Cataract surgery is rough on the dogs and the owners. Compliance with all the eye drops is a must.

I would not compare the surgeries .. .. bottom line though is that cataract surgery is optional/elective. Mammary tumor removal is not. And, it is painful and almost completely avoidable. To put a pup at risk for no good reason is not sensible in my world. Spay surgery is something they really do recover quickly from.

Yes, Taylor that is very true. Women that have that gene will also have their reproductive organs removed. The estrogen also causes breast cancer to spread in human......so they deal with it.


Let me add, you would be shock at how large humans let their breast tumors grow before looking for treatment. Even those that have had previous breast cancer. They will let things so out of denial.

The idea that the vet used towel clamps to pull the skin together to close the incision is just horrible! What an unnecessarily painful thing to put your dog through. As you know I work with breast cancer every day and any mastectomy is pretty gruesome. But to take so much tissue that towel clamps are used blows my mind! :(

LJ
 

Cataract surgery was not optional as I was told if we did not operate, my dog might get glaucoma ( very painful) and other complications. Had it been optional and had no effects other than sight loss I probably would not have put him through all that. Trust me we were very careful about the eye drops and the complex regimen and rechecks were a full time job. So although it seems a simple surgery it is not in dogs. I was asking if the suffering for a dog would be more or less for an average mammary surgery and I think they could be compared.
My point was the eyes and ears are not trivial health issues.

These are both excellent posts because this is the REAL reason we should consider spaying and neutering. I think gemy (who will correct me if I'm wrong) is not in any way suggesting that pets should not be spayed or neutered. But, I think she is against the exaggeration of the health benefits which are touted (unscientifically most of the time) along with the procedure.


With every procedure, there is a risk/benefit analysis which must be made. This is true for humans and animals.


I would be extremely disappointed if anyone here was arguing on anything other than scientific merit because spaying and neutering should be advocated but for the RIGHT reasons. Misleading people into thinking there are health benefits is just wrong. And, for the record, I'm not suggesting that anyone on this forum is doing this.. but the institutions which use scare mongering for compliance have resulted in a lot of confusion amongst pet owners even though I'm sure this all began with good intent.


BUT, pretending that there is not an overpopulation problem which results in the deaths of many animals is equally wrong.


We keep talking about reputable sources and pointing to various institutions. But, my vet is a vet with a professional opinion and I do not believe his opinion is any less valid than another vets opinion which agrees or disagrees with his own. SO, the argument can't really be about who is reputable, who isn't, etc. It comes down to what we know and what we THINK we know and what we FEEL.


I FEEL it is wrong to let millions of dogs run around intact and overpopulating areas by doing what is natural and then being fatally punished for that. Therefore, I KNOW that the only way to prevent these needless deaths is to spay and neuter.


I KNOW it is wrong to let millions of pet owners believe that their dogs are going to live longer lives if they are spayed/neutered. There are so many other things which affect longevity. Genes AND environment come into play with cancer development.


This is why I say that this article is a useful guide ONLY. It cannot be construed as TRUTH. It doesn't matter that the incident rate of mammary tumors are so high within this SINGLE study. There are hundreds of confounding variables which may have led to this result. AND, although the research itself may not have been biased, the publication by the INSURANCE company has meant that there is NOT a balanced view. I have already said why this is having worked in insurance for ten years.


I think we are all adding to our body of knowledge here and I hope that everyone feels like they can agree to disagree or learn to grow or just ignore the info and do what they do...


I would be disappointed if there was any hidden agenda and I strongly feel that it is not the case. Again, this is an opportunity to learn from each other and I think we shouldn't fight it - we should embrace it. These are real issues which affect all of us, personally, and it would be a shame if the only result we had from discussing it was polarization.


I just want to add that no one is dismissing personal experience. Not from my point of view..


However, there are two sides. There is personal experience and there is scientific evidence. Sometimes, the two have to be separated in order to have a meaningful discussion which addresses each issue completely. That is not dismissive of either science or experience. It just ensures that the discussion remains balanced for both sides.


