Early Spay/Neuter

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by JCarlson2004

I couldn't agree more with this statement. I volunteer at an animal shelter and I've seen the horrors of pet over population. I've come home from the shelter MANY time and just sat on the floor in my bedroom and cried my eyes out because of poor innocent dogs being euthanized. It breaks my heart, it truly does.

That is certainly a BIG reason for some to make the decision to ESN. I do not fault anyone for this view. It is commendable for sure. As I stated earlier, I also volunteer at my local humane society so I am more than aware of the problem.

Breeders do not ESN for this reason alone however and neither do vets. If it were all about "social responsibility" then we would have to ask breeders not to breed or at least restrict them to a certain number of litters and require that they be licensed and fully trained, etc.

Not to be personal but despite your experiences in the shelter you did not rescue a dog, but rather bought one, as did I, and so many others on here, so I am just saying that we can all do our part to battle the pet over population problem in our own way w/o compromising the needs of our own family members and circumstances.

I am not positive but from what I have heard yorkies are not in much danger in this area as they are quickly rescued and adopted from what I can tell.

Cindy can you answer this? Are yorkies a breed that is high in the euthanized shelter/rescue animal statistics?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Cindy can you answer this? Are yorkies a breed that is high in the euthanized shelter/rescue animal statistics?[/B]

Another factor that needs to be considered: Maybe they are not in danger at shelters/rescues, but are they in danger in the hands of a miller? Obviously if a miller was only given the option to purchase an altered animal, they wouldn't have much option now would they. S/n a pup to keep it out of the hands of a potential miller is also a benefit. Yes, you can get to know prospective owners, but sometimes people put on a good show.

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Not to be personal but despite your experiences in the shelter you did not rescue a dog, but rather bought one, as did I, and so many others on here, so I am just saying that we can all do our part to battle the pet over population problem in our own way w/o compromising the needs of our own family members and circumstances.

No your question is not too personal. I bought Tia rather then adopt from a rescue/shelter because I didn't want too wait long for another dog. I had just lost my precious Katie to a tragic accident and then the very next day I lost my mother. I was very lonely and depressed (I'm still very depressed in fact) and I felt like my house was too quiet with only 1 dog. At first, I felt guilty because I thought I was betraying Katie's memory by getting a second dog so quickly after her death. But I truly needed another dog -- Tia has helped me so much to cope with my grief.

So that is why I purchased a dog rather then adopt. I didn't want to wait a long time for a Yorkie to come into a shelter by me (there were none at the time -- I know because I made a few calls to check).

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

I thought I would repost part of my post from #5 since this has been lengthy and I think Dr. Johnson's points were valid and skipped over by many. It also partially answers the question Sherry Lynn raised in post #63 "Why would anyone not want to s/n their dog?" There are a lot of reasons that this thread has pointed out.:In his quote Dr. Jonson was describing how a dog who is spayed prepubecently is different from a dog who is spayed after reaching puperty:

The difference: Well, the overall difference is a completely different dog in terms of bone mass, size, structure, relatively increased resistance to post-spay weight gain, and more complete psychological development which includes elements of loyalty, maternal-instinct-to-protect, feelings of territory and vigilance, etc.. Things that have not "occurred" to puppies at four to five months BUT which occur as an important part of a nesting (post-adolescent) instinct which dogs spayed young never get.

Does this concern anyone?
[/B]

Kim~I respect your view and those of this doctor. However, there are also doctors who have found that feel just the opposite is the case. Seems like more a matter of opinon from vet to vet. You have to read their comments take them for what they are and move on. There really is no need to sit and debate about 1 vet's opinion.

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by YorkieRini

there is nothing you can do or say to change my mind. I will s/n all my puppies.

I am curious then.....when you made the decision to implement ESN into your breeding program and .......

Before this thread.....did you for example KNOW about the

Increased risk of Parvo?
Increased surgical risk due to age and size?
Increased risk of penis/vulva dermatitus and lack of extrusion?
Increased potential for obesity?
Increased risk of prostate cancer?
Increased risk of Bladder cancer?
Increased chance of incontinence?
Lack of Gender Characteristics?
Loss of all characterisitics and attributes associated with natural maturation?

