Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 4452453)

Your analogy made zero sense to me. Besides, why would you be bothered by others stating their opinions? You of all people? Your post indicated that they should not be doing it unless they "attacked" me as well. ?????

Originally Posted by gemy (Post 3678325)

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.

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.

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452457)

I agree that not all of the discussion is fact-based, and the title of this thread including the phrase "If ever" is unfortunate, since the "if ever" part is more a concern for some large breed dogs than for Yorkshire Terriers. For my part, I'm trying to keep my contributions as fact-based as possible. I found an excellent article on pros and cons of pediatric neutering (neutering dogs younger than 4 months of age) that I'm waiting to present when I have more time. It has a table that provides numerical scores to the risks and benefits so that the vet and owner can make a responsible decision as to when to neuter. For instance, the benefits of preventing mammary tumors and pyometra FAR outweigh the risk of obesity and CCL rupture in spayed females. However, the younger the dog, the greater the risk of spay incontinence (lack of bladder control), so it's best to spay the dog as late as possible before the first heat. Definitely the kind of discussion worth having.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452459)

Huh??

I'm not bothered by anyone stating their OPINION.. that was my point. I didn't know everything had to be 100% scientifically proven before we talked about it.... which seems to be your point?

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 4452463)

Clearly you were bothered by something and felt a need to protect someone from some unknown attack.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452465)

Lol okay... If you say so. Clearly we are not understanding each other.

Originally Posted by Maximo (Post 4452462)

Both of my female dogs suffered incontinence in their very senior years. Is there a way to determine if it is spay incontinence? Are there other causes? They both had a daily pill that solved the problem.

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom (Post 4452421)

I'm not speaking for Brit, but the way I read her post was that after she read the thread, she felt that it appeared there were some *very* strong pro-s/n advocates on this thread. Which is fine/great - nothing wrong w/ that. But I think she was seeing Gemy being a bit attacked for having some 'position', per se, while others who have the 'opposing position' (again, per se, not in fact) appeared to not allow the room for having a discussion or having an alternate position. I think she was saying "if we allow one position, why aren't we allowing all positions?" (with which, I agree). That was my take on her take :p. Now, your take of my take on her take could be completely different! :D

And just to be clear, I'm not saying you're pro this or anti that - only you can tell us your position, or whether you have one.

At the end of the day, this is a good discussion where we shouldn't worry (imho) about who supports this or that, but rather about how s/n affects our pets and why we make the decisions we do regarding their health...and how all this relates to current/past data and studies.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452449)

Exactly. And yes Wylie's Mom, you posted what I was thinking as well.

I'm glad you all think athletic Yorkies is some kind of a joke. God forbid you keep a Yorkie in shape. I'm glad you're happy with couch potatoes. But I was actually referring to dogs in general. I didn't know that wasn't allowed anymore on YT, simply because it's a yorkie based forum? All I meant was there is a world out there, of dog sports, where these dogs are trained as athletes. Keeping them intact is often beneficial for these dogs. All I meant by that.

I made a pretty simple straight to the point post and stated my dogs will always be fixed, and that I don't think there's enough pros/cons on either side to really care all that much. And I do agree the general dog owning population should have fixed dogs. There's nothing wrong with discussions on a forum, however. I did not know we had to be so careful what we say in case non-members read our threads. In that case, what's the point in even discussing anything anymore? Anyone can Google and find an answer their happy with.

Fwiw, 83% of 83.3 million dogs have been surgically altered to have their reproductive organs removed in the US. That is 69 million spayed and neutered dogs. I'd say a majority of the US has altered dogs so I'm really not overly concerned with responsible breeders and responsible owners having a choice as to whether they went their dogs reproductive organs removed. And for the losers who just let their dogs roam free, impregnate whatever dog they see, and have the thousands of puppies per year that wind up in shelters? Well, they're idiots. Maybe eventually they'll learn, but maybe not.

Ladyjane, I'm not sure why the long post SHEESHing me... I was making a generic statement to the whole thread. I read all your posts clearly, and wasn't really addressing them, simply stating... well read Wylie's Mom's post, I'm tired of typing... lol..

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452441)

To add to the conversation, I found this 2010 research article. The meatiest parts of the article are copied below. Parts of the article that I did not copy are represented by [...]. I bolded the parts that are related to spaying and/or Yorkshire Terriers, as well as the main conclusions. With respect to the effect of spaying on the development of luxating patella and CCL rupture, the authors note an increase in the rate of these two conditions in spayed dogs. HOWEVER, they do not draw any conclusions as to cause and effect. Clearly, more research is needed to determine if there is cause and effect, and if so, what the underlying mechanism is.

Severity of patellar luxation and frequency of concomitant cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: 162 cases (2004–2007). Courtney A. Campbell, dvm; Christopher L. Horstman, dvm, ms, dacvs; David R. Mason, bvetmed, dacvs; Richard B. Evans, phd. AVMA, Vol 236, No. 8, April 15, 2010.