I hope you all have a great day today. I'm off to type up my research re: the brain/mind health benefits of exercise on rats and pups who have been addicted to ethanol. Fun times!

Sorry, also meant to comment on the research paper which has generated so much interested discourse here:


Within the conclusion is the following statement by the researchers:


Substantial between-breed variation in the incidence of pyometra and MTs was

demonstrated.



These differences indicate that genetic factors may predispose and/or protect for disease development. These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds.


These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds.


Therefore, we can take from this statement that genes are playing a factor in certain breeds risk for developing these two types of cancers i.e. breed standards/breeders of purebred dogs are not taking this risk into consideration. (We have to assume that these dogs mentioned are purebred. I have seen some dogs which people claim are purebred which are NOT yet they are registered as a definite breed for insurance purposes. This raises another interesting issue in this research paper because it was assumed that owners info re: their dogs were accurate on the basis of insurance. I think we all know that just because people THINK their dogs are certain breeds - it isn't always the case).


The authors do NOT state that spaying females will PREVENT these tumors. However, from what I know about estrogen production, there is no doubt in my mind that spaying would dramatically REDUCE the chances of mammary tumors for breeds which are genetically predisposed.


However, they do state in the discussion section:


However, recently the protective effects by spaying on MT development have been questioned (Beauvais et al. 2012). In the present study, high incidences (up to 73%) of pyometra and MTs were demonstrated in some giant and large breeds of which are commonly affected by post spaying urinary incontinence (Thrusfield et al. 1998). Since the pros and cons of elective spaying will vary by breed, knowledge of breed-variations will be clinically useful in the decision process for each dog.


This is an important point to make because it suggests that the evidence that spaying CONCLUSIVELY protects against mammary tumors just isn't there... AND, it suggests that CLINICAL (vet) discussions are had prior to the surgery to consider the efficacy by BREED. Sadly, the only information contained here is re: larger breeds so more info would be needed re: YT's before we could comment on that aspect. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions either way on the basis of this papers result alone.






















Also, the authors declare no bias but their research was part funded by the insurance company:


Acknowledgements


Agria Pet Insurance kindly allowed us to use their database. Financial


support was provided by Thure F. and Karin Forsbergs Research


Foundation, M. Forsgrens Research Foundation and Agria Insurance


and The Swedish Kennel Club Research Foundation.


Therefore, their statement re: no conflict of interest is not true. I am surprised that this has not been picked up but these things often get missed in research papers submitted on behalf of the funding body.


I hope my opinion has helped put some things into perspective. I am a harsh critic of research because my research is harshly criticized and rightly so...


That is the nature of the profession! This paper is USEFUL but it is not FLAWLESS. Much like me...maybe the other way around? Flawless but useless?

Oh come on! There is plenty of scientific proof your pet will live a longer healthier happy life if spayed or neutered especially if they are female. Not getting your female fixed is playing with disaster and possibly a death sentence if they get poymentra. That's not a joke and it is certainly not made up! People should be scared of that. My grandparents dog before I was born died of poymentra the vet told they before that hey if you don't get her fixed this is a real possibility of happening and they didn't listen and she ended up with it and they couldn't save her. My other grandparents had gotten a puppy and she became my grandpas dog and then when she was a year old he died so she became my grandmothers dog but 6 years later she died and was the only last link to my grandparents that my aunts and uncles had then a year later got poymentra got emergency surgery and it was extremely rough on her and she died a month later. There is a member on here who had multiple dogs get it and die from it. It is not as rare as people want to believe it is not a joke and it can happen and does! As well as mammary tumors whether they turn out to cancer or not it is painful and rough on the dog. These are very real reasons whether you chose to believe them or not!

Hiya,


I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not?


