Spay and Neuter: When and If ever?

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by 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 screenin/ 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.

I have never had a pup returned to me. Not saying it could never, ever happen to me...don't want to jinx myself. Anything can happen but if you are extremely careful it really is less likely.

As for your example, the person was not well screened because, if she had been, she would have already known the cost of Frontline and responsible pet ownership including vetting, feeding and grooming. Example: I ask when the dog was last tested for heartworms and what prevention is used/purchased. I ask what date it was purchased and how much was purchased. I figure out for sure that the person is giving prevention monthly. I ask about dental issues and if a vet has recommended a dental and if it was done by the owner. Things like that!

How do I screen? I only adopt to people with a track record. People who have purchased Frontline or other necessary preventions and know the cost. I don't care if a person is wealthy or not....I care that they have shown themselves to be responsible pet owners. They must have done the routine vet care including dentals if recommended by the vet and needed. I don't just ask the receptionist if a person is "good". I ask very detailed questions about vetting.

Does this limit who I will place dogs with? Yes. Is it fair? Yes, in my mind it is fair to the one I owe something to: The pup! There are plenty of pups in shelters that people with no track record can get a pup from...they can prove themselves that way and come back to me later after they have established themselves as responsible pet owners.

[chachi]

I have 2 yorkies both going on 10 yrs old they were spayed and neutered at 6 and 7 months. They have always been on heartworm and flea prevention. They are microchipped. They are active. They have never been to the vet except for annual visits vaccinations. spay and neutering. Chachi scratched his cornea so he has had ongoing eye problems hes had to be seen for but other than that where are all these health problems I should be seeing

[dottiesyrky]

Thank you for your reply. The person I mentioned was well screened and informed of and questioned about the cost of keeping a pet. They are also screened to determine if they have the means to care for a pet. We see on YT several pet owners who have problems with funding a sick pup. I do think many in the general public have no idea of what it costs to keep a pet. They buy them from pet shops with no screening or advice, and find they cannot keep the pet when it falls ill or needs a vet.
I think the secret of great placement, from what you say, is that the person has experience of having pets and all it entails, and a good track record.
On the other hand there are people who will adopt or buy their first pet, and how do we deal with screening those folks?
Perhaps that is the chink in the armor here?
I congratulate you on your having no returns, that is very comforting.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by chachi

I have 2 yorkies both going on 10 yrs old they were spayed and neutered at 6 and 7 months. They have always been on heartworm and flea prevention. They are microchipped. They are active. They have never been to the vet except for annual visits vaccinations. spay and neutering. Chachi scratched his cornea so he has had ongoing eye problems hes had to be seen for but other than that where are all these health problems I should be seeing

Oh and they have the dreaded lepto shot too

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

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.

Actually Ann, you just made the point for why spay/neuter should continue to be encouraged and possibly even mandatory. To paraphrase a really bad movie "a person is smart. People are stupid." In other words, as a general rule, people can't be trusted to protect their pets from unintentional breeding. How many times have we seen here on YT "I didn't mean to allow them to breed, but they got out of their crates/ got through the diaper/ I didn't know she was in heat/ my neighbor let his dog out/ the groomer didn't keep them separated...

Because of this, the whole idea of a pill to prevent breeding seems like an accident waiting to happen (look at how many people "forget" to use their own birth control). Vasectomies/hysterectomies might be a way to go in the future. But right now the limited number of vets that perform them makes it unlikely that the average pet owner would be able to either access or afford the service.

Some feel the reason we euthanize so many is because of an inherent lack of value we place on dogs. I would agree with that to some extent. Perhaps the way to increase that value is to make dogs more difficult to come by. Mandatory spay/neuter to own or possess a dog might be a good start. Require special licensing for all breeding capable pets. Would some people still be irresponsible and breed willy nilly any way? Of course, because it go back to the whole "people are stupid" idea.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great post! I agree, if breeders really cared about placing pups/dogs properly, that would solve the problem at the starting point.

Originally Posted by ladyjane

How do I screen? I only adopt to people with a track record. People who have purchased Frontline or other necessary preventions and know the cost. I don't care if a person is wealthy or not....I care that they have shown themselves to be responsible pet owners. They must have done the routine vet care including dentals if recommended by the vet and needed. I don't just ask the receptionist if a person is "good". I ask very detailed questions about vetting.

Does this limit who I will place dogs with? Yes. Is it fair? Yes, in my mind it is fair to the one I owe something to: The pup! There are plenty of pups in shelters that people with no track record can get a pup from...they can prove themselves that way and come back to me later after they have established themselves as responsible pet owners.

If we solved the problem with breeders and the shelters ran empty, then we would have a problem of establishing a track record. Would be a great problem to have.

