[selzer]

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

Spaying and neutering has been used to mask the problem for years, and years, and years, and there is still a problem. Spay/neuter is more like a anti-depressants trying to mask the symptom of fatigue while the patient's cancer eats away at them. Almost lost my mother this way. Nothing is being done to address the problem. The problem is irresponsibility. That is the abscess that needs to be dealt with, and not just putting a band-aid over the part that is dripping goo.

 

[msvette2u]

Not sure about the area where you live but where I live, there are multiple neutered males running the streets. Also some females, I don't know if they're spayed or not. I'm thankful that these dogs are friendly, and I'm thankful that their owners were responsible enough to neuter them, even if they're not responsible enough to keep them from running the roads.

It's funny you should mention this, as an ACO picking up strays, I'd say 1 out of every 15-20 dogs I picked up were intact. I rarely, if ever, picked up spayed/neutered dogs. When I did, they were usually licensed.
The intact animals? Not licensed either.
I pondered that and still do.

 

[sitstay]

So far I have had bad luck with three out of three dogs altered.
So far I have had bad luck with two out of more than a dozen dogs not altered.
I think I am still ahead by not fixing what is not broken.

Which three dogs that were altered have you had problems with? You only named Arwen and Cujo as being altered, and you often talk about how wonderful Cujo is. He is from one of your first litters, correct? If so, more than enough time for all these neuter-related health issues to appear, I would think.

People could look at your numbers and decide that your two intact dogs that died young and unexpectedly is proof that reproductive alteration does NOT present increased health risks, just as you have decided that Arwen's death as an altered dog is proof that there ARE increased health risks. It goes both ways, depending on how you want to look at it.
Sheilah
P.S. I remember that you spoke of a possible congenital issue with the male that had the spine problem. You took a great deal of heat from some members here at the time, with a looong thread that went back and forth and the whole topic stuck out for me in a big way because that was when I first realized you were a woman.

 

[Freestep]

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.

Well put, thank you.

Sometimes the symptoms are more painful than the disease itself.

 

[sitstay]

Spaying and neutering has been used to mask the problem for years, and years, and years, and there is still a problem. Spay/neuter is more like a anti-depressants trying to mask the symptom of fatigue while the patient's cancer eats away at them. Almost lost my mother this way. Nothing is being done to address the problem. The problem is irresponsibility. That is the abscess that needs to be dealt with, and not just putting a band-aid over the part that is dripping goo.

I would agree with much of what you said. However, the band-aid over the abscess is a good thing, too, as long as that abscess is also being treated at the same time. Antibiotics are a good thing, but so is not dripping green pus all over the lady standing next to you at the grocery store.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Sue. Treating the root cause and limiting the consequences of that root cause at the same time should not be mutually exclusive. And by admitting that there are some pretty unpleasant consequences that should ALSO be addressed (please note the use of the word "also", rather than "instead") lends credibility to your position.
Sheilah

 

[Jack's Dad]

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.

 

[Alexandria610]

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.

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.

 

[selzer]

Which three dogs that were altered have you had problems with? You only named Arwen and Cujo as being altered, and you often talk about how wonderful Cujo is. He is from one of your first litters, correct? If so, more than enough time for all these neuter-related health issues to appear, I would think.

People could look at your numbers and decide that your two intact dogs that died young and unexpectedly is proof that reproductive alteration does NOT present increased health risks, just as you have decided that Arwen's death as an altered dog is proof that there ARE increased health risks. It goes both ways, depending on how you want to look at it.
Sheilah
P.S. I remember that you spoke of a possible congenital issue with the male that had the spine problem. You took a great deal of heat from some members here at the time, with a looong thread that went back and forth and the whole topic stuck out for me in a big way because that was when I first realized you were a woman.

Cujo is one of them. He has some neuter-related health/growth concerns.

Another was Princess who was the only dog that we ever have had that had cancer, unless the hematoma that Arwen had was cancerous. She was a mix and was spayed after her first heat cycle.

The dog had spondylosis (diagnosed after his second litter was born). I looked at spines for his progeny and none of them had the condition at two when I did hips and elbows. While the spondylosis could have caused a weakened state, he was injured when the contractors teased him, feeling it was funny to get him to jump up and down in his six foot high kennel until he was hitting his head on the roof or the kennel. The next day he could not walk. That is an injury. I rushed him to the ER, and my regular contractor let me know what the concrete guys did to him. (I was at work at the time they were pouring concrete.) We were able to treat it and he was fine for just over a year. Then he ruptured the disk.

 

[Mrs.K]

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

 

[selzer]

Which three dogs that were altered have you had problems with? You only named Arwen and Cujo as being altered, and you often talk about how wonderful Cujo is. He is from one of your first litters, correct? If so, more than enough time for all these neuter-related health issues to appear, I would think.

People could look at your numbers and decide that your two intact dogs that died young and unexpectedly is proof that reproductive alteration does NOT present increased health risks, just as you have decided that Arwen's death as an altered dog is proof that there ARE increased health risks. It goes both ways, depending on how you want to look at it.
Sheilah
P.S. I remember that you spoke of a possible congenital issue with the male that had the spine problem. You took a great deal of heat from some members here at the time, with a looong thread that went back and forth and the whole topic stuck out for me in a big way because that was when I first realized you were a woman.

Arwen may or may not have died due to having been spayed. I think it was a factor. Shortly after her spay surgery, she stopped keeping herself clean and I ran a total check up with bloodwork on her. I treated her for her first ever UTI, and her T4 numbers were slightly low so we put her on thyroxine. Within two years she bled out and the vet did a minor check of her and said that she definitely had a hematoma probably on the spleen, that she did bleed out. Literally days before the spay she was given an ultrasound and had no signs of hemangiosarcoma, tumors, hematomas, etc.

I think that the surgery jarred her normal hormonal balance, it may have caused the shift in thyroid, which was only something like one point low. I think it sped up the aging process. And perhaps accelerated the cancer cells. It is certainly not scientific. But perhaps when a younger dog is spayed, their body compensates in different ways.

I agree, there is no way to really truly say that our interference with their system caused this issue, this change, this growth rate, etc. And it is impossible to say that if we had left it alone that they would have lived longer or had a better quality of life or would have grown differently. But I believe the hormones are there for more than just reproduction. If you look at all the different things the thyroid gland affects -- hair, sight, reproduction, etc., and then you have to wonder what all the ovaries or testes affect. If removing them does effect longevity, maybe dogs that might have lived to 12 or 14 are dying at 9 or 11. Maybe.

There are those that would say that unless the dog die on the table, it did not effect the dog.

 

[Emoore]

It's funny you should mention this, as an ACO picking up strays, I'd say 1 out of every 15-20 dogs I picked up were intact. I rarely, if ever, picked up spayed/neutered dogs. When I did, they were usually licensed.
The intact animals? Not licensed either.
I pondered that and still do.

Where I live, there are no ACO's, no licensing and the dogs aren't strays. They're people's pets that are neutered and they more or less hang around their owner's property. Enforcing dog containment is nominally the job of the Sheriff's department, but they have better things to do. Occasionally I'll see a dog that doesn't belong to anyone that someone dropped off thinking it would find a good home in the country. Those I take to the shelter, because AC doesn't come out this far.

So I'm not surprised to hear my area's situation is a bit different from an area like the one you describe.

I have friends whose dogs live in the house, but they don't have fences so when the dog needs to go outside, they just open the door and let them out into an unfenced area. They make the rounds of the neighborhood, visiting friends and peeing on the pee spots, then come back a few hours later wanting back in.

 

[Liesje]

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.

 

[sitstay]

Cujo is one of them. He has some neuter-related health/growth concerns.

Another was Princess who was the only dog that we ever have had that had cancer, unless the hematoma that Arwen had was cancerous. She was a mix and was spayed after her first heat cycle.

What are those neuter-related health issues that have you concerned with Cujo? And how are they related to his being neutered, other than you opinion that altering reproductive status is not a good choice?

If my understanding of your breeding program is correct, you have made some pretty significant changes since Cujo's litter. Could it be that his issues are more related to his breeding (which you have apparently decided needed improving upon, since your goals have changed since then), as opposed to his reproductive status?

I think it is a very good thing that dog owners (both casual pet owners and breeders alike) have these kinds of conversations. It gets people thinking about the issues. And as is the case whenever people are pressed to explore their reasoning, strengths and weaknesses in arguments are discovered and shared.

I used to recommend the a pushy male be neutered in the course of addressing behavioral issues. Although I still often think that neutering is a good choice in those cases, I no longer think that neutering will cool that dog's jets entirely, so to speak. The behavioral horse has been let out of the barn already and neutering alone will not provide an instant cure. I have seen so many owners with really obnoxious adolescent males who have a pretty relaxed attitude about addressing the behaviors, and all because they plan on neutering eventually and that will take care of any issues. Not so! But try to tell that to the clueless owner who might not really *want* to know better. But that goes back to being responsible and informed about the choices we make for and with our pets. And believing that what was a good choice for me isn't necessarily followed by the belief that it is a good choice for everyone else.

Extreme positions cause us to take an either/or kind of stance. And as we all know, life is made up of so many instances where the answer "It depends..." is the only one that really works.
Sheilah

 

[sitstay]

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

 

[selzer]

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.

 

[Cassidy's Mom]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Sue. Treating the root cause and limiting the consequences of that root cause at the same time should not be mutually exclusive.

Exactly. It's not an either/or situation where we have to make a choice. We can do BOTH, and we should.

Can anyone actually say with a straight face that they believe that if we counseled the general public, the average pet owner, that it was better not to spay or neuter their pet, no matter how much education we did about unplanned litters (and where exactly would the money come from for that public service campaign?), there wouldn't be an explosion of unwanted pets, many times over the several million a year that already don't make it out of shelters alive? REALLY? I don't see how it could possibly do anything but make an already serious problem exponentially worse.

 

[selzer]

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.

 

[Cassidy's Mom]

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

 

[sitstay]

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

 

[msvette2u]

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.