But, just to clarify, no one is disputing your experiences or the existence of certain conditions. What is in question is to what extent, if any, does spaying prevent or reduce these conditions. Additionally, to what extent does the genetics of a certain breed, namely the YT, influence the manifestation of these conditions.


Whilst we can guess or have an idea or use experience as a guide, my point is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to answer these questions. The existing scientific evidence re: the pros and cons of spaying only raise more questions which is what good research does i.e. generate considerations which inform future research.


If your experience leads you to believe spaying is a preventative measure for these conditions, then please spay on these grounds, by all means. I don't see anyone suggesting that spaying causes harm.


Not everyone, though, has their decisions informed by previous experience or others experience. Some people use science to inform their decisions and for those who do, the debate is valid since existing evidence is currently conflicting.


This is why the researchers state that further research is needed and spaying should be discussed with the vet who makes a decision based on the breed and other criteria.


As always, I admire your passion.

If there is not a uterus it can not fill with blood and mucus meaning no poymentra pretty scientific if you ask me. The mammarys of a dog spayed before there first heat have not have developed mammarys there for can't get mammary tumors again scientific. You don't need a scientist to tell you that you can't get cancer in something thing you don't have and that you can't get a deadly infection in something you don't have. Plenty of science to prove the pros and pretty much none to prove the cons.

I do understand what you're saying. However, the researchers have stated that there have been studies which show that MTs have been found in larger breeds post-spay, hence the conflict.


I get your logic, though!

All I can say is that perhaps some of the people who want to "educate" others about the risk of s/n should focus their efforts on a forum where you say these risks are are not an issue. As it is, yorkies ARE at risk of mammary tumors and pyometra.....so I see no reason for people to keep harping on this one study.

My personal experiences have pretty much solidified or bolstered what the scientiric evidence/study says. Early spays DO almost eliminate the possibility of mammary tumors in yorkies. The other health risks I have stated may or may not also be bolstered by those claims.

I didn't quote you on this, but I have to say that I have NEVER been told or guaranteed that my pups would live longer lives if they were altered. ALL I was told about when I asked were about the many risks...and yes oopsie pregnancies are one of those risks. Something else I have seen....yorkies and puppies dying due to breeding. The list of benefits is VERY long. As you suggested, there are two sides. ME, I am an advocate for yorkies and will always encourage s/n. There is no way I believe that the risks of s/n outweigh the risks of not s/n.

*sigh* Never mind.

*pats on back*
There will always be proponents and opponents for s/n. Those who advocate for it definitely have their reasons why they've come to their decisions while ppl who question the procedures or won't have it done on their pets definitely have their reasons for doing so as well. There are benefits to alter and also drawbacks. Same as for keeping pets intact. Spay and neuter is not a one size fits all for every owner, breed, or individual pet imo. I do find it interesting how s/n isn't pushed in so many countries and they also don't have a stray overpopulation issue. I enjoy reading these studies and hearing the interpretations. Now I'm off to catch up on RHOA and make ceviche.

Thank you :). I love ceviche! Can I have some? :D

Of course! We'll have plenty, my son hates it *sigh* six year olds

I don't think it is true that we are the only country with animal over population and neglect/abuse.

As for the countries who don't have such issues, it may have something to do with laws. I don't know. I don't look at others...I get enough thrown in my face on a daily basis that is going on here. I have often said that had I known then what I know now, I may not have been involved in rescue. It is a horrible world for so many defenseless beings. What I do to help seems meaningless at times...it is downright heartbreaking. I answer all of the YHR emails and it takes all I have some days to respond to some of them.

Our country is horrible imo regarding animal welfare. The state I live in is so bad that I am frankly ashamed at what is allowed at times.

I agree that there is no one size fits all; but, I would hope that the people who choose not to s/n are responsible which of course that is only but a dream. Not to say that everyone who does s/n are responsible because that is not true either. It all comes down to the fact that animals are not protected by our laws.