Would be very nice for breeders to lay out pet care costs for potential buyers, especially the vetting costs. Make that part of the screening and contract. When I picked up Max at the breeder's house, we sat down and she re-read parts of the contract before allowing us to sign. We had not had a dog in 20+ years, so she could not contact our previous vet, who had long since retired.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Some feel the reason we euthanize so many is because of an inherent lack of value we place on dogs. I would agree with that to some extent. Perhaps the way to increase that value is to make dogs more difficult to come by. Mandatory spay/neuter to own or possess a dog might be a good start. Require special licensing for all breeding capable pets. Would some people still be irresponsible and breed willy nilly any way? Of course, because it go back to the whole "people are stupid" idea.

Our county does have a much higher fee for the required rabies licenses for un-neutered pets. It does not seem to deter people in this area.

There are many places in this country where many exotic animals do not require licensing, or it is really easy to get. I think it would be an uphill battle to make it harder for people to have a dog or cat.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by dottiesyrky

Thank you for your reply. The person I mentioned was well screened and informed of and questioned about the cost of keeping a pet. They are also screened to determine if they have the means to care for a pet. We see on YT several pet owners who have problems with funding a sick pup. I do think many in the general public have no idea of what it costs to keep a pet. They buy them from pet shops with no screening or advice, and find they cannot keep the pet when it falls ill or needs a vet.
I think the secret of great placement, from what you say, is that the person has experience of having pets and all it entails, and a good track record.
On the other hand there are people who will adopt or buy their first pet, and how do we deal with screening those folks?
Perhaps that is the chink in the armor here?
I congratulate you on your having no returns, that is very comforting.

I won't deal with them. Maybe that sounds horrible to some, but I owe my pups not the general public.

I don't consider it my life's mission to stop people from buying pups. I don't think everyone should have one and if everyone who bred them would realize that and stop letting any Tom, Dick or Harry get a dog then our problems would be less. My opinion of course.

[dottiesyrky]

I don't believe all first time pet owners are uncaring and unsuitable and I was just asking anyone here if they had any ideas about what screening method one may use for this category of pet owner.
I am sorry if you thought I was suggesting you should alter your policy to take care of them. Apologies if I offended you.
I know you have a pristine track record for successful adoptions, but some rescues and shelters do not. It is those poor pets that I am concerned about.
I saw a recent thread where a pet was returned to a rescue because he had pooped on the new owner's floor I believe. So it does happen!

[gemy]

Originally Posted by chachi

I have 2 yorkies both going on 10 yrs old they were spayed and neutered at 6 and 7 months. They have always been on heartworm and flea prevention. They are microchipped. They are active. They have never been to the vet except for annual visits vaccinations. spay and neutering. Chachi scratched his cornea so he has had ongoing eye problems hes had to be seen for but other than that where are all these health problems I should be seeing

Chachi you know where, just go to sick and emergency forum, and the multiple articles "researched" about genetic defects in dogs. LadyJane I believe posted one, as did I from different sources, this was a compilation of different research on genetic deficits not just in Yorkies but other breeds. Yorkies have somewhere around 21 genetic defects.

I too have been blessed with a healthy Yorkie, that came from healthy parents, my Yorkie has been health tested prior to his breeding.
And you do know what I mean by that.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by gemy

Chachi you know where, just go to sick and emergency forum, and the multiple articles "researched" about genetic defects in dogs. LadyJane I believe posted one, as did I from different sources, this was a compilation of different research on genetic deficits not just in Yorkies but other breeds. Yorkies have somewhere around 21 genetic defects.

I too have been blessed with a healthy Yorkie, that came from healthy parents, my Yorkie has been health tested prior to his breeding.
And you do know what I mean by that.

That's why all the dogs who have those defects in there blood that they could pass to puppies should be fixed...... Not all of those sick have been because they where fixed.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Our county does have a much higher fee for the required rabies licenses for un-neutered pets. It does not seem to deter people in this area.

There are many places in this country where many exotic animals do not require licensing, or it is really easy to get. I think it would be an uphill battle to make it harder for people to have a dog or cat.

We have a slightly elevated fee for licensing of unaltered pets, too. Truthfully though, it's minuscule when compared to the costs of picking up and euthanizing the thousands upon thousands of pets that are allowed to breed willy nilly.

I suppose that some people would just avoid licensing an unaltered dog if the fee was raised. I don't know what the answer is. Higher vet fees, random animal control checks, banning of pets for sale ads on craigs list, higher fees on puppy finder...the only thing I know that routinely gets people's attention is taking money from their pockets.

