Yes, people should be more responsible with their pets. Yes, they should not allow them to breed indiscriminately. But they aren't, and they do. Whether or not you (the general "you", not anyone in particular) want to acknowledge that fact doesn't change the truth. Thinking that people should have the ability to be responsible enough to prevent unplanned litters does not change the fact that many people either do not have that ability, or they simply don't know enough or care enough to be more responsible. Wishing and hoping and positive thinking doesn't make it so.

I have no problem with people who ARE responsible making the choice not to speuter their pets for whatever reason, but I completely agree that the default position should be to encourage the general public to do so.

 

I have no problem with people who ARE responsible making the choice not to speuter their pets for whatever reason, but I completely agree that the default position should be to encourage the general public to do so.

Exactly! I wish that everyone who decides to keep an intact pet could be responsible about following through on that choice. But the sad fact is that the average pet owner just doesn't do that. They aren't as diligent as some members here and they don't have the kennel set-up of other members.

If people could be half as militant about educating pet owners on the responsibility required to keep an intact pet as they are about preaching the evils of spay/neuter practices, there might be less of an over-population problem.
Sheilah-happily "mutilated" since 2000

 

Purebreds do end up in shelters, some more than others, but then again that depends on the area. No breed is exempt from ending up in a shelter. The shelter I volunteer for gets many purebred GSDs, purebred Labs, purebred Pitbull type breeds(or look like it) purebred Rotties and purebred Dobes. I am pretty sure there is a breed specific rescue out there for every breed listed with the AKC.

Oh and no I don't think I mutilated my pets as they have very little to zero scaring from the surgery or any other health related issues.. Sorry, I found that rather offensive. There are irresponsible owners of both intact and altered pets. Sadly, in reality, majority of the general public can't own an intact pet let alone an altered pet.

 

Okay
And you're doing just what you accused someone else of.
You can argue with my opinion all day but it's still my opinion and I know others share it, and that is, the general public should alter their pets.
I'm sorry if that opinion offends you but if you think about it, it shouldn't. Nobody said you were irresponsible for not neutering or spaying.

 

Well, you added another dimension to your argument. You added that this site's position is that the default should be spay/neuter. I was responding to that, which I disagree with wholly. And you linked spay/neuter with responsible, which will always get me going, that implies to not spay/neuter you are irresponsible -- this is not the case whether you are on your first dog or your tenth, whether you show, trial, work with your dogs, or if they are just pets.

I think we should educate people on how to be responsible with their pets, and not take the easy way out and just encourage everyone to get their animals altered.

FWIW, I do not believe the answer to teen pregnancies are passing out condoms, and putting them on birth control.

 

I think the word irresponsible is tossed around too much.
A lot of pet owners are ignorant. They think (asI did at one time) you get a dog. Then you feed it from the stuff at the grocery store, give it water, annual vaccinations, take it for a walk once in awhile, and if it develops any problems get rid of it. They don't view things the way a lot of people on dog forums do. People don't always give thought to the potential reproduction of their pets. There are also those who don't worry about males because they won't be stuck with the litter.
It happens with people. Boys will be boys but girl's get pregnant.
Education is the key but then you will still have some who truly are irresponsible.

 

The problem is many people refuse to educate themselves. I belong (and have for a long time) to a running forum and just last night got "defriended" by a long time friend on FB who is also a member there, because he INSISTED crate training is INHUMANE, TERRIBLE, an INJUSTICE, and DOGS HATE IT.

Oh, and he also thinks purebreeds are awful, and that everytime a person buys a purebred, a shelter dog dies.

I told him when pups were surrendered to the shelter at 8-9 months after the owners came home for the bazillionth time to a house destroyed, potty training accidents, and high vet bills because the dog got an intestinal blockage from the drapes he ate while not crated, he could go adopt the dog.

 

Yes, I did contact the parent club. I notified them that I had placed the dog in question into foster care and could they please refer any qualified adoption applicants to me. It was always my policy to contact breeders when I had that information, and this instance was no different. None of us had any luck and as far as I know, contact was never made. You know, in all the years that I routinely contacted breeders about dogs/pups of their direct breeding that ended up in the shelter or rescue, I had exactly ONE respond by stepping up and actually taking the dog back, or even helping to place the dog. It was a five year old male GSD bred by Mona Allison of Gem Crest Kennels in Boise. She didn't hem and haw and make vague noises about wanting to do something, but coming up with excuse after excuse why she just couldn't help. She stepped up. You know what the breeder of the Wolfhounds said? They weren't meant to be pets, he bred them as coyote control dogs and once sold had no more interest or use for them.