Summary:

Objective—To evaluate severity of medial patellar luxation (MPL) and frequency of con- comitant cranial cruciate ligament rupture (CCLR) in dogs.

Design—Retrospective case series.

Animals—162 dogs (266 stifle joints).

Procedures—Medical records of 162 small-breed dogs with MPL were reviewed. Signalment, body weight, luxation grade, bilateral or unilateral MPL, CCLR, and difference in luxation grades between stifle joints were evaluated. Association between severity of MPL and CCLR was investigated.

Results—58 dogs had unilateral MPL, and 104 dogs had bilateral MPL. Dogs ranged from 8.4 months to 16.7 years of age (mean, 5.7 years), and mean body weight was 5.45 kg (12 lb). Forty-one percent of all dogs had concomitant CCLR. Mean age for dogs with MPL alone was 3.0 years, which differed significantly from mean age of dogs with MPL and concomitant CCLR (7.8 years). Dogs with grade IV MPL were significantly more likely to have concomitant CCLR than were dogs with any other grade of MPL. In dogs with bilateral MPL and unilateral CCLR, there was a significantly higher grade of luxation in the stifle joint with CCLR.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Small-breed dogs with MPL and concomitant CCLR were older than were dogs with only MPL. Dogs with grade IV MPL were more likely to have CCLR than were dogs with other grades of MPL. Most dogs with concomitant CCLR had a higher MPL grade in the affected stifle joint than in the intact joint. These findings should be beneficial in client education and clinical diagnosis. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;236:887–891)

Introduction

Medial patellar luxation is one of the most common conditions affecting the stifle joint in dogs.1–4 Small-breed dogs are 12 times as likely to be affected by MPL as are large-breed dogs.5,6 Breed predilections have been reported for the Boston Terrier, Chihuahua, Pomeranian, Miniature Poodle, and Yorkshire Terrier.1,4,6 In these breeds as well as in others, luxation of the patella is primarily a developmental condition, with traumatic luxation being less common.3,7 A low-grade MPL may not result in clinical signs and frequently is an incidental finding during physical examination.3,7

Similarly, CCLR is a common disease affecting the stifle joint in dogs.3,7–9 Cruciate ligament disease has been recognized in both large- and small-breed dogs, with dogs of the Miniature Poodle, Lhasa Apso, Maltese, and Pomeranian breeds being the most frequently affected small-breed dogs.3,7,9

Definitive causes for MPL and CCLR have not been elucidated; however, it has been suggested that they have different causes.1–3,5 Classically, skeletal abnormalities associated with MPL are a shallow trochlear sulcus and medial displacement of the tibial tuberosity.2,3,5 Other skeletal abnormalities suggested to contribute to this condition are genu varum, hypoplasia of the medial femoral condyle, medial bowing of the proximal portion of the tibia, coxa vara, and internal rotation of the pes.3,7,8,10 Many causes of CCLR have been investigated, and common etiopathogeneses include trauma, age-associated degeneration of the ligament, immune- mediated disease, conformational abnormalities, and processes associated with breed, sex, and tibial plateau angle.3,7,8

Patients with bilateral MPL may have clinical signs in a chronic or intermittent manner or may be com- pletely devoid of clinical signs of the condition.3,7,11 When a dog with chronic MPL develops an acute hind limb lameness, concomitant CCLR should be considered.3,7 The suggested pathogenesis for dogs with MPL that develop concomitant CCLR is an increase in strain on the ligament as a result of anatomic abnormalities associated with MPL.3,7,12 Conversely, investigators have hypothesized that dogs with CCLR with no previous history of an MPL may acquire an MPL as a result of the increased internal rotation of the tibia once the cranial cruciate ligament has ruptured.3,12

To our knowledge, there are no published studies confirming an association between the grade of MPL and frequency of CCLR in small-breed dogs. The objective of the study reported here was to determine whether there was a relationship between the grade of MPL and frequency of CCLR in a population of dogs. We hypothesized that dogs with an increase in the grade of MPL would be more likely to have a concomitant CCLR and that the grade of MPL would be greater in the stifle joint with the concomitant CCLR.

[...]

Discussion

The most common breeds affected with MPL in the study reported here were the Chihuahua and Yorkshire Terrier, which corroborates results of a report14 in which there was overrepresentation of Chihuahuas. In another study,4 the Miniature Poodle was the breed most commonly affected. This finding may be explained by the hospital population evaluated in our study.

The sex distribution for patellar luxation in the present study was a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.3, which is consistent with the ratio of 1:1.5 in small-breed dogs reported in other studies4,7,14 but is in contrast to the sex distribution (male-to-female ratio, 1.8:1) reported in large-breed dogs.4,15 In the present study, spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to have MPL. These findings are in agreement with those of another report16 in which investigators detected a higher incidence of patellar luxation in spayed females.16 The findings of the present study may be attributable to our study population, an increase in spaying and neutering, or a true increase in the prevalence of MPL in dogs that have been spayed or neutered. We believe that our study population is representative of that at most referral institutions because there is a great number of similarities between our study population and the study populations in other investigations.

