I expect a breeder to remove them, and would not buy a dog with it's dew-claws intact
I prefer dew-claws to be removed, but would consider a breeding where they were left intact.
Dew-claws are not a consideration to me. It doesn't matter to me whether they are left intact or not
I would prefer dew-claws to be left intact and more breeders should consider this option.
The crusty snow is terrible on their legs, dew claws or not.
I haven't voted because I think the jury is still out. All 3 of my dogs are "clawless". The older one, almost 9, has had on and off wrist lameness in the front right. A year or so ago I noticed a lump that had developed over the dew claw area. His lameness would appear after hard work. This one has always abused himself horribly with the way he runs, stops, turns and flips and it was not uncommon for him to be a little sore the next day. BTW, he can also pull himself up on just about any surface. But when the lump appeared I took him to the vet. He said that the dew claw on that leg had been removed "badly" (his words) and that a piece of it is under the skin, thus forming the lump. He could not tell me if it was in any way related to the lameness in that wrist area. So for the first time I am seriously considering whether dew claw removal is always a good thing. And Paul, he managed to slash me up plenty good enough swimming even with no dew claws!
Owned and handled by Cruisin' with Indiana Jones, JH
Alternate Handler: Westwind Buffalo Soldier
Apprentice Handler: Snake River Medicine Man, JH
Option 2 is more or less both for and/or against the question.
Basically a Neutral, considering both options are available in the one option.
Adding the top two options together and saying 80% or for removal seems to be in error.
The 2ndhalf of the question also means, they don’t care.
If you prefer but also don’t care that’s not entirely PRO Dew Claw Removal.
Using the second half of the sentence in option #2
you could say;
“56% of voters, would consider a pup if Dew Claws were left intact”
And that would be a true statement based on the poll.
You have 51 Voters who will not purchase a pup unless Dew Claws are removed,
and you have 68 Voters who would purchase a pup with Dew Claws intact.
... leaving those who demand dew claws removed to be in the minority.
STATS AND POLLS! all in the eyes of the beholder, much like our Mainstream Media
Last edited by Dustin D; 01-21-2014 at 04:20 PM.
Still I wish I had put the all- or nothing division on the to be left intact side, I do wonder how many people say NO to a breeding, simply because a breeder chooses to remove the dew-claws. I don't think I know anyone who would be that adamant about dew claws remaining intact.
"They's Just DAWGS"
"Hunting is a skill to be learned whether you do it early or late it still needs to be learned"
"I train dogs, Not papers"
GMRH HRCH Quick MH (most importantly Duck/Upland Enthusiast) Rip. July-2014
MHR HRCH Lakota MH (most importantly Upland/Duck Enthusiast)
HR Storm.. the Pup (Beginning Upland & Waterfowl Enthusiast)
As a BUYER, I would prefer they were on, though wouldn't throw one out because they were removed. As a BREEDER, I leave them on. Caveat: They are tight on the leg in the dogs I have and their ancestors. If I was going to breed to a male that had loose dews or a history of them, I would remove them at birth. I don't want to set up my puppy buyers or the pup for failure and harm.
Show people used to prefer them OFF because it gave a cleaner look. That is slowly changing. Do I have a problem selling puppies with dews? No. It's a preference and if they don't want a pup with dews, then there are other well bred dogs with them off.
I know torn dews happen. In 20 years I haven't had one. I've had 3 rip off complete nail capsules, though, leaving nothing but quick, and that makes me cringe. Ugh...painful and bloody....and
Embarrasing when it happens on a beautiful sunny day, in the middle of a fully packed, busy Rest Stop, on a busy interstate and the dog is screaming bloody murder and blood is flying all over the place....Oh yeah....and the dog is light yellow.
DISCLAIMER: The above post is the opinionated and biased view of your's truly, Lonnie Spann, and is in no way intended to reflect the opinions or views of the unfortunate individuals named below who just happen to be doomed with guilt by association.
Member of CAHRC and North AL HRC. I train with AND AM FRIENDS WITH: Fishduck, Laidback, Splash_Em, RF2, Drake2014, Claimsadj, Hooked on Quackers, RookieTrainer and Roseberry.
HRCH Spann's Quacker Jack "Jack" 500 Pt. Club (New & IMPROVED jacket).
since you also include that in the same question.
See what I'm saying?
Option #2 is faulty when determining Pro/Con since it provides both.
It could be used for or against either side of the argument.
Do you work for MSNBC? I kid, I kid lol
I prefer dew claws.
I also do not care for docking or cropping. Just my personal preference.
Dogs have ears, tails, and... dew claws. It's part all part of having the dog. And I love having a dog!
Funny, because I'd bet labs just as often rip off dew claws as need tails docked due to injury. Yet they don't dock all their tails as puppies
Hebrews 12:11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.