About Cavaliers...I am aware of how "unrare" they are. I used them as an example because they are relatively expensive, routinely and easily selling for $700-$800 and although common, a buyer does have to do some looking to find a puppy (you won't find them being sold in the Wal-Mart parking lot like you do some breeds). And yet they show up in shelters on a pretty routine basis. So purebred status and a relatively hefty price tag is not providing this breed with much protection from shelter life. That was my point, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

I find HSUS despicable in how easily they mislead the general public, especially when it comes to fundraising. And I really hate how they swoop in and pump all they can out of a high profile case, and yet provide the local folks with a big, fat goose egg when they do it. However, even a broken watch is correct twice a day, and it would be pretty short sighted to dismiss information based solely on who is discussing it. Don't you think? I found their theory of correlated population percentages interesting, and it certainly stood up nicely in my own community when I looked at the number of purebred dogs sitting in my shelter, compared to the number of dogs of that same breed in the owned population. Of course, my math skills are basic (at best), and I had to estimate based on the numbers I got from our local kennel club.
Sheilah

 

I think Sue was saying that people who let their dogs roam will do so, regardless of spay/neutered or not.

Here, we don't have a leash law, so it's legal to let dogs roam at will. across the street, they go through dogs on a regular basis. That I know of, there have been at least 5 litters of pups in the time I've lived here. Most of the dogs don't last long since we live on the highway and the local practice of the SSS method of dealing with problem dogs.

 

I guess this is what bothers me when it comes to issues of 'to s/n or to not s/n"

This catch 22 thing, so your (general your) dog was s/n and came down with 'something', I don't 'get' how one can blame it on that when how would one know the dog wouldn't have developed the 'issue' if left intact?

And vice versa?

I agree it's one's personal choice. My opinion is, if Joe Public has a dog they aren't showing, aren't breeding then spay/neuter it.

And I'm sticking to it)

 

I guess this is what bothers me when it comes to issues of 'to s/n or to not s/n"

This catch 22 thing, so your (general your) dog was s/n and came down with 'something', I don't 'get' how one can blame it on that when how would one know the dog wouldn't have developed the 'issue' if left intact?

And vice versa?

I agree it's one's personal choice. My opinion is, if Joe Public has a dog they aren't showing, aren't breeding then spay/neuter it.

And I'm sticking to it)

Certain things are traceable to pets being intact.

I agree with your position, above

 

I see the biggest problem is not dogs getting pregnant but dogs roaming. Dogs roaming at will hook up with other dogs and get pregnant, they run in front of cars, they can attack children or occasionally an adult, they spread diseases, they attack livestock, they tear up gardens and garbage, they run deer and other wildlife.

I see unwanted litters as symptom the main issue. When some lists list roaming as a reason to spay/neuter that almost suggests a get out of jail free card for altered pets. When you call up someone and say, I have your dog, and they say, just let him go, its ok, he's neutered, it puts up huge red flags as to where the mindset is in this country.

Some places do not have a leash law. Ohio does, and I have always lived here, and can only gage what people do by there always being a leash law. But it is a law that is not enforced, and dogs roam and unless a dog attack a child nothing is ever done about it, save an irate property owner might deal with the problem with a shot gun or rifle.

If you don't like BSL, then why not deal with the problem. The problem is not the breed. The problem is dogs being improperly contained, and maybe a bigger problem is the permissibility that people practice on the topic. HSUS's answer is to spay/neuter everything that moves. That solves the problem of these dogs having litters of unwanted mixes. It does not solve the problem of dogs attacking people, dogs attacking other dogs, dogs being run over, dogs attacking wildlife, dogs attacking domestic animals. And when the worst happens, suddenly the ignored problem is completely overlooked, and it is suddenly a breed issue where we should ban them all.

Spay/neuter to reduce the number of dogs in shelters is not our friend when it comes to keeping our dogs safe and legal. Let's deal with the problem, not the symptom.

 

Let's deal with the problem, not the symptom.

Routine protocol in a doctor's office calls for alleviating symptoms at the same time the underlying cause is being treated. Which is why medicine is given to bring a fever down while antibiotics are being administered to treat the underlying infection that is causing the fever in the first place. Because sometimes the fever can cause more long lasting damage than the infection.

