Spay and Neuter: When and If ever?

[gemy]

We shall move on. And I will continue to post on new research on this issue, as I do on other issues.

[Maximo]

This is a tough issue that challenges my core values. On the one hand, I believe everyone should have all the information available on a subject to make an informed decision. I'm all for science and sharing information.

On the other hand, the euthanization of pets without homes in this country is an appalling epidemic. It cannot be overstated. Hence, I fully support groups and individuals who strongly advocate for spaying and neutering.

Vasectomy and tubal ligation are interesting possibilities. I agree with Lynzy, I oppose birth control pills for many reasons.

I agree with something Ann has written on many threads that having natural hormones around are a positive. My Teddy was neutered a couple months later than Max. I cannot explain with any scientific evidence, but seeing the difference in the two, I would wait until closer to 1 year of age for a male if I have the choice again -- but this is a huge responsibility. It's not for everyone.

Even a great breeder can make mistakes. Teddy's litter was unplanned and the result of a miscommunication between his breeder and her husband about which dogs needed to be separated. How can we expect the average pet owner to do better when the knowledge and concern are far less than a show breeder?

Loose dogs are a big problem for me. I understand that neutering a male dog does not render them docile, but I can't be convinced that un-neutered males are less of a threat or less likely to run.

[107barney]

The average owner who doesn't want to spay or neuter usually is either afraid of anesthesia or unwilling to shell out the cash. I have a hard time believing that tubal ligation and vasectomies will be available to the average owner and even if they were the issues of $ and anesthesia remain. I have a male that was neutered at 10 mos old, a male neutered at 6 mos old and another neutered very early (too early!). I see no differences in the boys, each is a happy well adjusted dog.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by 107barney

The average owner who doesn't want to spay or neuter usually is either afraid of anesthesia or unwilling to shell out the cash. I have a hard time believing that tubal ligation and vasectomies will be available to the average owner and even if they were the issues of $ and anesthesia remain. I have a male that was neutered at 10 mos old, a male neutered at 6 mos old and another neutered very early (too early!). I see no differences in the boys, each is a happy well adjusted dog.

There was a thread here, active within the past couple of weeks, can't find it, that demonstrates people are finding low cost spay and neuter options. The very low costs were shocking to me, and my first thought was that corners were being cut. I guess there are some vets and organizations that are doing it for reasonable prices for the good of the community, perhaps supported by donations.

The most often cited reason for putting off neutering males that I have read on YT is aversion to emasculation.

I felt rushed to neuter Max at 6 months, like some alarm bell was going to go off and turn him into a monster. He is in great shape. Can't explain why I wish I had waited a little longer.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Maximo

There was a thread here, active within the past couple of weeks, can't find it, that demonstrates people are finding low cost spay and neuter options. The very low costs were shocking to me, and my first thought was that corners were being cut. I guess there are some vets and organizations that are doing it for reasonable prices for the good of the community, perhaps supported by donations.

The most often cited reason for putting off neutering males that I have read on YT is aversion to emasculation.

I felt rushed to neuter Max at 6 months, like some alarm bell was going to go off and turn him into a monster. He is in great shape. Can't explain why I wish I had waited a little longer.

There are foundations that you can donate to that support these types of clinics. The need is so great to try to control the pet overpopulation that there are mobile clinics in some areas that offer both spay/neuter services as well as basic vaccines. Additionally, there are further discounts for breed specific dogs (like pits for example) where they even offer to transport your dog to the clinic. It seems pretty logical to me that the need is there for a reason. These are not cost cutting hack shops, many times vests will volunteer their services for FREE because they feel so strongly about this necessity. My vet and several other vet hospitals in my area all support the local PAWS and offer low cost certificates for purchase. All 3 of mine as well as Truman as well were spayed/neutered this way. There was no difference between the procedure with the certificate just a wise purchcase on my part. Of course, I purchased additional blood work but that is always a choice for any surgery. I've talked to him about his participation before and he said that he feels that strongly about the benefits. He also participates in rescue by giving discounts to organization as well as being a member of a Greyhound rescue.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

There are foundations that you can donate to that support these types of clinics. The need is so great to try to control the pet overpopulation that there are mobile clinics in some areas that offer both spay/neuter services as well as basic vaccines. Additionally, there are further discounts for breed specific dogs (like pits for example) where they even offer to transport your dog to the clinic. It seems pretty logical to me that the need is there for a reason. These are not cost cutting hack shops, many times vests will volunteer their services for FREE because they feel so strongly about this necessity. My vet and several other vet hospitals in my area all support the local PAWS and offer low cost certificates for purchase. All 3 of mine as well as Truman as well were spayed/neutered this way. There was no difference between the procedure with the certificate just a wise purchase on my part. Of course, I purchased additional blood work but that is always a choice for any surgery. I've talked to him about his participation before and he said that he feels that strongly about the benefits. He also participates in rescue by giving discounts to organization as well as being a member of a Greyhound rescue.

