:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Been saying that and I hope that people rethink trying to frighten people on this forum into not spaying their female yorkies.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: It may be that there are other such studies out there. I'm sure that pet insurance companies are sitting on PILES of data--they calculate their rates based on the incidence of various illnesses and diseases.

Unaltered male yorkies are more at risk for perianal hernias which can be a real problem to repair. Also, prostrate cancer...this came from my vet.

Re hi
 

I made an error in the original text, but it is corrected now. 'Benefits from NOT neutering" sorry.

For the record, I agree that the average pet owner should spay or neuter if they are not capable of responsibly owning an intact pet. Most aren't. I think I have mentioned that already.


However, to generalize advice on the basis of one paper is completely unethical from a science community point of view and misleading people by hiding behind a generalization on these grounds is abhorrent.


I should like to see other studies presented here for a more balanced view. If that is not something which can be achieved, then the whole thread is wasted and we should all go for drinks.


Dottie :)


My vet said where neutering MAY reduce some cancers and diseases, it is a trade off as it also may result in the INCREASE of some cancers and diseases. He advised that I not consider it unless I had issues with marking because he could not recommend it on health grounds, otherwise.


My breeder, who is a Crufts show judge and international show judge, also advised that I not neuter my dog before three years of age for various reasons. Mostly, because of growth plates not developing appropriately.

Phil this study only looked at two cancers and looking at this study *only* and only two health concerns one could certainly conclude that for YTs; *females only* spaying is the way to go, also you and I know that for toy breeds as far as the research that has been previously posted here, give or take a 5% margin of difference multiple studies conclude the risk of pyrometra escalates with each unbreed season generally speaking. But the study doesn't as far as I am aware denote increasing risk for either pyro or MT for spaying at any age. The risk of mammary tumours has not been broken down - they did not compare to spayed females for example. But the risk does increase for all breeds of dogs as far as I can tell.


They did not make this at the minimum an all cancer inclusive survey - and I wonder why or why not?


And of course this is one study that needs to be like all others weighed against other bodies of studies.


Thanks again Phil for forwarding the PDF file :-)




As Misty said this is a study that only looked at reproductive issues and those only in females and not males.

Hi, I'm a plant geneticist, so my expertise is genetics, but I pride myself on reading widely :).

What I like about this study is the HUGE population size. One possible source of bias is that these data look only at insured dogs--I'm not sure how that would sway the data one way or the other. About the age of the dogs, the insurance company only insures dogs up to 10 years of age, so older dogs are excluded. If older dogs were included, that would probably bump up the rate of mammary tumors from that reported in this study. I don't know how it would affect the rate of pyometra.

Some of the studies cited by this paper were actually discussed previously in this thread, including a controversial "meta-study" purporting bias in papers that show a correlation of mammary tumors with unspayed dogs. I don't have a stake in this argument, but when I read that meta-study, I found it lacking in substance, to say the least.

Good point on this study ONLY referring to unspayed female dogs. It says nothing about male dogs. I *think* that this study only includes pyometra and mammary tumors because those are the "traditional" risk factors associated with not spaying, and this *is* a study of unspayed females.

I'm guessing that there wasn't an unspayed cohort for comparison because this study was conducted in Sweden, where spaying is uncommon. It would be wonderful to see a study conducted in a country where data for spayed and unspayed females are available. It would also be interesting to see a study based on age or heat cycles, and the effects of spaying before first heat. The insurance data wouldn't be able to track heat cycles, though. To use a well-worn cliche, the study is what it is :D.

Sweden
 

It may have been hidden somewhere in the above texts, but I wonder what the arguments were for a civilized country like Sweden to leave dogs intact?

From the studies posted here on this thread, the highest risk for all males is not testicular cancer or even prostate cancer very very low incidence rates, but Benign Prostate Hypertrophy. Which if it is symptomatic can be cured through Prostate surgery.


And from my vet - no need to worry about Prostate cancer in either of my intact males but BPH - which by the way with my 9yr intact male and my 6 yr old intact male have no evidence of. And as evidenced by examination under sedation when I had dentals done....


