What is your opinion on dewclaws?

Share hunting dog tips, hunting dog training questions or links of interest here.

Moderators: captainkevan, swampbilly 1980, HNTFSH, hunt-chessies

Postby Greg Wile » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:56 pm

I have never had dew claws removed on any of my hunting or house dogs. I have hunted hounds big and small, in all kinds of conditions, rocks, briars/brambles, ice snow, long grass, etc and my retrievers work in just as bad of conditions and have yet, with any of them , to suffer an injury to the dew claws. I have had some cut paw pads due to slobs breaking bottles and discarding junk in the woods and waters. :pissed:
Build memories, take a kid out doors and teach them about nature by interacting with it, hunting and fishing.

Learn from the past, don't dwell on it.
Greg Wile
hunter
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada


Postby lars » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:20 am

Right, more of a personal preferance....
went puddler hunting this year as usual.... shot more divers than puddle ducks. typical
User avatar
lars
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: the big river, MN

Postby lars » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:24 am

Right, then just more of a personal preferance...
went puddler hunting this year as usual.... shot more divers than puddle ducks. typical
User avatar
lars
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: the big river, MN

Postby terryg » Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:12 pm

here's your reference matt. it can be found in your own choice for reference.

http://netpet.batw.net/articles/dewclaws.html

in your aposted reference the author stated


"Although natural selection dumped the 1st digit from the hind foot fairly far back in the evolution of canids (and also, independently in cats) the thumb has persisted on the forefoot in digitigrade carnivores. There may well be a reason it is retained."


OR THERE MAY NOT BE!

this is called a supposition, not to be confused with a fact.

this was not a study but a Ph.D thesis. thesis is another word for postualated theory. theory is another word for something that has not been scientifically proven.

hope that satisfied you more than your response satisfied me. :thumbsup:

i am assuming all of you are grown ups and have the ability to make your own decisions.

all i would caution, and only in the vein of being helpful, that you be prepared to live with the decisons you make.

GREG, i have driven cars and motorcyles for close to 40 years. only ONE TIME did i get hit by a car and spend 42 days in the hospital, a year in a wheel chair, 2 more years learning to walk again, and am still suffering problems over 23 year later.

i guess you're right. it doesn't happen too often! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
User avatar
terryg
hunter
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:14 pm
Location: butte sink, california

Postby harvey1b » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:51 pm

terry,

In this document, as you point out, the author states "there may well be reason" why the appendage has been retained. She then goes on to share with us the insight she gained while doing her PhD investigation (a scientific process). Her insight, explained in the paragraph following the one you have sited, is that the front dewclaws have been retained because they serve a purpose in fast running dogs.

I am not suggesting a PhD is all knowing, no matter what the holder of the PhD might have you believe. However, she writes as a "functional anatomist, paleontologist, and dog breeder" and I think deserves SOME, not total, credibility. She does not present her credentials or data in this document, I'll give you that, and if she did it would be more convincing, what is "a fast running dog" for instance. In searching the internet it was the best reference I could find to illustrate my point that there is a an arguement for leaving on a sporting dog's dewclaws.

I don't want to get into a lit review debate in which you stand behind a rock and critisize one reference I provided. I was hoping you would present a publication defending your point instead of poking holes at the one I have shown. In fact the only other arguement I have seen is the one I found which argues the middle of the road. In my original post I stated there is scientific research that defends the purpose of dewclaws. I admit this paper isn't a water tight arguement and I know the science behind it has to be taken with a grain of salt. MoTriples warns against anti-cruelity propaganda and I appreciate his concern, but the PETA arguement, when present, is pretty easy to see and I don't beleive it to be part of the spirit of the document I have sited.

With all this said, if you have a reference that defends your claim that dewclaws are useless I would enjoy reading it.


-Matt
Image
User avatar
harvey1b
hunter
 
Posts: 2862
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: upstate ny

Postby HuntingWife » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:19 pm

Rat Creek wrote:The way I look at it is if we leave them alone, they may evolve into a full functioning thumb. When that happens the dog may be able to drive you to the club and load your gun for you, and of course, give you a thumbs up when you make a good shot. :thumbsup:


:toofunny:

My kind of thinking! And don't forget getting you a beer out of the cooler after a long day's hunting!
In God we trust, all others must show ID.
User avatar
HuntingWife
hunter
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: Georgia

Postby lars » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:21 pm

:salude:
went puddler hunting this year as usual.... shot more divers than puddle ducks. typical
User avatar
lars
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: the big river, MN

Previous

Return to Hunting Dog Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Duckdon and 22 guests