There are almost always low cost options for spaying and neutering for those who have trouble affording it. The local animal control office or humane society should have this information readily available, and even many vets will refer patients if they cannot provide low cost services themselves.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Starina

This. Access to information. The ability to offer and discuss differing points of view without the conversation degenrating into "my-way-is-the-right-way' camps and snarky comments.

I totally agree with this, as it pertains to ALL discussions here. We should be able to have 2-sided+ discussions without the need to weaponize our words, in my humble opinion. It's SO EASY to get your point across *without* hurting anyone...I don't know why that proves so difficult here at YT, at times.

Originally Posted by lisaly

Sorry, Jodi, this is such a low blow, and it's unacceptable to me, no matter how passionate you are. Reading this really hurt me, and it would have been the case, even if it wasn't written about such a dear friend. I guess getting your point across is more important than caring about the feelings of a highly respected, contributing member of our community. We are all infallible; I don't think anyone, including Gail, would disagree with this. She took full responsibility for Zoey's illness, and she has been vocal about it. With everything I know about Gail, I would trust my adored little girl with her anytime. Her love for her pups is truly admirable, and she epitomizes what it means to be a devoted pet owner. I am so grateful for everything she does to educate our board and to contribute to the "heart" to YT.

I believe I am a very responsible pet owner, yet I have made mistakes. We all have. I do everything I can to learn how to do the very best I can for my little one. I have spayed all of my Yorkies through the years, but I appreciate this research and all of the information shared. I hope posts like yours don't deter others from posting. I know you are passionate about dogs. So am I, but I believe it is beyond reproach to bring up something so hurtful. I love dogs, and I will strongly advocate for them, yet I also live by a code of ethics that respects the feelings of both people and animals. Gemy earned my respect long ago, and that respect deepened when she shared Zoey's story and advocated for heart worm prevention.

I too think Gail absolutely epitomizes a truly loving and devoted pet Mom, without a doubt.

I'll be totally honest here - I don't think Zoey should've been brought up. Zoey has nothing to do with this thread, so it appeared as if she was being used as a dig toward Gail. I stress appeared bc I can't speak to anyone's true motives or intentions. If a correlation had to be made btwn spay/neutering and heartworm prevention as they relate to responsible owners, it could've been expressed as "Even responsible owners end up with tragic issues like cases of heartworm, unintended pregnancies, a yorkie dropped on its head, xyz example etc". I think it could have been said in such a way that was less personal. Just my opinion. Take or leave. Blah blee. No skin off my back if you think I'm a nutball.

As far as s/n - I'm thrilled that Gemy started this thread and I always think it's an important conversation. Heck, to be a huge devils advocate -- there are some that say that s/n very clearly does NOT work -- bc if it actually DID work, we would not be killing 4-6 million animals EVERY SINGLE YEAR without apparent end. There are countries all over the world who do not advocate for spay/neutering -- rather, they have the kind of respect for other living creatures that should put Americans to shame, in my opinion. The end to overpopulation is WAY more complicated than s/n our pets. Should we still s/n? Yes, we should in many cases bc s/n is an arm of the solution toward ending overpopulation...but it will never, ever be an end-all be-all solution to this problem. Not even close.

So, while I believe in s/n in most cases - I also fully support responsible ownership of intact pets whose owners prefer they maintain their natural and very important hormones. The choice to s/n or not and why/why not is a great discussion - so thanks to all in this thread !

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I totally agree with this, as it pertains to ALL discussions here. We should be able to have 2-sided+ discussions without the need to weaponize our words, in my humble opinion. It's SO EASY to get your point across *without* hurting anyone...I don't know why that proves so difficult here at YT, at times.



I too think Gail absolutely epitomizes a truly loving and devoted pet Mom, without a doubt.

I'll be totally honest here - I don't think Zoey should've been brought up. Zoey has nothing to do with this thread, so it appeared as if she was being used as a dig toward Gail. I stress appeared bc I can't speak to anyone's true motives or intentions. If a correlation had to be made btwn spay/neutering and heartworm prevention as they relate to responsible owners, it could've been expressed as "Even responsible owners end up with tragic issues like cases of heartworm, unintended pregnancies, a yorkie dropped on its head, xyz example etc". I think it could have been said in such a way that was less personal. Just my opinion. Take or leave. Blah blee. No skin off my back if you think I'm a nutball.

