Dutch Shepherd Forum

Is it true that all DSG's are born without dew claws?

Nope. Many are born with dewclaws.

If we are talking about the front (we are, aren't we?) they are always born with. Never seen any without yet, and I have seen a LOT. Hind, mostly without. Rarely with.

I've seen quite a few with hind dewclaws too, they used to get clipped of right after they were born, this is now forbidden. (not everyone seems to be aware of that...)
In my first litter I had 2 with hind dew claws, in the second none. They all had front ones, never seen a DS without those

I have read many descriptions of the DS breed where they say they do not have dew claws...Sugar has them in the front only.

Thanks all. I had read that they aren't supposed to have them, but Ozzy does on his front legs, so I wasn't sure if that was a sign he wasn't a true DS.

So now I am truly wondering who or what is spreading the false rumor that they don't have any, because, at least in the front, they absolutely DO! Where did you read that, Sue and Kathy?

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/dutchshepherd.htm

Here is one spot. I had also read it on Wikipedia but now when I go there it doesn't say anything about dew claws. I've seen it elsewhere but I'd need to look it up on my computer instead of phone

Thank you Sue! Overall, not a bad article, though with some inaccuracies.
Maybe they got some of their incorrect knowledge from Wikipedia. (which can be edited by any user)
Anyhow. I appreciate the link. Let's see if there is a way to set their record straight.

Here is another site

http://www.trainpetdog.com/Dutch-Shephe ... pherd.html

I know I read it a few times when learning about the breed and trying to figure out if that is what Sugar was, but I don't know where else.

I think the fault could also be caused by the fact that in Holland, the term "dew claws" is generally only used for the ones on the hind leg. The front ones are often referred to as "thumbs". In the Dutch standard it is written
"Hubertusklauwen : Niet aanwezig." translated Dewclaws : None present

The thing is, most sites will shorten the standard, in th original text this is the part about the limbs:

LIMBS:

FOREQUARTERS :
The forelegs are powerful, of good length, well muscled. The bone is solid but not heavy. Always generally showing a straight line, but with sufficient suppleness of pastern.
Shoulder : Shoulder-blades well joined to the body and well sloping.

Upper arm : Approximately equal length to the shoulder-blades and well angulated with the connecting bones.
Elbow : Well attached.
Forefeet : Oval. Well knit, toes arched. Black nails and elastic dark pads.

HINDQUARTERS : The hind-legs are powerful and well muscled. The bone is solid but never heavy. Not excessively angulated.
Thigh and lower thigh : Of approximately equal length.
Hock : Perpendicular below the point of buttock.
Dewclaws : None present
Hind feet : Oval. Well knit, toes arched. Black nails and elastic dark pads.

So it's only for the HINDQUARTERS, but could be interpreted falsly...

@ Sue. Thanks again!!

I contacted the 'dogbreedinfo' site and they were very helpful, willing to make the correction.
In the process of researching why this mistake was made, though, I found the same info that Marjolein just posted. It is confusing, but yes, they mean that there are none to be expected on the hind legs. The difference is that the Dutch translation for hubertusklauw (dew claws on the hind legs) and wolfsklauw (on the front legs) translate to just one word in English.
Maybe you could point that out to the breed club, Marjo? (since you're a member?)

Sue, thanks for posting the link. That is where I got the information also . So glad I found you all to set me straight. I really appreciate all the advice.

But Marjolein pointed out that they do still occur on the hind quarters and now its not so common to remove them. Is this a sign of out cross?

Christie M wrote:But Marjolein pointed out that they do still occur on the hind quarters and now its not so common to remove them. Is this a sign of out cross?

Why would breeders not remove them, except in a breed where they are required to have double dews.
So very simple to remove on pups and prevent the mess you get (and expense of surgery) if an older dog rips them open!
One of our Beagles ended up with surgery and a nasty scar when she tore one out running in the snow. I had the other one removed at the same time. Could have been avoided if the breeder had removed them.
In my GSD's, very few were born with rear dewclaws, but those who had them didn't get to keep them for long. I always did my own pups and you couldn't tell as adults, who was born with or without.
I don't think it means anything as far as genetics, other than evolution.

alspyce wrote:

Christie M wrote:But Marjolein pointed out that they do still occur on the hind quarters and now its not so common to remove them. Is this a sign of out cross?

Why would breeders not remove them, except in a breed where they are required to have double dews.
So very simple to remove on pups and prevent the mess you get (and expense of surgery) if an older dog rips them open!

We all know that, but....
Not sure where to begin, Judith will understand what I mean... in Europe we have rules...and some more rulesn and...rules!

Evreything you can think of, is regulated. So, after a discussion about animal abuse, it was stated cropping ears and tail was a crime. So there was a law that fobids any "mutation" that is not medically necesary, this includes the removal of (parts of the) ear, tail and dew claws.
But, as with many rules in Holland, some things are just a rule. Everyone knows it's there, and ignores it
So yes, they are stille taken off, even when it is illegal.

In Germany however, they DO obey rules if I clip them, I will get fined, or even be banned as a breeder and I'm only trying to help the poor pups

Here when a dog is adopted by SPCA, same rules apply.

Christie M wrote:But Marjolein pointed out that they do still occur on the hind quarters and now its not so common to remove them. Is this a sign of out cross?

it is not a sign of outcross, it is because they changed the law they were always cut of without even thinking about it, no one ever kept track of the numbers of dogs with them. Once cut of, it is very hard to see if a dog had them or not, if you really know how to, you can still feel it when they are grown up

alspyce wrote: Why would breeders not remove them, except in a breed where they are required to have double dews. So very simple to remove on pups and prevent the mess you get (and expense of surgery) if an older dog rips them open!

Marjolein already answered that, but every procedure to alter a dogs appearance has become outlawed in much of Europe, regardless of how insignificant the procedure would be for new born pups and how involved the procedure when it has to be one at a later age, due to injury. If a breeder gets caught...(they can be in deep doo) Some still take the risk, others comply.

I know that in the USA, it is very usual to even remove front dew claws. Maybe even inspired by the false info that Ds's were not supposed to have any, but in reality, I see most breeds go without so I think it is just breeder common practice. I remember a discussion, long ago, with another breeder of DS's who said that even her Dutch imports had no front dew claws. I was adamant they would have them, she goes to look and finds dew claws on a dog that she had owned for a long time. Moral of story. They are often not obvious, but I am convinced that many dogs actually use the front ones, and I leave them on. I have removed hind dew claws though, on the rare occasion that they occurred.

I don't really understand...if its no big deal to get rid of them when they are born, (to prevent pain from injury later on,) its almost like THAT is abuse!

Sugar gets mud and grass stuck in her's all the time when she plays in the field when its wet (its pretty much wet all winter long here) and, its a pain to cut the nail there its so curly and hard to get to. It would be much easier if she didn't have them. Front dews claws I'm talking about.