Protect your right to breed by educating the casual pet owner, while, in the mean time, limiting the consequences of the uneducated and/or irresponsible owners. Those are the folks that should be the focus of your attention, not those who advocate the spay and neuter for most the casual pets.
Sheilah

 

I'm not following you selzer. Roaming intact dogs will create more roaming intact dogs. Roaming neutered dogs will not..


On the personal side. Every dog I have owned since I was a child were neutered. Except for a couple of dogs when I was a kid, all my dogs (big dogs) have lived to be ten or older. I never had a major medical problem with any until they were very old. So my experience and yours are very different.
There is certainly nothing scientifc about either of our experiences but my experience says all the medical concerns about s/n did not occur for me.
Maybe I was just lucky. I also vaccinated the crap out of them and had no consequences.
Interestingly though Jack had a very negative response to Frontline for flea and tick.

 

Personally, i only spay and neuter when there is a medical reason, period.

 

Maybe I'm lucky but I've never seen or caught a roaming intact dog. I've seen a few dogs at large but they were escaped pets and already speutered.

I'm all for spaying and neutering of pets but I also don't understand the attitudes and assumptions that intact males just howl day and night and try to get away so they can impregnate every female. My male GSDs are both intact and the few times I've left a gate open they've never left the yard (and I'm not talking about a large "property" conducive to roaming GSDs, I can spit a cherry pit from the street to the back fence). My males train, show, and compete next to intact females sometimes in standing heat and it's never been more than a minor annoyance.

I don't neuter my males because I don't have one good reason to do it. It's never really crossed my mind, doing it just for the sake of it.

Females I think are different. My way of preventing accidental breedings is to not own females. I think there are greater health concerns leaving a female intact that to me are not worth the risk for a non-breeding animal, but I also don't like early spay just because and won't put up with 3-4 heat cycles so no females for me. Easy enough.

I just choose not to own what I don't think I can handle.

 

Oddly enough, there are more intact stray females in my area than there are intact stray males. I think the cost of the surgery has a lot to do with it, since it is so much cheaper to neuter than it is to spay.

I have also seen more female puppies sold with the idea of breeding later to make back the initial purchase price. My neighbor just bought a Golden puppy and when I asked what made them choose a female, I was told that they can breed her later and selling even one litter later on will more than return the initial cost of the puppy. Maybe this is why so many people (based on, say, newspaper ads) set a higher price on their female puppies?
Sheilah

 

Oddly enough, there are more intact stray females in my area than there are intact stray males. I think the cost of the surgery has a lot to do with it, since it is so much cheaper to neuter than it is to spay.

I have also seen more female puppies sold with the idea of breeding later to make back the initial purchase price. My neighbor just bought a Golden puppy and when I asked what made them choose a female, I was told that they can breed her later and selling even one litter later on will more than return the initial cost of the puppy. Maybe this is why so many people (based on, say, newspaper ads) set a higher price on their female puppies?
Sheilah

This is huge. My guess is that 90% or better of your oops litters started with this little gem of a thought in the back of their minds.

These people will not spay their bitch. They WANT to have a litter. I paid $400 for her, I am going to get a litter out of her and make the money back. This is where people use every method under the sun to encourage these people to spay, scaring them with horror stories, pulling on the heart strings with all the poor puppies being euthanized in shelters, shaming them with the responsible dog-ownership spiel. By the time they manage to get her pregnant, they are well-aware that it is not going to be well-received so they adopt the tried and true whoops. People will do what they want to do. All of that other stuff applies to others not them. But, until they have that litter, all the begging and pleading and educating won't matter at all. Their dogs are not pregnant because they are too irresponsible to manage an intact bitch properly so that she does not, it is most of the time, because they want a litter.

These are the people that say they will have just the one litter and then spay.
These are the people that say they want their children to experience the miracle.
These are the people that say they want their bitch to experience motherhood.
These are the people who want to make back their purchase price.
These are the people that want to have one of her babies.
These are the people that don't worry about legislation, because they aren't going to bother abiding by it anyway.
These are the people who will sell puppies for 2-500 dollars and argue vehemently that they are not a BYB, that they are not all about the money.

 

People who spay/neuter do not WANT puppies. If the surgery to alter suddenly costed 4,000 dollars, those people who own dogs, that do not WANT puppies, would figure our some other way to ensure their bitches do not get pregnant. Really, it is not all that hard. I agree with whoever objected to the idea that intact dogs are running around crazy to get at the females all the time. And I love the fellow who says all his dogs have always been spayed or neutered, but is so concerned with how hard it is to keep them intact. If my little brother can do it with two bitches and a dog, anyone can. If the current lot of spayed or neutered dogs were intact, they still would not be the problem. The problem is the irresponsible owners who actually WANT puppies until they figure out what they are in for.

