Docking tails and removing dew claws

sparkle_23

I was just wondering what the purpose of this is? I'm always browsing the puppies and kittens up for sale and adoption here in my city in Canada. I've noticed quite a few adds for dogs say this

andreac

It is now illegal to do this in Ireland. Do you know this is a Irish site?

kylith

I can't stand docking, but I'd consider getting the dew claws removed when future dogs were being neutered. I've known dogs to tear them, and Tegan's tends to grow long and dig into her and she hates me trying to keep it trimmed.

sparkle_23

andreac wrote: »

It is now illegal to do this in Ireland. Do you know this is a Irish site?

Yes I do I am Irish in Canada on a working visa.. That's why I find it so odd! In Ireland while at the vet I've seen dogs with docked tails, it looks odd

andreac

Docking has been around for years. As of 6th march this year it is now illegal. I have to say, I'm not sure if I agree with the rear dew claws being left on.

borderlinemeath

andreac wrote: »

Docking has been around for years. As of 6th march this year it is now illegal. I have to say, I'm not sure if I agree with the rear dew claws being left on.

I'd have no problem with a vet removing rear dew claws, I've heard of a few getting removed when the dog was under anesthetic for neutering etc, but I'd rather a breeder didn't do it to pups.

kylith

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I'd have no problem with a vet removing rear dew claws, I've heard of a few getting removed when the dog was under anesthetic for neutering etc, but I'd rather a breeder didn't do it to pups.

What about front dew claws?

borderlinemeath

kylith wrote: »

What about front dew claws?

The front ones are properly attached though, there's bone and muscle there, whereas the rear ones are mostly just held on with skin, and maybe a tiny bit of muscle. Dogs use the front ones for gripping stuff and (to my eye) look to sit neater to the dogs leg than the rear ones that almost jut out.

Knine

The best time for rear dew claws to be removed is when with the breeder. I don't agree with this at all. The injuries to these can be horrific as adult dogs.

jimf

as an owner of ess hunting lines and used as such I have never had a dog with a bad injury from rear dew claws also bear in mind not all dogs will have rear dew claws the last litter I had 8 pups only 1 in the litter had rear dews

fatmammycat

I'm against docking, dew claw removal, cropping and neutering of male dogs. Indeed any surgical alteration of dogs unless for a good medical reason.

boomerang

My rescue collie had her (very loosely attached) hind dew claws removed at the same time as she was spayed. I was happy not to have the worry of them snagging and tearing, which would have been a lot more painful for her! In fairness, we spay/neuter our dogs prophylactically, so why not dew claws? Unlike docking or ear cropping it's not for cosmetic reasons.

boomerang

fatmammycat wrote: »

I'm against docking, dew claw removal, cropping and neutering of male dogs. Indeed any surgical alteration of dogs unless for a good medical reason.

Seeing elderly male dogs coming in for surgery on perineal hernias, I'd have to disagree. A horrible surgery and recovery to put an old dog through, when the anaesthetic risk is much higher.

borderlinemeath

fatmammycat wrote: »

I'm against docking, dew claw removal, cropping and neutering of male dogs. Indeed any surgical alteration of dogs unless for a good medical reason.

I recall having the same neutering debate with yourself before fatmammycat. There's many a reason to neuter male dogs, for the greater majority of the pet owners out there it's the safer, easier route to take.

For interaction with other intact male dogs there can be slight tensions on sensing that there's another dog around that threatens his territory and has the capability of covering a female. And I've met a good few dogs that have been downright aggressive towards other intact males. Some dogs are absolutely perfect around other intact dogs, usually because they've been introduced to others at a very young age, through showing, or classes or daycare (if they're allowed, some daycares will refuse intact dogs for the very reasons stated above)

Multiple pet households can also find it impossible to manage an intact male if they have a female in heat. In fact any female in heat within a certain radius is going to drive an intact male demented. There's deep claw marks in my front gate from when a retriever a half a mile up the road constantly broke out when my female was in heat a few years back. I'd be fairly sure that a decent percentage of the intact males that end up in pounds and rescues do so because they escape from a seemingly secure garden in pursuit of an intact female. And if that is the case then in a couple of months time there might well be a litter of cross breeds looking for homes. Every rescue I follow on facebook gets cross breed litters of pups handed in for rehoming, so the spay/neuter message still isn't getting through to enough people.

An annoying aside to an intact male is also the constant marking, in public, in friends houses (intact males urge to mark indoors completely overrides any housetraining) and even on people (I've been marked a few times). Even when neutered, a dog that is a marker finds it extremely difficult to break the habit and for some rehomed dogs this can be a dealbreaker.

I find that a lot of US dog sites and forums will advocate leaving your dog intact, they're very adamant that "it's the way it should be" and to leave dogs "as nature intended". And in particular for the breed I have, to ensure their coat stays shiny. But dogs don't have any qualms mating with their sister/mother/grandmother!! Nor do they have any problems with trying to mate with a much smaller dog that can have a horrible outcome for the bitch if she tries to deliver puppies too big for her birth canal. And the stray problem over there is just as bad as here even with spay/neuter campaigns.

