Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTeddykins   Removal of dew claws
Contrary to some opinion, the removal of dogs' dew claws is not currently illegal under the Animal Welfare Act.
While it is illegal under the mutilations clause of the Act to carry out a prohibited procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of a protected animal otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment, permitted procedures are listed in the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.
Schedule 1 of the regulations lists the removal of the dew claws of dogs as a permitted procedure. Schedule 9 goes on to clarify that anaesthetic must be administered except where the dog is a puppy whose eyes have not yet opened as per the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Therefore legislation in relation to dewclaws remains unchanged and a layperson or veterinary surgeon may continue to remove the dewclaws of puppies whose eyes have not yet opened.
The Kennel Club's position is that it does not support the cosmetic removal of dew claws. It does recognise however that in certain individual circumstances the removal of dew claws is in the best interests of a dog's welfare.
It should also be noted that there is no requirement within any of the Kennel Club Breed Standards that dew claws must be removed.
Last updated - July 2014
- See more at: Removal of dew claws ? The Kennel Club
Allowed FOR NOW in certain circumstances. Further reading, elsewhere, will show that MOST dogs have no problems at all EVER with their dewclaws and that they are actually used as thumbs.
There is a chance that our appendix may burst at some point in our lives. Appendicitis is often FATAL in children. The appendix has NO KNOWN function. Yet, we do not remove the appendix from our 2 day old infant children.
Just saying. |
The only reason we do not remove the appendix on new born children is because, unlike tails on dogs, the appendix is an internal organ and requires invasive abdominal surgery. If that little old useless appendix was hanging off our new born's leg or back or chin or butt, we would have it removed too. Like tail docking, it would not be considered a major invasive procedure, who's risks of removal may outweigh the risks of leaving it intact......simple procedure, remove the object, and move forward none the less for wear, but with the knowledge that removal of that object could have very well prevented a major problem from occuring in the future. It was useless, not needed, removal of it caused no problem with the health or development of the dog/newborn.....but it is nothing more than a personal choice. If the parent doesnt mind that useless appendix hanging off their childs chin or butt, then no problem for the parent...may cause problems for the child later, but hey, cross that bridge when you get to it! Dont worry about how much easier it is on the child to have that appendix removed when the child is 2 days old as opposed to waiting for the child to become 40 years old.....
And as we now try to remove that useless appendix which has been left intact, hanging off the babys chin, and the child is now a 40 year old little person, that useless appendix has grown nerve endings and "roots" that now wrap around the facial nerves, even as far up as the optic nerve....NOW, removal of that useless old appendix is a major invasive procedure that can result in paralysis of facial nerves or blindness from involvement around the optic nerve. My goodness....who woud have ever thought such an adorable little cute thing growing on our newborn child/dog
would have caused such horrific challenges and problems for the child/dog later in life. It all boiled down to nothing more than what you prefer...remove this useless little object who's removal had no detrimental health consequences for dog or child when removed early in life....or leave it intact, take your chances and throw the dice.