It is what all males human or canine can suffer from as they age.


Again the above Swedish study only looked at 2 cancers and not a whole lot else in terms of health concerns. And was a very limited study.

I don't think it has been discussed. But you should know Sweden is not the only European country to not mandate spay and neuter as an automatic blind decision for the owner. There may be other countries that deem it illegal IDK but there are a whole lot of countries that don't mandate it as a matter of social and political policy.


You may not be aware but in Europe you can not sell a dog on a spay and neuter provision - it is perhaps illegal - or maybe just unenforceable. I am not quite sure which.


But you also should understand that folks who live in European countries for a large part have a different viewpoint for their canine companions. Many Nordic countries are actively involved with their dogs in hiking, skiing, sledding etc. They have a societal viewpoint which is different to North America.


Many countries in Europe do not have pet overpopulation problems and it would be interesting to study why that is so = given no huge pressure to s+n for avoiding pet overpopulation problems

Gemy
 

Thank you:)
Perhaps an important answer could be in your last paragraph re pet overpopulation?

Meant to say: "I'm guessing that there wasn't a spayed cohort for comparison because..."

Neutering
 

Sounds like we need a vet student research project/ PhD thesis including a critical and up to date literature review of the pros and cons of neutering in a significant sample of dogs. This should cover all health aspects rather than selected topics. But probably this exists in some vet school library? A fully comprehensive review may too big a mouthful to chew though.:-)

With all due respect, I don't believe this is happening here. I have read that the timing of spaying (early spay) has been questioned and discussed, but I haven't read anyone advocating against spaying females.

I realize some people will use any excuse if they really don't want to spay their dog, but having science based evidence to make informed decisions about our loved ones in our care is very important to me. I really love and trust my vet, but I also value open minded discussions, and I have learned a great deal from fellow YT members. Although there are limitations tothese studies, but there is also much to be learned from them.

So, just because humans get it, that means it does not matter if a dog does....that if you can prevent it, no need to because you don't think it is a big deal? I guess...if you and your vet think thats fine. It would not be fine for me. There are many things we can prevent in dogs but many people don't care to that and the only ones who suffer are the dogs...oh and I suppose the owners' pockets.

Something else while not cancer is not fun for a pup:

https://www.acvs.org/small-animal/perineal-hernias

from the link:

Perineal hernias result from weakening or complete failure of the muscular diaphragm of the pelvis. Normally, the pelvic diaphragm allows for rectal support and keeps the abdominal contents from encroaching on the rectum. Pets with perineal hernias will demonstrate a swelling adjacent to the rectum on one or both sides coupled with signs of constipation, difficulty defacating, lethargy, difficulty urinating, and altered tail carriage.

The underlying cause for weakening or failure of the pelvic diaphragm is unclear at this time. However, many theories are proposed, all of which may be working separately or in unison to allow for pelvic diaphragm weakening or failure. The disease primarily affects older pets, usually between the ages of 7 to 9 years. Non-castrated male dogs and cats are also over-represented.

Again, I spay/neuter all of mine and will continue to do so. I have seen no convincing evidence to tell me that they will suffer a worse fate/condition than the things we know can happen if not altered.

I don't need to be a researcher or even read all of the studies. There are valid sources that provide all of the information I need. I consider ACVS to ba a valid source.

ACVS is a professional veterinary organization, so they are a highly reputable source of information. Here is what they have to say about mammary tumors (from http://www.acvs.org/small-animal/mammary-tumors):

Mammary tumors are more common in female dogs that are either not spayed or were spayed after 2 years of age. The risk of a dog developing a mammary tumor is 0.5% if spayed before their first heat (approximately 6 months of age), 8% after their first heat, and 26% after their second heat. Cats spayed before 6 months of age have a 7-times reduced risk of developing mammary cancer and spaying at any age reduces the risk of mammary tumors by 40% to 60% in cats.