[chachi]

[QUOTE=gemy;4451047]Chachi you know where, just go to sick and emergency forum, and the multiple articles "researched" about genetic defects in dogs. LadyJane I believe posted one, as did I from different sources, this was a compilation of different research on genetic deficits not just in Yorkies but other breeds. Yorkies have somewhere around 21 genetic defects.

I too have been blessed with a healthy Yorkie, that came from healthy parents, my Yorkie has been health tested prior to his breeding.
And you do know what I mean by that

Gemy I respect your opinion and appreciate that you keep us up to date on research. My question wasnt about genetic defects I know all dogs can have them I am questioning the acquired problems because of early spay and neuter. I am just wondering if early spay and neutering causes hip problems and knee problems or stunted bone growth why we arent hearing more owners with these problems or why mine dont have them

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

That's why all the dogs who have those defects in there blood that they could pass to puppies should be fixed...... Not all of those sick have been because they where fixed.

Of course not. And ipso facto, that is why the studies go on, to understand the health and other effects of spaying and neutering. And why it is so very important to understand this, given that is such a widespread and common procedure here in North America.

[megansmomma]

[quote=chachi;4451077]

Originally Posted by gemy

Chachi you know where, just go to sick and emergency forum, and the multiple articles "researched" about genetic defects in dogs. LadyJane I believe posted one, as did I from different sources, this was a compilation of different research on genetic deficits not just in Yorkies but other breeds. Yorkies have somewhere around 21 genetic defects.

I too have been blessed with a healthy Yorkie, that came from healthy parents, my Yorkie has been health tested prior to his breeding.
And you do know what I mean by that

Gemy I respect your opinion and appreciate that you keep us up to date on research. My question wasnt about genetic defects I know all dogs can have them I am questioning the acquired problems because of early spay and neuter. I am just wondering if early spay and neutering causes hip problems and knee problems or stunted bone growth why we arent hearing more owners with these problems or why mine dont have them

I think that you are misunderstanding how bone grows and what growth plates are in the bone. Spay and Neuter does not cause bones to stop growing. When bones are growing (in animals and humans) they grow from the ends of the long bones like in the legs. Here is a link to a chart for bone growth. The argument is that without hormones the growth plates close a little slower. They do not STOP closing.

PROVET HEALTHCARE INFORMATION - Growth Plate Closure Times - Dogs



Growth Plate Closure - Range (days) Closure - Average (days)
FORELIMB
Tuber scapulae 117-210 186
Proximal humeral epiphysis 273-465 375
Medial and lateral humeral condyles 138-236 187
Medial humeral epicondyle 187-240 216
Proximal radial epiphysis 136-330 258
Distal radial epiphysis 136-510 318
Proximal ulnar epiphysis 161-450 258
Distal ulnar epiphysis 217-450 308
Intermediate and radial carpal bones 101
Central carpal bone 110
Epiphysis of accessory bone 113-180 135
Proximal metacarpal epiphysis 145
Distal metacarpal epiphysis II-V 165-240 203
Proximal phalangeal epiphysis I 141
Proximal phalanx proximal epiphysis II-V 131-224 186
Middle phalanx. proximal epiphysis II-V 131-224 183

PROVET HEALTHCARE INFORMATION - Growth Plate Closure Times - Dogs

The issue that I see with the chart is that it's a general closure and not specific for each breed. Larger dogs take a longer time for their growth plates to close. So the bolded bones are the ones that are being referred to in these studies.

I also quoted a different study below that says the very slight different in growth plate closure is a matter of a few weeks.

The impact of early spaying or neutering on skeletal growth has been investigated. Testosterone and estrogen, although not re*quired, influence growth, mainte*nance, and aging of the skeleton.2 In one study, spaying/neutering at seven weeks or seven months of age did not affect the rate of bone growth in male or female dogs when compared with intact dogs.2 Nonetheless, early spaying or neutering in dogs will result in a delay in the closure of the growth plate by an average of nine weeks. This delay will cause in*creased bone length in both male and female dogs, however. If the operation is done at seven months of age, the delay will be seen in male dogs only. Therefore, the be*lief that prepubertal spaying or neutering stunts growth is not true.2

SUMMARY
The effects of early spaying or neutering continue to be studied. New information suggests that the consequences associated with early spaying or neutering are not nearly as detrimental as previously thought and that many reasons against early spaying or neutering are not based on sound scientific information. Changes in secondary sex characteristics appear to be the most profound side effects of early spaying or neutering. Recent studies suggest that early spaying or neutering has very little impact on an animal's health. Currently, it appears that early spaying or neu*tering has significant merit in pre*venting disease of the reproductive organs and in controlling the pet population.

These are all parts of the same Journal of American Veterinary Medicine which is a pay site so I cannot get the full content of the article. I will post the entire article below.

Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on ... [J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI