[gemy]

Each owner needs to intelligently discuss with their vet the pros and cons, specific to their dog/breed to make the best health decision for their pet. Inteliigently means you have done your homework and research.

For example in Golden Retreivers one of the leading causes of death is cancer - actually a specific cancer, hemangiosarcoma. The risk of this cancer goes up significantly with early spay; ie less than one year old, and still the risk is elevated with spayed females.

I believe that Britster has linked an article, that actually references the studies, which support the writer's opinion/elucidation on spaying and neutering.

I will come from the basis not of POPULATION control, but from the basis of overall and long term health of the dog. My understanding of research thus far is, it pretty clearly points for "most" male dogs, there is no overweening health benefit to neuter. The situation for female dogs is unclear, and much more difficult for most breeds to show an overwhelming positive one way or the other.

There is of course an option, one is vasectomy, and the other is tubal ligation. One day perhaps if we the "owners" demand some options that allow the hormones to provide their protective benefits, and also have the "option" of preventing unplanned matings, we may actually have some easier choices.


Behavioural issues; the "norm" of belief is that neutering will for a male dog; eliminate marking, eliminate aggression. The research actually shows not predominately so, in either aspect.

Owners the fact of population control for your dog is quite simply; In Your Hands. It is your adamant responsiblity if you own an un-neutered pet, to not allow any chance of breeding.

As a breeder who does not want any of her pups bred, it would be easy for me to write here and say oh sure go ahead, clearly neutering is ALWAYS the best choice health wise. Unfortunately the research does not back me up. Paramount to me is the future health of my dogs.