More than a quarter of unspayed female dogs will develop a mammary tumor during their lifetime. The risk is much lower for spayed female dogs, male dogs, and cats of either gender. In female dogs, 50% of mammary tumors are benign and 50% are malignant. However, few of the malignant mammary tumors are fatal. In contrast, over 85% of mammary tumors in cats are malignant and most of these have an aggressive biologic behavior (i.e., mammary tumors in cats tend to be locally invasive and spread elsewhere in the body).

Here is what ACVS has to say about pyometra (from http://www.acvs.org/small-animal/pyometra):

Pyometra is an infection of the uterus that may occur in dogs and cats making the pet very ill. The uterus is generally filled with pus. Although the disease has been recognized for decades, the true disease process has still not been completely understood. It is generally recognized that progesterone and estrogen and their receptors have a role in the development of pyometra; however, the infection is triggered by bacterial involvement.

...

Most dogs and cats that are spayed early in life will not develop pyometra. However, a uterine stump pyometra may occur after incomplete ovariohysterectomy which allows a segment of the uterine body or horn to become infected. Typically, either a portion of the ovarian tissue is still present or the animal has been subjected to progestational hormones to allow this situation to develop.


The ACVS on spaying (from http://www.acvs.org/small-animal/ovariohysterectomy):

Due to recent advances in veterinary medicine, more options are now available when it is time to have your pet “spayed.” The surgery may be done in a traditional “open” manner or through minimally invasive means using laparoscopy. Procedures that may be performed include ovariohysterectomy, the surgical removal of the uterus and ovaries, or ovariectomy, when only the ovaries are removed. All of these procedures are performed under general anesthesia. Most primary care veterinarians recommend performing these procedures at approximately six months of age, but they can be performed on dogs of any age. They may be elective, or a treatment for a disease process.


The following are reasons to consider having your pet spayed:
Vastly decreased chance for development of mammary (breast) cancer
200 times less likely if ovariohysterectomy performed before the first estrus (heat cycle)
Eliminates chance of developing a pyometra or uterine infection
Eradicates unwanted estrous behavior and associated bleeding
Eliminates unwanted pregnancies and risks of dystocia (difficult birth)

BTW, the ACVS is the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, the organization that certifies the Board-Certified veterinary surgeons in the US.

With all due respect, I disagree with you.

I am open to learning. This study has been passed around forever and has not taught me anything. I have yet to see any issues with growth plates in any of the yorkies I have dealt with. Much ado if you ask me. It has nothing to do with not wanting to learn....I am weighing and saying that I feel the risks of mammary tumors and pyometra outweigh those concerns. THAT is why I gave Pstinard's post a thumb's up...and commented. That is what you just referred to.

Not only is what I am saying proven scientific fact, I have seen it in years of rescuing this breed. People who failed to alter them and the health issues that ensued, people who failed to provide protection against heartworms and the horrid treatments we put them through and people who failed to do yearly exams and blood work and the problems that creeped up to where it was too late to help them. And let's not forget all the bad breeders out there and the horrible congenital issues. I can tell you that I have learned more about this breed than I wish I knew. Very, very sad.

Excuse me if it makes me sick to my stomach when every time someone asks about spaying, someone comes along and starts spitting this study out about some so called growth issue. They don't bother to mention that the mammary cancer and pyometra could be an issue. They act like it is not important....well just have a yorkie with one of them and then come back after that poor thing has suffered surgery and maybe even died and tell me it is not an issue.

Great info! Love having a scientist here to help us with the "studies" and research!

[QUOTE=ladyjane;4536991]So, just because humans get it, that means it does not matter if a dog does....that if you can prevent it, no need to because you don't think it is a big deal? I guess...if you and your vet think thats fine. It would not be fine for me. There are many things we can prevent in dogs but many people don't care to that and the only ones who suffer are the dogs...oh and I suppose the owners' pockets.




That is not what I said at all. Actually I don't think anything that is Benign is a huge deal at all. As we age both dogs and humans experience certain changes in our bodies and health. Vision changes, hearing might weaken, heart weakens etc.