I cannot stop anyone from what they post on this forum....I can only post my opinions and hope and pray they listen because I do think that sometimes we need to look at the population and think long and hard about what we are advocating if indeed it is animal welfare we are concerned with.

This statement is not accurate. Do you remember just a short time ago what happened in Russia during the Olympics?

Street dogs in Moscow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is an article about strays in the Caribbean

Stray Dogs Impact on Tourism in the Caribbean|Cathy Kangas

Italy....

Italy targets stray dogs after fatal attack - Telegraph

http://www.esdaw.eu/stray-animals-by-country.html"]Annually number of abandoned [/URL]and homeless companion animals (stray animals) by country - There is no European (EU) central statistics on this, the information is in each country. Some countries have no control or statistics on the number of abandoned or homeless companion animals located in the country, therefore the following figures (¤) are estimated from our contacts in Europe. Moreover, wandering dogs and crosses national borders in neighboring countries with many abandoned dogs.

Number of abandoned and homeless animals in Europe is estimated to be 100 million animals.

Exactly! Amen!

South America

Stray Dogs of South America - The Travel Gear Reviews

There are MANY other country's that have dog over population and or dogs dying very young from lots of things they don't do to help the pets. It's pretty obvious you want to breed so not sure why you try to pretend to hide it. I just hope you listen enough to know not to breed the new puppy until she has had her second heat and is above 5 pounds. No mater who the owner is it not safe for an under 5 pound female to be unfixed and in a house with a male who is also unaltered. My question just becomes will you own it or will you call it an accident. Hmmmmm. Science certainly shows there is more risk for a female who is not breeding to be left intact and taking that risk is unfair to the the dog and what they more then likely will have to suffer.

I meant some countries not all:). Of course some countries have overpopulation just like the United States, but there are some countries who do not push for spay and neuter and their overpopulation is lower than ours. I want to know why is that so. There are always going to be studies promoting alteration as well not promoting. It would be nice to see an unbiased(this is highly unlikely) study with JUST Yorkshire Terriers. So far I've only seen studies including larger breeds which is helpful but things effect larger breeds differently and at different rates than smaller breeds. Pet overpopulation is a good reason to s/n but I don't think it should be the only reason (unless an owner is unable to be responsible), mammary cancer is a good reason to spay but is it 100% that your pet will get it?, is it guaranteed your female will get pyometra? Sure removal of the uterus will nix her getting it, but what happens when you take away her hormones which are there for reason and serve a function? There has to be a negative impact to spaying/neutering when we remove these hormones that play such a vital role. We sometimes see this in human women when they have their sexual organs removed. Not many pet owners are up to the task of having an intact pet within their home though so for the majority of people s/n the benefits outweigh the negatives and it should be done. I just happen to think if one is responsible they should research and come to a decision themselves.

Hormones can be linked to cancer.

Do you have a problem with me I'm not aware of? Why bring what I do, which has never and will more than likely never effect you into this conversation? Hmmmm. I guess because you're trying to make a point. Did you make it? My pets don't suffer, far from it. My opinions and actions may be very different from yours, but believe me I love my pets just as much as you love Callie. What you stated was uncalled for. If I do plan to breed should I run that by you first? Did you ever stop to think that just because you feel a certain way doesn't mean others have to feel the same? Many others may and do share your sentiment regarding s/n but there are others who'd like to learn more on the subject and how it's effecting our pets. I'm an adult so I don't know of this "hiding" thing you speak of. Should I tell you what I fed my son for breakfast because if I don't tell you that it could be misconstrued as "hiding" too.:rolleyes:

What I am for is the judicious decision of WHEN or if ever in some cases to spay and neuter, more research to understand the impacts of s+n by breed type. We need to separate out the real and un-biased facts of promoting and giving our dogs the best chance of a healthy life, which would include when we s+n, when and how often to vaccinate, appropriate and timely vet care, exercise, feeding and training.