If you did and you made the decision to use ESN in your program in spite of these then I have to agree.....there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. You have made an educated decision for your program based on knowledge of all of the facts that WE presently know.

I do not think that most of the members here knew these things and therefore they were not figuring them into the risk vs. benefit equation.

I just feel that everyone needs to know the facts on BOTH sides. It is only right.

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Kim~I respect your view and those of this doctor. However, there are also doctors who have found that feel just the opposite is the case. Seems like more a matter of opinon from vet to vet. You have to read their comments take them for what they are and move on. There really is no need to sit and debate about 1 vet's opinion.

This statement is more than his opinion. They are scientific facts supported by scientific studies.

The difference is that most vets know these facts but do not give them the weight that some pet owners may give them.

Again, I just think we need to be aware of all of the facts we can when we are considering this major surgery on tiny puppies.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

I am curious then.....when you made the decision to implement ESN into your breeding program and .......

Before this thread.....did you for example KNOW about the

Increased risk of Parvo?
Increased risk of prostate cancer?
Increased risk of Bladder cancer?
Increased chance of incontinence
Lack of Gender Characteristics?
Loss of all characterisitics and attributes associated with natural maturation?

If you did and you made the decision to use ESN in your program in spite of these then I have to agree.....there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. You have made an educated decision for your program based on knowledge of all of the facts that WE presently know.

I do not think that most of the members here knew these things and therefore they were not figuring them into the risk vs. benefit equation.

I just feel that everyone needs to know the facts on BOTH sides. It is only right.

Again, you state this things and claim they are facts. What makes them facts? Because a particular vet or group of vets says it is so? Because this was the result of a study? What about the vets and studies that show the opposite? Why should they be discredited?
There are vets, sources, links, studies that all show exactly the opposite of what this individual claims. Plus, some of these you have stated have yet to be explained, as I have already pointed out twice. How can anyone consider something a factor if they have NO clue what it means?

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

This statement is more than his opinion. They are scientific facts supported by scientific studies.

Again, facts based on the studies HE chose to follow. Other facts from other studies show something different. So it is his OPINION that these specific results are what should be considered.

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by JCarlson2004

No your question is not too personal. I bought Tia rather then adopt from a rescue/shelter because I didn't want too wait long for another dog. I had just lost my precious Katie to a tragic accident and then the very next day I lost my mother. I was very lonely and depressed (I'm still very depressed in fact) and I felt like my house was too quiet with only 1 dog. At first, I felt guilty because I thought I was betraying Katie's memory by getting a second dog so quickly after her death. But I truly needed another dog -- Tia has helped me so much to cope with my grief.

So that is why I purchased a dog rather then adopt. I didn't want to wait a long time for a Yorkie to come into a shelter by me (there were none at the time -- I know because I made a few calls to check).

My point is that I feel it is wrong to judge people so harshly (calling me socially irresponsible for example for asking for ALL of the facts about ESN and saying that people should be free to make their own health decisions for their babies) or condemning those who breed when the shelters are full or criticizing those who buy from a pet store when it does not get it's puppies from a puppymill.

Just like you, we all have our own personal reasons for the choices we make and others may not understand or would never make the same choices, but we need to be more respectful of people's choices, and trust that they will do the responsible thing for them even if it is different from what you believe.

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Again, facts based on the studies HE chose to follow. Other facts from other studies show something different. So it is his OPINION that these specific results are what should be considered.

Show me a study that disproves what he states in that paragraph. All of the studies posted here confirm his quote.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

Show me a study that disproves what he states in that paragraph. All of the studies posted here confirm his quote.

What he said in the paragraph you quoted from him, or what you said in your reply to Irene. Please specify.

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Originally Posted by BamaFan121s

Again, you state this things and claim they are facts. What makes them facts? Because a particular vet or group of vets says it is so? Because this was the result of a study? What about the vets and studies that show the opposite? Why should they be discredited?
There are vets, sources, links, studies that all show exactly the opposite of what this individual claims. Plus, some of these you have stated have yet to be explained, as I have already pointed out twice. How can anyone consider something a factor if they have NO clue what it means?

