[shannonrae]

For those of you who are adamantly against spay/neuter I am curious to know, why? Not only why, but I also want to see proof! Scientific studies, or articles from reliable sources are mainly what I am interested in.
I have heard some pretty "out there" reasons and would like to know the sources behind them. Not that I don't care about personal experience, it is just way too subjective. I think if we are advising people to keep their dogs intact we should have some numbers/studies/indisputable evidence to back it up!

I tend to lean towards S/N. However, I have considered waiting until my dogs were older. I am also slightly biased due to my profession!
I am genuinely interested in the "other" side of the fence!

 

[novarobin]

There is nothing indisputable for either side. Both sides can claim data that supports their side.
Here is one that lists studies that looks at both risks and benefits of spaying/neutering. Some are dated.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

I am not against spay/neuter. They are benefits and risks to both neutering and leaving a dog intact. To me, the only benefit to neutering is to prevent unwanted litters. Since I can do that myself, I don't see the need to subject my dog to surgery.
As for spaying, there is the added risk of pyometra, particularly in bitches who have never been bred.

 

[Samba]

So far I didn't come up with the better articles where the research is cited, but I know they are out there if the search engine is run correctly. Still some interesting bits of input on the issue.

I am not personally convinced of the health benefits for my own dogs of spay/neuter. For sure, I see no need to alter my animals for "societal good", as mine are not contributing to an overpopulation problem.

It is a personal choice of course as to how one approaches the pros and cons of altering their animals.

http://www2.dcn.org/orgs/ddtc/sfiles/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf%20

Pet sterilization laws raise health concerns - Health - Pet health - Creature Comforts - msnbc.com

Stalking the Spay/Neuter Standard

Spaying/Neutering, do the benefits always outweigh the risks? (Not about pet overpopulation but for the dog)? - Yahoo! Answers

Should I spay or should I no... pros and cons of neutering

 

[GoSearchk9]

There is nothing indisputable for either side. Both sides can claim data that supports their side.
Here is one that lists studies that looks at both risks and benefits of spaying/neutering. Some are dated.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

I am not against spay/neuter. They are benefits and risks to both neutering and leaving a dog intact. To me, the only benefit to neutering is to prevent unwanted litters. Since I can do that myself, I don't see the need to subject my dog to surgery.
As for spaying, there is the added risk of pyometra, particularly in bitches who have never been bred.

This is completely false. If you spay a dog there is NO chance of them getting a pyometra. The only way for the dog to get a pyo is to leave her intact....

Heres my argument for this. Science and medicine is always changing/developing new theories, new ideas on what causes cancer. There ARE many benefits with s/n. Im sure there are some for not doing it as well...but if there ARE benefits with s/n why wouldnt we reinforce this as animal lovers?!?!?! Now obviously Im not including reputable breeders in this argument. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have this magnificent breed. But for everyone else... Look at all the unwanted animals? If you can control your male from jumping the fence or control a male from jumping YOUR fence and breeding with your female...fine..everyone is entitled to do what they want with their own dog and I wont judge you for that. But not everyone, heck MOST people arent capable of this so I think we as responsible animal lovers and owners should advacate s/n....

 

[Konotashi]

It's very difficult to find articles on the negatives of speuter, I noticed. Since 99% of websites are biased to get your dogs fixed, a large majority of websites make it almost impossible to find info on the health risks of neutering.

 

[MrsWoodcock]

"More recently, two retrospective studies were conducted that did utilize control populations. One of these

studies involved a dog population in Europe5 and the other involved a dog population in America6. Both​

studies found that neutered male dogs have a four times higher risk of prostate cancer than intact dogs."

Thanks novarobin! Much interesting read!!!

 

[novarobin]

This is completely false. If you spay a dog there is NO chance of them getting a pyometra. The only way for the dog to get a pyo is to leave her intact....

Heres my argument for this. Science and medicine is always changing/developing new theories, new ideas on what causes cancer. There ARE many benefits with s/n. Im sure there are some for not doing it as well...but if there ARE benefits with s/n why wouldnt we reinforce this as animal lovers?!?!?! Now obviously Im not including reputable breeders in this argument. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have this magnificent breed. But for everyone else... Look at all the unwanted animals? If you can control your male from jumping the fence or control a male from jumping YOUR fence and breeding with your female...fine..everyone is entitled to do what they want with their own dog and I wont judge you for that. But not everyone, heck MOST people arent capable of this so I think we as responsible animal lovers and owners should advacate s/n....

