doing your own puppies dew claws?

[mekasmom]

I always take my litters into a vet at 2-3 days. They do a whole litter for $12-25 depending on how big the litter is. It's not illegal, and it should be done for the good of the puppies. It prevents ripped nails and dew claws.
You can do it yourself, but it's so cheap to have it done, why mess with it?

And it doesn't cost too much to have them done later if you have an older dog that wasn't done as a young puppy. I had a chihuahua's dew claws removed when her teeth were cleaned for an extra $25. It's not a big deal.

 

[Why and Dotte]

Dogs are born with dew claws I don't see why they need to be removed, it's like removing a toe

Pyrenees have double dew claws and don't have issues.

 

[SillyChicken]

Quote:
True for the front legs, but not on the back legs. Some will grow them, other's won't. Many breed standards require back dews to be removed but are ok either way with the front. The back dews generally are not attached by much and can be floppy and tend to catch and tear on things.

If your dog is over 3 days old you should not try to do any modifications on the dog. Take him to the vet if it's causing him problems or leave it be.

 

[rodriguezpoultry]

Huh? Back dew claws? None of my dogs have ever had back dew claws??

Thunder, my lab, was dew clawed when I got him. He wasn't much of a jumper, so I didn't really see the point in the dew claw removal. Personally, I will never do it to any of my dogs, but I see no reason to condemn others for doing it.

 

[Crazyland]

Not all puppies are born with rear dew claws.
It just has to do with the breed standard too. Like the Pyrs have to have double dew claws or it is a fault.
One of my adult dogs has dewclaws, the other two were born without. All 6 of the pups were born without them.
Not all dogs need to have them removed. If they are not active working dogs or show dogs then I see no reason to traumatize them even a little. Just be an active owner with your pet and clip them.

 

[arabianequine]

Maybe I was not clear.....this has nothing to do with me trying to do it myself. She is 6 months old and a St. bernard a big puppy now. I would never have the guts to when little let alone now.

This has to do with I was told it was already done and at 8 weeks I was told by one vet it was spendy to have removed $175 for just one and need 2 removed they are the back 2 . I do not feel it was done right since they grew back and the breeder admitted they did themselves so I was wondering. I should not have to be out any more money not like that anyways. Not for as much as I spent on my dog to begin with I trusted things should have been done right buying an akc puppy and from a breeder. Live and learn.


I did call another vet though and they charge $75 for both to be done and it is my regular vet so maybe I will just do that and not enough to fuss with.....she needs her rabies shot too.

 

[Crazyland]

AKC breeder means nothing. Some are back yard breeders finding a dog they can breed and make a lot of money from. I know several people like this locally. Some are "getting out" and selling off all their dogs. One guy got several chi's during the taco bell craze and bred his dogs back to back until they were of no use. People bought them cause they had akc papers. It is really sad.

We all live and learn, and it can be very hard lessons to learn when it comes to our animals.
I bet your girl is spoiled rotten.

And that is all that matters right?

 

[redhen]

If its been 6 months..i think its too late to bother the breeder now...
Sucks though..

 

[arabianequine]

Quote:
Yes she is and that is true but if I show I have to have them removed.

Redhen when I had her seen by a vet at 8 weeks the day after I got her we could feel them then.....and the breeder got a copy of this visit and this was mentioned on the paperwork she required a vet visit for the health guarantee so she knew all along. The price though from my regular vet to have this done now is much more reasonable....I can live with that and not worth fussing with the breeder over.

 

[Jamie_Dog_Trainer]

If the toes "grew back" that means they weren't removed completely in the first place. Something that is removed won't grow back. There had to be a screw up and a partial removal of the toe instead of the breeder cutting the toe off at the joint which is how it is supposed to be done. That is why I like using the hemostat to dislocate the dew claw before cutting it off -- you won't have anything left of that portion of the toe at all. It will never grow back.