Re: [PyrNet-L] Heidi....

["Mitzi" <Pyrs@prodigy.net>]

I agree that the dewclaws shouldn't be removed. Vets are taught in
vet school to remove dewclaws. The only tonenail injuries I've seen
are in dogs without dewclaws. I happen to LIKE how they look, I think
they look neat. It's as much a part of a Pyr as any other aspect of
them. As far as slobbering....mine don't drool <BG>. But my Newfie
pup has been known to sling a stringer or 2 and I wouldn't trade him
for the world.
Mitzi Potter    Pyrs@prodigy.net
http://members.aol.com/pyrs/dogs.htm


On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 20:36:32 -0500, Beverly Coate wrote:

>I realize this is probably going to start a big flame but I would really
>like to know why someone would chose a breed of dog that has double dew
>claws as part of the breed standard and are know to slobber proficiently
>and then go to the trouble and expense of changing it?  If you didn't like
>these characteristics then why chose a breed that has them.  
>	The spaying is just great but the rest of it is change for no good reason.
> In 15 years of having and using Great Pyrenees for LGD in a heavily
>underbrushed part of our country we have never had a dog injure a dewclaw
>regardless of where they were located on the legs.  As for slobbering that
>is part of their way of cooling theirselves so why eliminate it, that is
>just asking for a dog to get to hot.