Sorry, I wrote that after a 12 hour backshift. What I was TRYING to say was that the added benefit of spaying is that you avoid pyometra. I had said, IMO, the only benefit to neutering is preventing unwanted litters. The ADDED benefit of spaying is avoiding pyo. Poorly written, I apologize.


I also agree that many owners can't manage intact dogs. I never discourage spay/neuter. I simply believed in an informed decision and my right to decide what is best for my dogs. I choose not to neuter for many reasons.
I haven't owned a bitch, so I haven't had to make that decision.

It's very difficult to find articles on the negatives of speuter, I noticed. Since 99% of websites are biased to get your dogs fixed, a large majority of websites make it almost impossible to find info on the health risks of neutering.

:thumbup:
I agree. I have done a lot of looking. Most pro-neutering sites can't even give data to support. We are innudated with sites, including those from vets, telling us that not neutering can cause aggression, marking, wandering, humping, that our dogs will be happier and healthier after doing it. These are not just behaviors found in intact dogs and some of this are very much trainable.
I have found sites that say there is no risk (hello, anesthestic, although a low risk, is still a risk).

 

[ChancetheGSD]

I don't think "many" owners can't keep manage intact dogs, I think MOST can't. I can't think of ONE single owner I know in real life who hasn't had at least one escape. Does it mean the dog had babies? No. But they -could- have. The fact the escape happened, means they don't need intact dogs. Someone on here once said their meter reading guy left their door open and their dogs got out. If this is a possibility, YOU DON'T NEED AN INTACT DOG!!!! (Because you obviously, aren't checking gates before letting them out and aren't watching them when they're out) If it's "just a pet", there is NO reason for an AVERAGE owner to keep them intact. There just isn't. Not enough people are responsible enough to handle it. I'm not saying NOBODY is, I'm saying that MOST dog owners AREN'T.

Just because you don't let your dog run free doesn't mean you should own an intact dog. Though I don't believe your dog being altered is a reason to let it run loose either.

It has little to do with health risk or benefits. It's the fact we have over run shelters and "normal" dog owners are the cause of it. If a neutered dog eating Pedigree gets cancer, I'm not going to automatically assume the neuter is to blame...There is a good chance the dog eating chemically (chemicals that are SHOWN to cause cancer at that) preserved CRAP is to blame. So many things go into a healthy or sick animal, you can't point to just ONE thing and of all the things that can cause your dog to get sick or die, spaying/neutering is pretty darn low.

 

[Betty]

Are there that many people that are "adamantly" against spay/neuter? I know some people feel that spaying and neutering is shoved down peoples throats but even most of them are not against it, they are against the fervor for which the case for early spay/neuter is presented.

If someone asks my opinion I suggest that they wait until the dog is physically mature if they are comfortable with their ability to contain the dog. No studies to back it up but I just can't believe that those hormones aren't good for something while the dog is growing and maturing.

 

[PaddyD]

Are there that many people that are "adamantly" against spay/neuter? I know some people feel that spaying and neutering is shoved down peoples throats but even most of them are not against it, they are against the fervor for which the case for early spay/neuter is presented.

If someone asks my opinion I suggest that they wait until the dog is physically mature if they are comfortable with their ability to contain the dog. No studies to back it up but I just can't believe that those hormones aren't good for something while the dog is growing and maturing.

OK, I am going to stick my neck out and ask a 'dumb' question: What is the deal with having to reach physical maturity for a female? I can see it for a male where you are waiting for him to have secondary sex characteristics,....... but a female?
Thanks in advance for responding.

 

[ChancetheGSD]

There was a study done on Rotties that females who kept their ovaries until 6-8 years old lived longer or something. Personally, after going through it, the risk of pyometra isn't worth keeping an intact female.

I know a Great Dane who was neutered young and is happy and healthy at 13 years old. :shrug: Considering their lifespan expectancy is 7-10 years, I'd say they are doing something right.

Like I said before, I think there is a lot more that goes into a healthy and long lived dog than if they're spayed/neutered or intact.

 

[DJEtzel]

This is my take on it. There are studies for both sides. I've seen more data posed in the way of it being a negative to spay/neuter your dog. Even if the risk is low or there is data of both sides, why choose an elective surgery for no reason? My dogs don't and have never escaped, and if you're responsible it isn't hard to keep that from happening. Sure accidents happen, but if they haven't happened to me yet, who's to say they will? Neutering isn't going to change my dog at all, it's just a waste of money. So why bother?