 

If the current lot of spayed or neutered dogs were intact, they still would not be the problem. The problem is the irresponsible owners who actually WANT puppies until they figure out what they are in for.

Never heard of any statistics or proof of that. It's fine if you believe that but I have a feeling that it's your own idea and not necessarily a fact.

 

Irresponsible owners who want puppies are PART of the problem, they are not the only problem.

 

I think the problem here is that you, Sue, are focusing so hard on one tree that you have completely missed the forest that you are standing in.

You are dead right with your assertion. But that is only one facet of the overall problem that requires a multi-pronged approach. Encourage folks who shouldn't be breeding or have no interest in breeding to alter their pets, while also attacking the misinformation and miseducation issue. Once you have a good handle on that issue, then the whole idea of alteration becomes moot, since most of those that choose to keep their pets intact will do so in a responsible, informed manner. Regardless of why they make the decision to keep the pet intact, they know what they need to do in order to do it correctly.
Sheilah

 

I spay/neuter for a plethora of reasons beyond just not wanting puppies. When I add up those reasons with the bonus that, hey, they won't be able to reproduce, it's a big
"winning" for me!

Sit,stay is right. There's a forest out there. Stop freaking out about s/n like it's a death sentence.
Perhaps you had/have problems which may/may not be related to s/n.
But I have not.
Many many people have not, in fact, most people have not, or there would not be so many people having it done to their pets. If vets lost every 5th patient on the table, or a year after the s/n even, and could trace it to "complications" of s/n, they'd quit doing it.

 

We've only ever come across and 'captured' 2 strays. Neither were altered. I've seen other strays, but couldn't catch them.

The first was Sania, our lab. After we decided to keep her (after searching for her owners for a while with no luck), she came into heat. After her cycle, we had her spayed.

Second dog was a husky/lab mix. I found him wandering next to a busy road by our neighborhood. He followed two kids out of our neighborhood and I asked them if he was their dog. They didn't even know he was following them, but he wasn't theirs. So I managed to get him into my car and took him home. Aiden HATED him. He has an issue with intact males, except for Ozzy since he's been here since puppyhood. We had to find him a new home within two days. A woman took him, and said she'd get him neutered ASAP. Few months pass by, and she calls my mom saying he's being destructive because she's pregnant. Psh. So we post an ad for him on Craigslist, and the ORIGINAL owner that lost him saw the ad (after giving up looking for him, they got online to find another dog). She went to pick him up and showed the person we rehomed him to pictures from when he was a puppy and was crying because she thought she'd never see him again.

Do I think people should spay and neuter their pets? As a general rule, yes. A large majority of people are too lazy or incapable (or whatever you'd like to call it) of containing an intact dog.

Will I have my males neutered? No. Vasectomized? Most likely.

I would spay my females after they were at least 2 years old.

 

I'm with Sue on this one. I will not have my perfectly healthy dog cut open for any other reason than medical. None of my dogs will ever get spayed or neutered as long as they are in my primary care.

And yes, it is easy to prevent an oops litter. Ooops can happen, I'm not saying that accidents could never happen, they could happen to me if I don't pay attention. BUT 90% of those oops litters were planned and then portrayed as oops.

 

I'm with Sue on this one. I will not have my perfectly healthy dog cut open for any other reason than medical. None of my dogs will ever get spayed or neutered as long as they are in my primary care.

I really don't care either way.....desex your dog....don't desex your dog.
What gets me when I read this thread is some of the language used.
Those who desex their dogs are "irresponsible" "mutiliating" and having their dogs "cut open" I mean really.....if the only way to get your point across is to make people feel like they are doing some barbaric practice then you should just give up

 

Benny is the first dog I have not neutered. With my prior dogs I just did everything the vet recommended when it came to speuter, food, vaccs. When i got Benny 2 1/2 years ago i began reading and researching everything I could find.

Benny had one retained testicle and based on my research I chose to decided to have the retained testicle removed, and leave the other intact in September when he was 2 and 4 months.

Benny will not be bred. When not with me, he is in the house. He goes many places with me and his being intact does not seem to cause any behavior problems. I have to pay more each month to renew Benny's license because he is intact which I think is unfair!

My sons adopted Pit Bull was spayed at 4 months before we were able to get her from the shelter and she leaks urine. ( not sure if the early spay was the cause). I wanted to wait until she was 18 months and would have signed a contract promising to not let her breed and spay her when she was mature but this was not allowed.