As far as s/n - I'm thrilled that Gemy started this thread and I always think it's an important conversation. Heck, to be a huge devils advocate -- there are some that say that s/n very clearly does NOT work -- bc if it actually DID work, we would not be killing 4-6 million animals EVERY SINGLE YEAR without apparent end. There are countries all over the world who do not advocate for spay/neutering -- rather, they have the kind of respect for other living creatures that should put Americans to shame, in my opinion. The end to overpopulation is WAY more complicated than s/n our pets. Should we still s/n? Yes, we should in many cases bc s/n is an arm of the solution toward ending overpopulation...but it will never, ever be an end-all be-all solution to this problem. Not even close.

So, while I believe in s/n in most cases - I also fully support responsible ownership of intact pets whose owners prefer they maintain their natural and very important hormones. The choice to s/n or not and why/why not is a great discussion - so thanks to all in this thread !

Since I am that "she", I will once again say there was no evil intent on my part bringing up the fact that Zoey had HW when it Gemy's husband accidentally missed their dogs HW treatment. All I was trying to do was point of a truth that responsible owners with intact animals can make mistakes. It's just like the thread the other day where a family was a few days short of a rabies vaccine and now their 10+ dog is locked up for 6 months because it encountered a skunk. Everyone was outraged but the point that Crystal was making is that people do not alway comply fully with basic things......"things happen" and "there should be exceptions" were a few of the excuses.

I will never ever believe that keeping intact animals should be thought of as a mainstream idea no matter whose supposed research might be out there. Yes, hormones might be great idea in a world of rainbows, unicorns and butterflies that some might live in with their amber beads and Mosi-Q holistic treatments while chasing away the fleas, ticks and mosquitoes with pills that are .0000000001% of some flower essence the idea of not contributing to the issues of all the overpopulation of animals in this country far out ways the very few people that should even consider themselves in this group. Like I'm stated previously, people are just looking for a reason to include themselves in the group of "responsible pet owners" and things like these articles by the likes of Dr. Becker with her holistic agenda and relationship with Mercola is enough to make me not want to hear another word. The FDA has been after Dr. Mercola for years for his false claims of holistic health, anti vaccine and unfounded sales pitches for the products he sells on his hugely profitable websites. Dr. Becker is right in there with him working the pet angle. FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by gemy

Canine Sports Productions: Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete

I've attached one link that talks about this issue, but there are many, many more sites, that incorporate recent (let's say past 5-7 yrs of research), by unbiased evaluators of the multiplicity of research available on this subject.

For many pet owners, it is almost an automatic decision to spay and neuter their pet. After all the vet recommends it, rescue does it as a matter of policy, your breeder wants it, and everywhere you turn you are advised to spay and or neuter your pet.

You are told categorically that it is overwhelming better for the health of your pet: well that is not "categorically so". Research throws some clear light onto this matter.

What I believe you need to separate out from all this is a couple of things; one: there is a pet overpopulation problem (and if you spay and neuter obviously you can't contribute to this), and the vested interests of both vets and breeders and rescues to spay and neuter.

Vets have an economic interest in the spay and neuter process. Breeders want to protect their lines, and make sure their lines are not deliberately or inadvertenly bred.

So as a concerned pet owner and a Responsible one, what do you do?

In my opinion first you want to make sure that the growth plates are closed before any spay and or neutering is considered. It is different for each breed of dog, and also within each line of that breed. But not for almost all breeds before 12 months of age, and in some 18 to 24 months ( eg:large breed dogs). I say this because early and especially very early neutering and spaying prior to 5 mths old, result in structural abnormalities and their resultant cocommittant osteopaedic problems that a pet owner should not have to deal with. Not to mention the increased risk of cancer, ligament tears, and dysplasia.

What does this mean to you as a dog owner?. For females they will go through at least one heat and maybe two, and must be safeguarded from breeding. Safeguarding does NOT mean belly bands and panties, but crates and separate feeding and exercise times for 5 wks or maybe 6wks, starting from as early as 6mths old for toy breeds, or 9 mths old for larger breeds, once heat has commenced.
For the male puppy, you make sure they don't roam free, and if they mark their territory so be it. You can with effort (akin to housebreaking) train your male not to mark in the house.

The research is clear at least for males, and somewhat less clear for females, that only looking at "health" and not other issues, that for the majority of male dogs, neutering Does Not provide significantly increased health over the long term, in fact the opposite.

Some fallacies that seem to be negated when studies are examined:

Neutering makes behavioural (beneficial changes in the males), specifically aggression..... Not so, In fact more aggression is observed in neutered males.
Neutering makes marking less....... Not clear or proven


Spay incontinence is so common; a term which was developed to describe what can happen after spay/neuter. This means your dog female or male. can't hold their bladder, and you as the pet owner must constantly over the life of your pet be prepared to clean up after urine discharge.

