Dew Claws and Responsible Breeding
-
wrote on 15 Dec 2008, 23:32 last edited by
True as Tanza said we can debate this until the cows come home in sweden it?s forbidden same as ear chopping and docking you can?t even import a dog that has been tampered with after 2008.Circumcision just a man made cultural idea let the boy decide when he?s 18 who are we to mutilate our children look how many botch job?s there?s been no better stop talking before I see red..;)
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 00:34 last edited by
I have to say that having cared for a Jack Russell for many years that had dew claws and had problems with them, I'm glad I got my b's from a responsible breeder that removed them. It hurt Apatche just to get access to the dew claws to trim them because they grew so close to his paws…not to mention him catching them on things and tearing them. Dew claws were always a problem for him...
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 00:48 last edited by
After working in vet clinics for several years, I agree the dew claws should be removed. Having them ripped out is definately more stressful, painful and just more dangerous than removing them days after birth. As far as them being an idicator for a responsible breeder, it seems if the general concensus for breeders is to remove them, then that would be a sign that that dog MAY have come from an irresponsible breeder. The same as a dog coming without health testing would be a sign. I just think a responsible breeder would be more forward thinking as to what the dog needs as opposed to what they are willing to pay for.
As far as mutilating our children, I think that is a strong opinion but it is yours to have. My son is circumsised. That was our choice. I researched the pro's and cons and decided it was better than not. I never felt it was mutilation. I am curious, how many people do you know with botched circumcisions? I can honestly say in a country that circumsises a significant number of boys, I do not know one. Granted, I have never actually approached someone and asked either:eek:
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 00:58 last edited by
If you really research it, there are plenty of botched circumcisions here as well, it's just harder to figure out because we have such strict privacy rules.
I again feel against the general consensus, and think that although some breeds should have dew claws removed, there are others that should be allowed to keep them. Medjai has his, and hasn't had any trouble with them. He even uses them sometimes to help get the eye goop off his face.
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 01:13 last edited by
We routinely remove dew claws, but we do not do it ourselves as I know many breeders do - they go to the vet (with Mama, of course!) at 2-4 days old. If they grow back, as sometimes happens, we leave them. I know of at least one very responsible breeder here in So CA who does not remove them; she feels very strongly that they are a 'natural breed' and that means leaving the dew claws.
On a much more minor issue - we do not trim off our show dogs' whiskers. I feel that, like cats, the whiskers are a sensory organ for Basenjis. I've had several judges compliment me on leaving the whiskers on!
Terry
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 01:54 last edited by
We leave the whiskers always as it?s a sensory organ and secondly I would be penalized by the judge if he were to see that they had been removed :O
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 02:51 last edited by
We routinely remove dew claws, but we do not do it ourselves as I know many breeders do - they go to the vet (with Mama, of course!) at 2-4 days old. If they grow back, as sometimes happens, we leave them. I know of at least one very responsible breeder here in So CA who does not remove them; she feels very strongly that they are a 'natural breed' and that means leaving the dew claws.
On a much more minor issue - we do not trim off our show dogs' whiskers. I feel that, like cats, the whiskers are a sensory organ for Basenjis. I've had several judges compliment me on leaving the whiskers on!
Terry
Exactly… for whiskers... I do not do mine B's either.... and it has become pretty much common place for B's to have their whiskers... unless being shown on a national level... not that it should be a consideration... I think they should be left on....
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 07:10 last edited by
due to German animal protection laws it is forbidden to amputate a dog for no reason other than health issues. This means, that you are not allowed to remove the thumbs just because there could be a problem. Same is with whiskers. It is not alllowed to remove them just for "beauty issues". They are important senses for the dogs. Am I now a non-responsible breeder, because I let my dogs have their thumbs (which they use as thumbs by the way)?
Regards,
Esther -
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 08:52 last edited by
It's an interesting juggle between the ethics of the US and the standard ethics here in Europe. I find myself agreeing with the Euro standard that dogs should not be altered unless under threat of a health problem. Lycia has hers, and the breed has had them for thousands of years.. if there were problems , it seems the Bs managed anyway.
What is interesting is how there are so many apparent situations with dew claws in the US, but I haven't seen breeders here make so much of a huff about them here. Dew claws are dew claws, different continents don't change that issue. :confused:
-
wrote on 16 Dec 2008, 14:18 last edited by
As I said at the beginning of this thread, the presence of dew claws in the United States has a high correlation to the lack of health testing, use of contracts, etc. That doesn't mean that in other countries it is the same. As for everyone saying that they are a "natural breed", it is not an uncommon practice in the Congo for basenjis to have their tails docked, so even in their country of origin, they are not always left unaltered.
13/13