I do think speutering is the best option for people who cannot ensure their pets won't be bred.

There are studies that say speutering decreases risk of certain diseases, increases the risk of other diseases. We all owe it to out dogs to make the informed choice that we feel is best for the health of our dogs and if we keep them intact be responsible not to let them breed.

 

My SIL has a female GSD. She won't get her fixed b/c the vet charges to much. She's called around to tons of places close by her house.....and well over $500. So she decided not to get her fixed. She does have some money put back for vet bills...but she decided there is no reason to fix her female and spend all the savings she has saved up for her.

Personally, I think money could be the reason some people don't S/N.

For example...a local place had cheap S/N clinic one time. I think it was $45 for dogs. I read in the paper that there was over 800 people that showed up with their pets. SO MANY people that they had to turn most of them away.

 

I think it comes down to this. People who consider themselves "responsible," who go to the vet, seek out good breeders, etc will spay/neuter their dogs. Why? because that is what they are encouraged to do and believe is right. They are just average people, though, who don't LIVE dogs. A dog is a dog, even though they love them. COULD they handle an intact dog and put in the extra work? Yes, but they don't want to. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

In my entire life I can count on 1 hand the number of dogs I've came across that accidentally slipped out or gotten lost. In the 6 years I've lived here, there has been ONE!!! out of dozens of dogs. The owner was having some remodeling done and left her with a friend. The wife of the friend just let the dog out tied to a rope and she took off. The guy was frantic and found her at my house a few hours later.

The rest of the dogs? They are chronic roamers. It's the country, so everyone thinks dogs should be free. Add in no leash law and you have dogs all over. To those people, dogs are dogs. They roam, they get pregnant, they get run over, they die, you get a new one. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people fall somewhere along that range.

IF you can handle it, then keep your animals intact. If you want to spay/neuter because you are worried or even just because you don't want to deal with it, that's fine too. But, for the majority of the public, spay/neuter is the way to go. Why? because, sadly, they just don't KNOW enough or CARE to know how to keep their dogs from getting pregnant or impregnating someone else's. When Freya was in heat, my yard was dog central. They were climbing the fence, jumping on the windows, crowding my front door. If I hadn't blocked up the doggie door to keep her from slipping out unnoticed, I can guarantee that they would have been in my house!

I think it depends on where you live and what you know. Many of you describe neighborhoods where the people are generally responsible. They keep their dogs home and roaming dogs are pretty uncommon. Just this morning, I have seen 5 roaming dogs. They live in the trailer park across the street. There are 2 more dead in the highway within sight of my house. Counting up the ones I know and see on a regular basis, there are about 10. Well, 2 less now, but they will be replaced soon as there is a litter expected any day now across the street. 3rd one this year.

So, for me, having an intact girl is more than me just keeping her inside and under my watchful eye. Every potty trip was like running a gauntlet, complete with armed guards and lookouts. It wasn't just a convenience for me, it was a matter of sanity. I didn't know if I would be able to keep her safe for the rest of her life.

 

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this topic.
Here in our area we are also very rural. We (our rescue) has cleaned up more than one property, in fact...I'm thinking a couple per year (4yrs. of rescue) with basically a pack of feral dogs living on it.
And like your area, people let their dogs wander and they are intact.
Rather like feral cat communities, someone will invariably start feeding a dog, then it becomes two, then sooner or later you have puppies.
These puppies grow up with minimal contact and breed with each other and soon you have huge issues on your hands.
When we go there, we end up euthanizing most the adult dogs, a litter or two of puppies may be able to be saved but often the dogs over 6mos. are goners.
And the reasons giving for not altering the dogs? Not money. It's around $90-100 to spay a female at most vet clinics here.
It's because "the last time I got one spayed it got ran over".

But chronic roamers? Yep. Got 'em. And what's worse many of them are such awful mixes they won't even propagate "cute" puppies that will make suitable pets.

Veterinarians are correct to encourage neutering as stated below, and the 'general public' is correct to s/n whenever possible.

I think it comes down to this. People who consider themselves "responsible," who go to the vet, seek out good breeders, etc will spay/neuter their dogs. Why? because that is what they are encouraged to do and believe is right. They are just average people, though, who don't LIVE dogs. A dog is a dog, even though they love them. COULD they handle an intact dog and put in the extra work? Yes, but they don't want to. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

In my entire life I can count on 1 hand the number of dogs I've came across that accidentally slipped out or gotten lost. In the 6 years I've lived here, there has been ONE!!! out of dozens of dogs. The owner was having some remodeling done and left her with a friend. The wife of the friend just let the dog out tied to a rope and she took off. The guy was frantic and found her at my house a few hours later.