For BPH if and only if it becomes a problem in dogs or for that matter humans then you deal with it.

[quote=gemy;4537068]Here's the thing about your argument.......people just do not take care of their animals on a basic level so to say the above is just delusional. Basic vetting are things like yearly exams, Heartworm prevention, vaccines, basic grooming and baths. These same people are not going to "deal with it" as you say. Why not be responsible when the dog is a cute puppy going for their puppy shots and get that spay/neuter done before they are adults in their reproductive years, running about unattended, adding to the pet population or worse DEAD at a shelter. I literally cannot wrap my brain around your rational that you are hanging on to this study and the "more needs to be studied" blah blah blah. Take a look at local shelters, all over FB, look at rescues and pictures of piles of DEAD DOGS and CATS in shelters. Don't you understand the reason that there are so many euthanized animals every years? Don't you realize that they KILL PUPPIES in shelters? They stuff them into gas chambers and KILL THEM. They stick a needle in their vein and KILL THEM. People so horrific things to animals every single day......do you REALLY REALLY THINK these same people are going to "deal with it" when their animals are sick? :confused:

This is reality :thumbdown

Spay & Neuter Addressing a Pet Overpopulation Tragedy | Animals Abused & Abandoned, Inc.



Skinned, Dead Dog Found in Pile of Animal Carcasses | NBC4 Washington

Oogy's Story | Animals Abused & Abandoned, Inc.

https://www.youtube.com/v/IaXMQS70jfM

This IS REALLY what happens when people do not Spay their pets. Every single day! The dog get's pregnant and they drop her off and her entire litter. This is reality.

People are not responsible when it comes to ownership.


Addressing a Pet Overpopulation Tragedy

Each day 10,000 humans are born in the US and each day 70,000 puppies and kittens are born. That represents one human to 15 dogs/45 cats. As long as these birth rates exist, there will never be enough homes for all these animals.

One cat has five kittens three times a year – these kittens reach maturity, have kittens of their own. From one pairing, 420,000 cats can be born in seven years. One dog and her descendants can produce more than 60,000 dogs in six years.

The number of animals entering shelters each year is 8-12 million (HSUS estimate).
The number of cats and dogs euthanized in shelters across the US is between 5-9 million – 60% dogs, 70% cats (ASPCA estimate).


Five out of ten dogs and seven out ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them (ASPCA estimate).

My guess is you have never dealt with mammary tumors in dogs. It is not something I would intentionally expose a dog to. About 50% of them are benign...so does that mean it is ok ? The bottom line is that a simple spay before the first heat puts the risk at almost nothing.
Hard for me to grasp your thinking on this. If it were your body, would you want someone to put you at that risk? I know that may sound stupid to some, but I really do think that more people should think about whether they would put themselves in the same position as they would a dog.
We are not talking about vision and hearing changes here. :confused::confused:

WARNING: Video is bloody. BUT, is informative. For anyone who thinks it is ok to put a dog at risk of mammary tumors....take a look at this. I honestly have not heard what the vet is saying, but the video shows the surgery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aio2EKzJ3nI

Vision and hearing changes??
 

Having had a dog with cataracts, I would not say that was a minor issue. Over two months of recovery from the surgery, post op effects, and many medications were very unpleasant for the dog.
Honestly, in your opinion would surgery for removal of a benign mammary tumor be worse? Thank you for your opinion. I really want to know.
I posted before you posted the video, perhaps my answer is there.

Blood
 

Bloody yes. But would the tumors usually get this big before surgery?

Often! What Jodi mentioned above is so true. People don't deal with it...they get rid of the older pup ... it goes to a shelter or is surrendered to rescue....IF it is lucky that is. Many are found wandering the streets. It is usually after it gets out of control. Not when just one happens to be enlarged.

The more I think would people and I think the answer is definitely no there are women out there who get tested for the breast cancer gene now and if they have it they have a mastectomy even though there is a chance they might not get cancer. Since we can't do that with our dogs per say we should spay them before there first heat if possible because then the mammarys are not developed.