paradigm of health care because the circumstances are very different, and until we find a way to expunge the sin of irresponsibility from the human breast, I think S/N prior to adoption is reasonable.
Until the risks are better studied, individual people have to make their own decisions for their individual pets according to their own biases (and I don't mean biases in a negative sense, here).
But in a way, rescues and shelters are really practicing herd health/management with limited resources. Most simply don't have the luxury of making decisions on an individual animal basis and are trying to do the best they can for the most animals. It's a completely different paradigm of health care because the circumstances are very different, and until we find a way to expunge the sin of irresponsibility from the human breast, I think S/N prior to adoption is reasonable.
Staff online
-
eddieqSilence! I ban you!