I could argue the risks of this and that all day, but no one cares. It's what's best for me and my dogs, and it's what will be.

OK, I am going to stick my neck out and ask a 'dumb' question: What is the deal with having to reach physical maturity for a female? I can see it for a male where you are waiting for him to have secondary sex characteristics,....... but a female?
Thanks in advance for responding.

If you neuter an animal (general term- neuter for spaying too) before it's growth plates close, they continue growing longer than they should. They get taller than they would have, and bones don't usually grow into joints the way they were supposed to which can lead to hip dysplasia, arthritis, joint issues, etc.

 

[Kelly's Buddy]

You won't get a definitive answer to this question because it all depends on the perspective. If you are rescue centered, S/N makes perfect sense to control population and backyard breeding. If you're a vet, you'll cite health advantages and behavior control. These two reasons alone will keep anyone from coming out against it.

Personally, I think there is a lot of $$$'s for procedures and supplies not to mention drugs and antibiotics on the line and it's huge part of the multi-billion dollar pet care industry.

Who's going mess with that?

 

[ChancetheGSD]

Joint problems (HD, ED, ect) and arthritis can be caused by natural aging, genetics and things such as jumping on and off stuff, running on hard surfaces, ect too though. So you can't say that because a dog gets HD and was neutered at 6 months old, that it's because he was neutered young.

 

[DJEtzel]

Joint problems (HD, ED, ect) and arthritis can be caused by natural aging, genetics and things such as jumping on and off stuff, running on hard surfaces, ect too though. So you can't say that because a dog gets HD and was neutered at 6 months old, that it's because he was neutered young.

But the research of dogs neutered young vs. older neutered dogs and hd and joint issues can, and does.

It's common sense, they cause a distortion of bones- why wouldn't that contribute to the HD they may get?

 

[ChancetheGSD]

So what about the dogs who have joint problems and are intact?

I'm not saying it -can't- contribute to it but that doesn't mean it's always the cause or will always cause it.

 

[GoSearchk9]

This is my take on it. There are studies for both sides. I've seen more data posed in the way of it being a negative to spay/neuter your dog. Even if the risk is low or there is data of both sides, why choose an elective surgery for no reason? My dogs don't and have never escaped, and if you're responsible it isn't hard to keep that from happening. Sure accidents happen, but if they haven't happened to me yet, who's to say they will? Neutering isn't going to change my dog at all, it's just a waste of money. So why bother?

I could argue the risks of this and that all day, but no one cares. It's what's best for me and my dogs, and it's what will be.



If you neuter an animal (general term- neuter for spaying too) before it's growth plates close, they continue growing longer than they should. They get taller than they would have, and bones don't usually grow into joints the way they were supposed to which can lead to hip dysplasia, arthritis, joint issues, etc.

Why is there no reason to s/n? Im kind of suprised...I thought from reading posts from you in the past that you were involved with a shelter? maybe I was wrong. My beliefs also stem from seeing too many irresponsible owners bringing in dogs that were "accidentally" bred and having to do a c-section because they recieved no vet care. Many of the puppies die because they were bred with something too large or the owners were just idiots and didn't take proper care of mom because they "didn't know"

Just because you say your dogs havn't gotten out now you DONT know that they wont, or that a dog will get into your yard. I have seen many many dogs live to ripe old ages as fixed adults and never develop any type of cancer. I guess until I see some sort of "epidemic" im fixing my animals

 

[GoSearchk9]

I think genetics play a MUCH larger role in all of this than s/n does. How long have these researchs been going on as well? I still havn't seen an article from a source thats reputable enough in my opinion. Show me actual vet journals with solid research and evidence and I would be more willing to pay attention. I would still fix my animals though

 

[JakodaCD OA]

I'm not sure I'm going to say or convey this right, but I have always wondered this:

They "say", early spay/neutering can for example, make a dog leggier, (or whatever you want to insert there),,ok, well how do they "know" that dog would have been shorter in leg if it wasn't s/n since it HAS been s/n??

Every dog is different, I just don't 'get' how one can say the above, when the dog in question either has been s/n or hasn't...make sense? LOL

 

[Samba]

It has to do with the epiphyseal closure of the bones which is stimulated by testosterone. Less testosterone influence can delay closure and result in more length of bone. This is utilized in children with abnormal growth patterns and hormones are adjusted.