The rest of the dogs? They are chronic roamers. It's the country, so everyone thinks dogs should be free. Add in no leash law and you have dogs all over. To those people, dogs are dogs. They roam, they get pregnant, they get run over, they die, you get a new one. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people fall somewhere along that range.

IF you can handle it, then keep your animals intact. If you want to spay/neuter because you are worried or even just because you don't want to deal with it, that's fine too. But, for the majority of the public, spay/neuter is the way to go. Why? because, sadly, they just don't KNOW enough or CARE to know how to keep their dogs from getting pregnant or impregnating someone else's. When Freya was in heat, my yard was dog central. They were climbing the fence, jumping on the windows, crowding my front door. If I hadn't blocked up the doggie door to keep her from slipping out unnoticed, I can guarantee that they would have been in my house!

I think it depends on where you live and what you know. Many of you describe neighborhoods where the people are generally responsible. They keep their dogs home and roaming dogs are pretty uncommon. Just this morning, I have seen 5 roaming dogs. They live in the trailer park across the street. There are 2 more dead in the highway within sight of my house. Counting up the ones I know and see on a regular basis, there are about 10. Well, 2 less now, but they will be replaced soon as there is a litter expected any day now across the street. 3rd one this year.

So, for me, having an intact girl is more than me just keeping her inside and under my watchful eye. Every potty trip was like running a gauntlet, complete with armed guards and lookouts. It wasn't just a convenience for me, it was a matter of sanity. I didn't know if I would be able to keep her safe for the rest of her life.

 

I live for my dogs, I do anything for them, and CHOOSE to spay and neuter them because I feel that is best for them. I don't think it's a lesser choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by selzer
What gets to me about the spay/neuter issue is that people cannot just have an opinion. Everyone is either right or wrong. If we all give our opinions, and some of those are different than other people's opinions, then that person MUST come on and reinforce their position, and say over and again their position.

It is a choice.

I will fight that it remain a choice.

What people choose depends on their situation, personality, etc.

Alexandria610:

I haven't really read much of this thread, but this definitely caught my eye. I couldn't agree more with you. There have been a few instances where I've told my opinion on spaying/neutering, and while I have some people agree that my opinion is indeed my opinion, and that they may or may not agree with it, I have had one too many jump on me and tell me that spaying/neutering my pet is horrible and wrong and that, in conclusion from these words about my opinion, I must be a horrible pet owner.

I think it is very important that each and every person get the chance to make his/her decision in the matter. Do what you believe to be best, do what is best by your pet and his/her situations, and talk to your vet/breeder/handlers/competitors, etc. etc. in the dog world (as well as the cat world).

But yes, to shorten all of that, I agree whole-heartedly with your statement.

 

So I have a question. If you don't believe in cutting up your dog because of what might happen-- a very compelling argument-- would you do a gastropexy on a dog with a family history of dying young from D&V?

This is an honest question. I was planning on doing Kopper's gastropexy and neuter at the same time, between 18-24 months, but the argument for not doing surgery to prevent what might happen is a compelling one.

 

Honestly, we just never had to do any of that. In 30 years of dog breeding we had on bloat and two dogs with pyometra (one of which was Zensi).

We overall have healthy dogs. Yeah, HD here and there but other than that always healthy and no cancer or anything degenerative.... so I don't even think about stuff like that. It's just not even in the picture.

 

Emoore, if I already had my dog under anesthesia for a neuter I would have the gastroplexy done if there is a history of torsion. I would not have it done just to have it done and believe it shouldn't be done as a preventative in a breeding animal.

IMO a responsible owner is one that does what is best for their situation and the well being of their dogs. For some that means spay/neuter. For others that means leaving their dogs intact. This should be a choice of each owner and not something that is forced on people through guilt or laws.

Though Selzer's comments and opinions about s/n are a bit over the top and too blunt even for me I understand why she feels this way. At no time have I ever seen people trying to force others to keep all of their dogs intact. I have never seen laws being proposed to force mandatory intact dogs. I have never seen anyone attacked for not having testicles on their male dog. There is no agenda out there to force people to keep their dogs intact.

 

Couldn't agree more with you on that. :thumbup:

There are extremes on both sides. However, live and let live. If you s/n it's your decision and if I don't, it's mine and we should respect each others choice.