In saying all of this, there is the need to leave large breed dogs intact until fully mature. In fact I read on one breeders blog about how he will guarantee the health of any pup that he breeds and take back the pup if there is any problem but the one condition he puts on this is that his pups must not be neutered before 2 years of age to prevent the onset of problems relating to it.

And finally just one question fatmammycat, if you had a female, would you be as adamant against spaying? Given that there is well documented evidence that bitches in heat can develop pyometra very easily at any heat during their lifetime? As well as the increased risk of mammary cancers.

ZiabR

kylith wrote: »

I can't stand docking, but I'd consider getting the dew claws removed when future dogs were being neutered. I've known dogs to tear them, and Tegan's tends to grow long and dig into her and she hates me trying to keep it trimmed.

I would agree with this. I have no problem with the removal of REAR dew claws as they are not attached to muscle or bone in most cases. My dogs all use their front dew claws to help grip bones etc so i would never have these removed. I have also heard of some dogs getting the rear dew claws caught and torn especially in gun dogs.

223vmax

andreac wrote: »

It is now illegal to do this in Ireland.

Incorrect. There are exceptions.

fatmammycat

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I recall having the same neutering debate with yourself before fatmammycat. There's many a reason to neuter male dogs, for the greater majority of the pet owners out there it's the safer, easier route to take.


And finally just one question fatmammycat, if you had a female, would you be as adamant against spaying? Given that there is well documented evidence that bitches in heat can develop pyometra very easily at any heat during their lifetime? As well as the increased risk of mammary cancers.

I did say, Borderline, that 'I' was against neutering, not that I felt everyone should be also. No, I'm not against spaying as there is , as you say, plenty of sound medical evidence that it can be much safer for the health of the female dog.

Regarding straying, accidental breeding and aggression. I consider these things to be a matter of management, socialisation and training. My own dog- who is intact -cannot roam off my property. He canot breed with random bitches. He interacts with a multitude of dogs daily and is not in the least bit aggressive with them. Actually- and this is purely anecdotal so bear with me- I find him at two to be LESS giddy and reactive than many of his neutered friends. He is particuarly good with anxious dogs and he doesn't really rise to the aggression of other dogs (for example, he does not fence fight, no matter how aggressive the dog behind the fence).
He doesn't mark in a house, and doesn't mark in the homes of any of my friends either and he goes nearly everywhere with me.


I understand the need for pounds and rescues to spay and neuter dogs. Of course I do and were I working in those situations I would most likely see it as best practice. I also understand perfectly that in multi dog households it may also be preferable to spay and neuter.
I am a careful owner and I don't make decisions lightly, nor do I care what other US based forums think or do. I read, I trust my vet and I listen to him, I try to keep an open mind. If my dog were to develop any testicle related problem I would act immediately.

borderlinemeath

fatmammycat wrote: »

I did say, Borderline, that 'I' was against neutering, not that I felt everyone should be also. No, I'm not against spaying as there is , as you say, plenty of sound medical evidence that it can be much safer for the health of the female dog.

Regarding straying, accidental breeding and aggression. I consider these things to be a matter of management, socialisation and training. My own dog- who is intact -cannot roam off my property. He canot breed with random bitches. He interacts with a multitude of dogs daily and is not in the least bit aggressive with them. Actually- and this is purely anecdotal so bear with me- I find him at two to be LESS giddy and reactive than many of his neutered friends. He is particuarly good with anxious dogs and he doesn't really rise to the aggression of other dogs (for example, he does not fence fight, no matter how aggressive the dog behind the fence).
He doesn't mark in a house, and doesn't mark in the homes of any of my friends either and he goes nearly everywhere with me.


I understand the need for pounds and rescues to spay and neuter dogs. Of course I do and were I working in those situations I would most likely see it as best practice. I also understand perfectly that in multi dog households it may also be preferable to spay and neuter.
I am a careful owner and I don't make decisions lightly, nor do I care what other US based forums think or do. I read, I trust my vet and I listen to him, I try to keep an open mind. If my dog were to develop any testicle related problem I would act immediately.

I was aware while writing my reply that it was completely your opinion, but as this is a public forum that anybody can access, I felt the need to counteract your opinion with the other side of the coin for balance and in the hope that the uninformed dog owners who don't bother neutering, don't bother socialising and don't make as much of an effort containing their dog will look at the bigger picture. I did state in my post that some dogs who have been well socialised from a young age did not exhibit the same tensions as I have come across with other dogs.

The only reason I asked re a female, is that I thought your original post came across as adamantly anti surgical, rather than gender based.

kylith

logik wrote: »

I would agree with this. I have no problem with the removal of REAR dew claws as they are not attached to muscle or bone in most cases. My dogs all use their front dew claws to help grip bones etc so i would never have these removed. I have also heard of some dogs getting the rear dew claws caught and torn especially in gun dogs.

Tegan doesn't have rear dew claws so it was actually the front ones I was talking about. I was unaware that the front ones are better attached than the back.