Believe you me, I don't want irresposnible breeding, but I don't want others to be sold a bill of goods either. That bill being, spaying/neutering is categorically good for the health of your pet.

This link is no longer available

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

This link is no longer available

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

This *might* be the updated link, I'm not sure:

http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/...tions_2013.pdf

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

I totally agree with this, as it pertains to ALL discussions here. We should be able to have 2-sided+ discussions without the need to weaponize our words, in my humble opinion. It's SO EASY to get your point across *without* hurting anyone...I don't know why that proves so difficult here at YT, at times.



As far as s/n - I'm thrilled that Gemy started this thread and I always think it's an important conversation. Heck, to be a huge devils advocate -- there are some that say that s/n very clearly does NOT work -- bc if it actually DID work, we would not be killing 4-6 million animals EVERY SINGLE YEAR without apparent end. There are countries all over the world who do not advocate for spay/neutering -- rather, they have the kind of respect for other living creatures that should put Americans to shame, in my opinion. The end to overpopulation is WAY more complicated than s/n our pets. Should we still s/n? Yes, we should in many cases bc s/n is an arm of the solution toward ending overpopulation...but it will never, ever be an end-all be-all solution to this problem. Not even close.

So, while I believe in s/n in most cases - I also fully support responsible ownership of intact pets whose owners prefer they maintain their natural and very important hormones. The choice to s/n or not and why/why not is a great discussion - so thanks to all in this thread !

I did read a report a while back (I think issued by the SPCA) that had some stats that seemed to show that the s/n here has had a positive impact on the number of euthanizations. I shall see if I can find it again.

How-ever it does boggle my mind the number of surrendered dogs in the USA. More understanding of why this is happening is so needed. Timely S/N might as Ann says may be a part of the solution, but 30 years of activism in this regard says we are only somewhat successful in reducing the number of dogs euthanized.

You have a population roughly 300Million with 10% dog ownership in households. That is 30Million dogs in homes in the USA. As I don't have stats on the age of the dog population and true annual demand for dogs, if it is roughly at 1% that is 300,000 dogs annually going into homes. It also says if roughly 3Million dogs are euthanized annually that is 10% of the dog population living in homes. A rather high number. And yet we have many commercial breeders, pet shops that sell dogs, bybers of all stripes. They don't do so out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to make money, and so they must if they want to stay in business.

And in this day and age of computerization surely we can computerize all shelter organizations and get some numbers based on good information and not estimates. With that information on line, on a computer, accessible to all shelter placement personnel, and to the public, we can move to place dogs all over the country.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by pstinard

This *might* be the updated link, I'm not sure:

http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/...tions_2013.pdf

Thanks Phil that looks like it.

[ladyjane]

Placing dogs is not a problem...the problem is that there are not enough responsible pet owners in this country to care for all of the dogs that people and breeders continue to pump out right and left, willy nilly. No one gives a hoot who takes an animal...they just care that it is out of the shelter....there SHOULD BE stats on how many are returned to shelters over and over and over again...

We live in a ridiculous country where the life of a dog is worthless....they are looked at as property, not living beings.

Why can't we pass laws to make people responsible? Ask the breeders who care about nothing but protecting their cash cows.

Don't EVEN get me started today on this topic of spay/neuter. I will weigh in at a later date but today is not the right one. I simply HAD to say something about how we can surely place all these homeless dogs. I have a few fosters who have been with me for a long time....little dogs with special needs. Could I find *A* home for each today? Yes I could....would it be a permanent one? The answer is NO. I could place dogs all day long but not properly. Properly is the key and I say it is high time people realized this. The root of the problem? Is it spay/neuter? Oh that is part of it....but the people who breed dogs are the real problem and any breeder who takes offense at this claim will simply tell me where they stand when it comes to the welfare of dogs. IF they took the time to properly place dogs, there would be less homeless dogs...and honestly they would not breed so many of them because they would not be able to find appropriate homes with responsible pet owners.

[ladyjane]

I thought that this was the orginal link:


http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

[dottiesyrky]

Yes pet over population is a multifaceted problem where supply exceeds demand ....sorry to be so crude. I am with you that the 'churning' often from home to home is a very sad and serious issue. I know some rescue angels well and in spite of meticulous screening/ home visits etc, the pets are sometimes returned as 'not suitable' in some way. One reason I heard yesterday was that the (relatively wealthy!) adopter did not understand the cost of keeping a pet and was shocked at the cost of Frontline!! This person had been well screened, but she lied!!
LJ, how do you screen people for adoption of your rescues? Do you find that some adopters lie and then return the pet with some idle excuse? How can one screen to overcome this? I cannot understand how people can adopt these innocents and return them like an ill fitting piece of clothing!! It really hurts and angers me.