Again...show me the studies which refute these findings. All of the studies posted so far confirm them ...they are just given much weight by the vets and breeders in making their decision to ESN because they place more value on the pet over population problem and the need to protect their lines.

These FACTS are not important to them in other words. This is my main point.

If there is true controversy and some of these things are unproven, as in the area of over-vaccination, I feel they should still be KNOWN so that everyone has the right to operate from a level playing field with nothing hidden, glossed over or misrepresented.

The only reason anyone can give for non-disclosure of these things is that they are afraid it may cause some to act irresponsibly.......It is not our job to contol people....but to give them the facts and trust them to make the decision that is right for them.

[BamaFan121s]

I will be glad to address these and discuss them with you in addition to givin you my thoughts, feel free to share yours too. OK, let's start one at a time, shall we?

Let's go with this one: "Lack of Gender Characteristics"

My questions and point: What are these? The source lists them, but I have yet to see any explanation as to what they are. Plus, this link you posted is from 1993...surely you cannot argue that something from 1993 can automatically be considered as still "fact" and "valid?" Also, this site is breed specific...a study and site about Labrodors, not Yorkies. I am sure you can agree that vets should focus their attention differently when big vs small breeds are concerned? How do we even know, that this would apply to a small breed? The study obviously was done on Labs, which have a different genetic composition that could have an influence on the outcome of the findings. In you opinion, do you think this individual (we can address the others later) fact should be considered heavily when considering a basis for an individuals breeding practice?

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

To put it simply, the characteristics referred to are ALL of those that differentiate male behavior from female behavior in dogs. Females are typcially nurturing, affectionate, maternal, protective, etc. Males are loyal, good hunters, physical and "macho" for lack of a better word...lol.....

Just think what people would be like if we took away their sex hormones when they were toddlers. Boys and girls would not be very different since they aren't pre-puberty.

This 1993 article is valid until new studies are conducted to disprove what it asserts. Most scientific discoveries and facts remain such until they are disproven, if that ever happens, sometime in the future. An elementary example of this is the fact that the world is not flat and that discovery and fact was made many many years ago and is still valid today because it has not been proven incorrect.

While the article was posted on a Labrador retriever site, the article was written from the following sources which are non-breed specific. In other words the article was not breed specific.
REFERENCES:

Barrett, Ralph E. and Theilen, Gordon H.: Neoplasms of the Canine and Feline Reproductive Tracts. In Kirk, Robert W. (ed.): Current Veterinary Therapy VI. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Co., 1977.
Osborne, Carl A. and Oliver, John E.: Non-neurogenic urinary incontinence. In Kirk, Robert W. (ed.): Current Veterinary Therapy VI. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Co., 1977.
Schneider et. al.: Factors influencing canine mammary cancer development and post-surgical survival. J.Natl.Cancer Institute, 43: 1249, 1969.

How heavily any given fact is weighed has to depend on the person making the valuation and for what animal. A vet working in a shelter for homeless pets may not care much at all that a dog is "androgenous" and lacking in gender specific traits but a family that already has a female yorkie and wants to experience a male, may care greatly and a hunter who wants a male for a hunting dog may care as well.

[JCarlson2004]

Originally Posted by SoCalyorkiLvr

My point is that I feel it is wrong to judge people so harshly (calling me socially irresponsible for example for asking for ALL of the facts about ESN and saying that people should be free to make their own health decisions for their babies) or condemning those who breed when the shelters are full or criticizing those who buy from a pet store when it does not get it's puppies from a puppymill.

Just like you, we all have our own personal reasons for the choices we make and others may not understand or would never make the same choices, but we need to be more respectful of people's choices, and trust that they will do the responsible thing for them even if it is different from what you believe.

What? I never judged you or called you socially irresponsible. Is this post directed at me or in general? I ask because you quoted my post with your comments. I'm confused.