Well the other thread got me thinking - we've made it illegal to dock the tails of dogs and yet it's perfectly acceptable to remove their dew claws. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit strange?
I was watching my dogs enjoy their marrow bones this morning, and I saw them using their dew claws to try and hold the bone still so they could rip the meat off. All wild animals have dew claws (including ourselves but we call ours a 'thumb'). There might be some animals without tails (like the lynx's etc) but there are none that I know of without dew claws so it seems, in my mind at least, quite unnatural to remove the dew claw.
Now I understand that it's done when the puppies are newborns and the nerves are developed properly so supposedly it doesn't cause them much pain - but I've seen 2 day old puppies get docked and they didn't really seem to notice that either - they just wanted back on the boob. I've heard that dogs can hurt themselves by their dew claws catching on something and so one argument is that it's done as a preventative measure. And yet, I've never seen or owned a dog that hurt its dew claw. Tails on the other hand - well I've seen more than I could count on one hand - my own dog has broken his tail.
I'm not trying to argue that tail docking should be allowed again - I just wish now they would change the breed standard for breeds like the Dobermann to give them a better and safer tail. I'm just wondering why the removal of dew claws is considered humane and acceptable whilst tail docking is a major social faux pas. Am I the only one for whom this doesn't really make sense?