I was just wondering how many labs have their dewclaws removed? What are the pros and cons about them? Magnums were not removed...wondering if they should be.
If they weren't removed as a three day old pup then they need to remain. It would be like cutting off your thumb. The only ones that should be removed are the rear dew claws that occaisionally happen...they usually aren't really attached to much and can tear.
The thought is usually for dogs who hunt in heavy cover to have them removed so that they won't get caught on brush and rip off. But since 90% of labs are not hunting anyways, there is no need to remove them.
Rider uses his all of the time.
Dani, Rider & Rookie
SHR Watson's Safari Rider, JH, WC, CL1-R, RA, CGC, TDI
SHR Endeavor Put Me In Coach, RN, WC, CGC
Member Since 6/2003
Don't remove them now - no need to anyway. Just remember to trim that nail when you do the others.
We hunt with two of ours and they still have their dewclaws. I have never understood the point in removing them even for a hunting dog. There is more chance of a leg or a tail getting caught then a dewclaw.
Dogs use the claws for gripping. Watch your dog next time he eats a bone or kong.
it's absolutely correct that unless they are removed as a tiny puppy, it is MAJOR invasive surgery to take them off later. no one should have that done unless the thing is already torn!
i just realized on my rescue pup....she has her front ones but the back are removed? why would they remove the back and not the front or left both on?
they don't normally have them on the back--some breeds are more prone to have them on the back--australian shepherds spring to mind--but most dogs have them only on their front legs.
thanks queenofthedogs didnt know that....i thought all dogs had them on both.