She used to chew on them herself and keep them short but recently I noticed her limping and it turned out to be that her claw had gotten long without me realising it. It's bloody hard to trim them because not only is she a wriggly crybaby but she's so hairy that it's hard to actually find the fecking things, so I was considering getting them removed at neutering on any dogs I had in the future. Good to have all the information, I had no idea that they actually had a use.

andreac

223vmax wrote: »

Incorrect. There are exceptions.

Sorry, but it is not incorrect. Of course there are always exceptions for everything.

Have a look at this:

http://ikc.ie/tail-docking-and-dew-claw

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2014/en.si.2014.0128.pdf

223vmax

andreac wrote: »

Sorry, but it is not incorrect. Of course there are always exceptions for everything.

Have a look at this:

http://ikc.ie/tail-docking-and-dew-claw

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2014/en.si.2014.0128.pdf

Sorry, "pointers" can still be docked and have dew claws removed - correct?

borderlinemeath

223vmax wrote: »

Sorry, "pointers" can still be docked and have dew claws removed - correct?

Working dogs, not just pointers can be docked but it must now be carried out by a vet, a breeder is no longer able to dock a couple of days after birth as was previously done. So while there are still exceptions, it is not "as it was".

223vmax

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Working dogs, not just pointers can be docked but it must now be carried out by a vet, a breeder is no longer able to dock a couple of days after birth as was previously done. So while there are still exceptions, it is not "as it was".

Yes quite correct, and it needed controlling. Lots of horror stories from docking tails. As it was anyone could dock a dogs tail which is wrong.

fatmammycat

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I was aware while writing my reply that it was completely your opinion, but as this is a public forum that anybody can access, I felt the need to counteract your opinion with the other side of the coin for balance and in the hope that the uninformed dog owners who don't bother neutering, don't bother socialising and don't make as much of an effort containing their dog will look at the bigger picture. I did state in my post that some dogs who have been well socialised from a young age did not exhibit the same tensions as I have come across with other dogs.

The only reason I asked re a female, is that I thought your original post came across as adamantly anti surgical, rather than gender based.

Fair enough. I'm definitely not adamantly anti-surgery, I just don't think neutering (again, I'm not talking spaying) is the behavioural panacea people hope it to be. I think training, socialisation and proper managament are far more important to a dog's overall happiness and, no doubt like you, I hate seeing intact dog wandering, getting hit by cars and getting into fights and producing unwanted litters of puppies. I'm completely baffled why so many people care so little about their animals that they would rather let them come to harm than contain them.

borderlinemeath

fatmammycat wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm definitely not adamantly anti-surgery, I just don't think neutering (again, I'm not talking spaying) is the behavioural panacea people hope it to be. I think training, socialisation and proper managament are far more important to a dog's overall happiness and, no doubt like you, I hate seeing intact dog wandering, getting hit by cars and getting into fights and producing unwanted litters of puppies. I'm completely baffled why so many people care so little about their animals that they would rather let them come to harm than contain them.

It tends to be a cycle of ignorance with some dog owners. Don't socialise dog -> don't neuter dog -> dog displays aggressiveness towards other dogs -> looks it up on internet, neutering curbs aggressiveness -> dog gets neutered -> nothing changes -> because the dog wasn't socialised properly in the first place and the behaviours were left to fester.

As an example of a dog that was neutered quite late, one of my daycare dogs was neutered aged 6/7 for a related health issue. Previously he was always very antsy towards other intact dogs that he met, even ones he met many times before. Since neutering he has mellowed exceptionally and hasn't taken issue with any other intact dog, which had been the case previously. So anecdotally there is some evidence of aggressive behaviours dissipating, but it's certainly not a "one size fits all" cure for aggressiveness, which does seem to be line trotted out sometimes.

The example above though is just that, I personally think if a dog has male to male aggression issues and the longer he is left intact, then the harder it will be to break that behaviour. When the dog I spoke of above was neutered, I didn't really expect much to change and I was pleasantly surprised, it makes introductions so much easier, I never have to worry about him reacting any more.

fatmammycat

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It tends to be a cycle of ignorance with some dog owners. Don't socialise dog -> don't neuter dog -> dog displays aggressiveness towards other dogs -> looks it up on internet, neutering curbs aggressiveness -> dog gets neutered -> nothing changes -> because the dog wasn't socialised properly in the first place and the behaviours were left to fester.

Oh absolutely, and it's always the poor dog who suffers.
I agree if dogs are dog aggressive being intact doesn't help at all. Like the dog in your day care, my friend neutered her basset at 5/6 and he lost a great deal of his dog aggression- although he could be quite unpredictable.

Conversely, one of the GSDs we pack walk with has become less friendly since neutering and is more reactive and fearful than before, although I suspect genetics are playing a part here. He's started resource guarding too, which as you can imagine needs serious managment.

FurBabyMomma

Getting back to the original topic... Docking and removal of dew claws is now illegal for cosmetic purposes. However if there is evidence that the dog is injuring these areas a vet MAY decide to remove them on medical grounds. This is quite a rare occurence so thankfully the Animal Health and Welfare Act is good news for the majority of pets who have body parts removed needlessly.