I didn't remove them on my last litter. Always did before that, then got a bitch from a well-known and respected kennel and she had her dew claws. When I saw how much she used them, I realized it made sense to leave them. The puppy I kept from the litter uses her dew claws and it's only 2 more nails to maintain. It also seems to me that the dew claws don't grow as fast as the other nails as she manages to keep those pretty short.

On the other hand, my former neighbor had a Golden Retriever (pet quality/pet home) who riped his dew claw and the vet charged $600 to repair/remove. Ouch! On both counts!

I am not a breeder but prefer my dogs to have dews because I know how much they use them. I spoke to a well known breeder once(yes...just once) about getting one of her pups. the second time we spoke she advised me that she removed the dews. I never realized this was done in labs. I explained to her that unfortunately I wanted my dog to have dews so would be looking elsewhere. She actually started berating me about my decision and preceded to hang up on me. I was shocked. It was not as if I said she was wrong for removing them so have no idea why she would be so judgmental of my choice.
That was 6 years ago. I wonder if she is still removing them.

I did ask her why she removed them becasue I was surprised by the practice(not realizing it was done in labs) She said because of injury but also because she "liked" the look of a clean front leg.

I can understand people thinking it might prevent injury but to remove something that is a functional claw because you "like" the way it looks is just wrong!

25 years ago I removed them because I followed the trend. about 15 years ago I stopped because I saw absolutely no reason to remove body parts unnecessarily.

In the past 15 years I have had two toe injuries, both in the middle of the foot.....maybe we should just take off all the toes to prevent this from happening ... just in case.


It is not the breed standard, it is not a DQ or a Fault. It is just the breeders personal choice, no right or wrong.

I remove dew claws myself, but I have bought a puppy that still had his dew claws, so it is not something that would make me reject a dog I would otherwise want to have. His dew claws grew much more rapidly than his other claws and needed a lot of trimming to keep them from being a hazard to himself and to me! He did not wear them down at all, and the ends became very pointed and sharp and curved back toward his leg, even with consistent trimming.

Many of the dogs owned and bred by the people on this forum do nothing more hazardous than walking on a leash down a sidewalk or climbing onto a couch. I sell many of my pups to people who want to work their dogs, often in the field. All of the dogs I keep do field work. The serious field people (not those who earn an occasional JH, but the people who are out there in the field day after day training or hunting with their dogs) usually remove the dew claws - with reason. We have all seen or heard about serious injuries to dogs with dew claws that get caught on something when the dog is working. A torn dew claw can be a serious injury.

Knowing how much trouble I go to to ensure the conformation, working ability , temperament, and health of my puppies, and how hard it is to meet my standards on all four counts, I would not want to deal with someone who rejects my puppy because it does not have its dew claws . But I can understand why a serious hunter or field trainer would want them removed.

"Someone that chooses not to get one of your pups because it's dew claws are removed is not "rejecting" your puppy(or your opinion) You act like people aren't entitled to a difference of opinion and if they do think differently "you would not want to deal" with them. That is very close-minded. You were not the breeder I spoke to but imagine you think I deserved to be hung up on. :("

What is your definition of "rejecting"? it certainly differs from mine. The fact that you prefer dewclaws doesn't bother me. The fact that you would be interested in my rather specialized breeding program to begin with (It's definitely a niche; most people are not interested in the multi-purpose dog with pedigrees from older, more moderate and genetically safer lines that I am trying to breed.) and then reject a puppy for something trivial like whether or not it has dew claws indicates to me that I would rather deal with people who are more adaptable and/or more committed to the goals of my breeding program. As i said in another post, I prefer the dew claws be removed, but bought a puppy with dew claws, myself. He became a Ch CD JH CGC, by the way. Presence or absence of dewclaws isn't that big a deal. And I never hang up on anyone. I am happy to discuss my reasons for doing what I do to the total satisfaction of the caller.

Here is a link to a discussion of dew claws on the retriever training forum. It's long, but it seemed to me the vote was going 2 to 1 for removing them, and quite a few people had experienced problems with dew claws tearing.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80033&highlight=dew+claws&page=3

Personally, I remove dews on my pups. I have seen quite a few pet owners who do not tend to the trimming of the nails, let alone the dews, and it really bothers me to see long nails/dews that are neglected.
I have dogs which I have purchased, with dews, and it is a minor annoyance to me to need to trim the dews, but certainly not a deal breaker in a great prospect!
It is a personal choice, no right or wrong, in my opinion.

Somewhere there is an article supporting not removing dews. Reasons being that removing them weakens the ligament that supported it thereby weakening the pastern. If dogs are going to be worked often in rough terrain then maybe they should have their dews removed to prevent tearing it. Or - if the dews stick out on the side of the leg and are unsightly then remove them. My dogs carry their dews very close to their leg - not unsightly at all - and they use them for a number of activities.

I work my dogs in the field for hunt test training, run them in the fields daily for pleasure and do agility... and have puppies in pet homes that do the same, as well and real hunting. Everyone keeps thumbs here.

If we removed all the parts that could possibly get snagged, twisted or torn, just in case, we'd end up with pretty strange looking dogs ;)

We stopped removing them when we broght dogs over from the UK. They do not remove dews, crop ears, or dock tails. Never have had a problem with a dew claw getting torn.

When I first started I removed them then I noticed that many kennels were not, we have had our labs in all kinds of rough conditions in the past 30 years and never had a dew claw injury, we have had cut pads and ear tears from going through thick hedge, maybe we should crop their ears. Do what you are ok with, I have seen deformed dew claws where folks did not know what they were doing and messed them up.

Read the url I posted. Example after example of dogs injured by torn dew claws, posted by people who saw the injury first-hand.

My dogs do obedience, some at CDX level, and field and the youngest that had the dew claws removed lived to be over 14 with no unsoundness in front. If agility dogs are having problems, I would guess that jumping them on hard surfaces has a lot more to do with it than presence or absence of dew claws. I train outdoors on grass.

I can't figure out how coyotes, wolves, and foxes survive without humans to remove the dewclaws from their whelps if it is such an issue in the field. IMO, breed for nice tight feet, including dews held close to the leg.