I was attracted to the Swedish study because of its sheer number of subjects. A very very large database of all breed types. And the fact that Sweden has a long history of not neutering and yet apparently no pet overpopulation problem......


It is as everything I post here a mere nugget of research that adds to the volumne of health information we have on dogs.


WE need to differentiate between societal goals no matter how altruistic and the health of dogs. If s+n at six months or so old is NOT in the best interest of this breed of dog, then when - if ever? Is there an alternative to s+N and the answer is yes of course there is. But the vet community needs to see the need to secure that training in order to offer real choices by breed to each individual pet owner.


.

I'm an advocate for tubal ligation. Keeps hormones functioning but removes the possibility of being impregnated. Also, I hear they have birth control for dogs, but I can barely get my two to take their hw meds. If the bc is an every day pill like one of the human equivalents it'd be out. Do they have shots like the Depo? Going to look....

Anyway, getting back to that Swedish insurance records study showing that unspayed female dogs (Yorkies included) have a significantly increased chance of developing mammary tumors and pyometra...

Here is a study that validates the methodology used in that study:

Scopus - Cookies Disabled <--This link has the abstract.

A. Egenvall, B.N. Bonnett, P. Olson, A. Hedhammar
Validation of computerized Swedish dog and cat insurance data against veterinary practice records

Prev. Vet. Med., 36 (1998), pp. 51–65

The link I gave should have the abstract.


Evidently the methodology used is widely accepted by the veterinary community, because I came across a 2015 study analyzing Japanese insurance records:


Breed, gender and age pattern of diagnosis for veterinary care in insured dogs in Japan during fiscal year 2010


Breed, gender and age pattern of diagnosis for veterinary care in insured dogs in Japan during fiscal year 2010.


Mai Inouea,
A. Hasegawab,
Y. Hosoic,
K. Sugiurad
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, In press.


This latter study included 10,622 Yorkies, and found that Yorkies were in the top 5 breeds at risk for the following major categories of illness: Digestive, Musculoskeletal, Dental, Hepatobiliary and pancreatic, and Neuromuscular. Hepatobiliary and pancreatic is especially interesting, since many Yorkietalk dogs have had liver and pancreas problems. The dogs at greater risk than Yorkies for liver and pancreas problems are: Maltese, Miniature Schnauzer, and Papillon. Pomeranian come next after Yorkies. These data are consistent with what we already know about Yorkies, both anecdotally, and from other kinds of studies.

I've sent PDF's of both articles to Gail (Gemy).

Anything involving dogs effects me. Anything to do with the breed I love effects me. It's very easy to see your going to breed yet you say the female is only going to reach 4 pounds and that concerns me. It may not seem like much but a pound is a big deal in a small dog and it's not reputable to breed a female under 5 pounds so I do hope you don't put this little babies life in jeopardy. The only reason to breed should also be to better there breed. You also should not breed a yorkie with temperament issues like your male has. People need to know the truth and the truth is for sure females are in danger if not fixed and science proves it. Life lessons prove it. Yep I love my dog so much I was not willing to risk cancer or poymentra.

Depo has been proven to have very bad side effects and not safe. The bc for dogs has not been proven and like bc pills for humans it can come with some very serious side effects. None of this will help prevent poymentra which is a death sentence.it also is not going to prevent mammary cancer and may actually increase the chances. The main point of spay and neutering is not necessarily just to prevent pregnancy these other health issues need to be looked into.

Tubal ligation won't affect the rates of mammary tumors and pyometra, because the hormones (mammary tumors) and uterus (pyometra) are left intact. I'm just saying...

I believe that there are birth control injections for dogs--I'm not sure how widely used and accepted they are.

BTW, in answer to a previous comment, no, the chances of mammary tumors and pyometra aren't 100% in unspayed dogs, but do they really need to be? I think that a 20 to 40% risk is quite high enough for me to decide to spay my own dog(s). (Bella has already been spayed.)

If this thread turns into an all-out food fight, please send the ceviche my way :).