Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4537257)

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

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537252)

*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.

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537252)

*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.

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 4537231)

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.

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537252)

*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.

Originally Posted by megansmomma (Post 4537270)

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.

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537302)

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.

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88 (Post 4537300)

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.

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins (Post 4537159)

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!

Originally Posted by gemy (Post 4537308)

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.


.

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537307)

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:

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537309)

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....

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01 (Post 4537309)

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....