In the study reported here, we hypothesized that higher grades of MPL would be associated with an increase in the frequency of concomitant CCLR. We found that dogs with grade IV MPL were significantly (P = 0.02) more likely to have concomitant CCLR than were dogs with all other grades of luxation.

[...]

To our knowledge, there have been no reports of the small-breed dogs most commonly affected or the sex of dogs with MPL and concomitant CCLR. In the study reported here, the Yorkshire Terrier and spayed female dogs were slightly overrepresented. The study revealed a significant association between age and concomitant CCLR. Mean age at which dogs with concomitant CCLR were identified (7.8 years) was significantly higher than the mean age of dogs in which MPL alone was identified (3.0 years). This is consistent with results of studies3,4 in which middle-aged to older dogs with patellar luxation appeared to be at an increased risk of developing CCLR. The overall incidence of MPL with concomitant CCLR of 25% in the study reported here was higher than that in other reports4,15,24,25; however, those studies did not have strict exclusionary criteria with regard to breed.

[...]

In conclusion, middle-aged to older dogs and dogs with grade IV MPL were at an increased risk for developing CCLR. Dogs with bilateral patellar luxation and concomitant unilateral CCLR were more likely to have a higher score for grade of luxation in the cranial cruciate ligament–deficient stifle joint. Studies are warranted to evaluate the reproducibility of the results reported here, in addition to results for follow-up monitoring, radiography, physical examination findings, and other factors that influence MPL and concomitant CCLR.

Originally Posted by Maximo (Post 4452452)

I see now that I was glossing over the parts about motive and bias. We all have a bias and wouldn't be human without it.

The talk of motives I did not interpret as a personal attack. I'm at a loss how to explain how I view it.

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 4452460)

Let me give an example of my concerns......from the original post:



Where in there did you see anything mentioned about the risk of mammary tumors in females who have gone through heat cycles? There IS evidence that with each heat cycle the risk increases. There IS evidence that if a female is spayed prior to the first heat cycle, the risk of mammary tumors is nil. This is one sided....this is, as she stated, HER opinion. She is actually advising people to put their female yorkies at risk of mammary tumors!!! MY opinion is that until there is REAL scientific evidence that altering yorkies at six months of age is causing all these issues that she is alluding to, I will continue to alter them at that age.

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452468)

I'd have to check out the articles on this, but I'm pretty sure that if the incontinence develops during the senior years, it was not due to spaying, but is instead a geriatric issue. Regardless of cause, I'm glad that your dogs responded well to treatment!

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452468)

I'd have to check out the articles on this, but I'm pretty sure that if the incontinence develops during the senior years, it was not due to spaying, but is instead a geriatric issue. Regardless of cause, I'm glad that your dogs responded well to treatment!

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452475)

I did a quick check, and urinary incontinence due to spaying usually has an onset of between 3 and 5 years of age, and is less common in small breed dogs than in large breed dogs, and occurs at a very low rate (about 5% of spayed females in some studies), so the likelihood of a senior dog developing incontinence due to spaying is very, very low, so yes, it probably is an unrelated geriatric issue.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452449)

I'm glad you all think athletic Yorkies is some kind of a joke. God forbid you keep a Yorkie in shape. I'm glad you're happy with couch potatoes.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452449)

Exactly. And yes Wylie's Mom, you posted what I was thinking as well.

I'm glad you all think athletic Yorkies is some kind of a joke. God forbid you keep a Yorkie in shape. I'm glad you're happy with couch potatoes. But I was actually referring to dogs in general. I didn't know that wasn't allowed anymore on YT, simply because it's a yorkie based forum? All I meant was there is a world out there, of dog sports, where these dogs are trained as athletes. Keeping them intact is often beneficial for these dogs. All I meant by that.

I made a pretty simple straight to the point post and stated my dogs will always be fixed, and that I don't think there's enough pros/cons on either side to really care all that much. And I do agree the general dog owning population should have fixed dogs. There's nothing wrong with discussions on a forum, however. I did not know we had to be so careful what we say in case non-members read our threads. In that case, what's the point in even discussing anything anymore? Anyone can Google and find an answer their happy with.

Fwiw, 83% of 83.3 million dogs have been surgically altered to have their reproductive organs removed in the US. That is 69 million spayed and neutered dogs. I'd say a majority of the US has altered dogs so I'm really not overly concerned with responsible breeders and responsible owners having a choice as to whether they went their dogs reproductive organs removed. And for the losers who just let their dogs roam free, impregnate whatever dog they see, and have the thousands of puppies per year that wind up in shelters? Well, they're idiots. Maybe eventually they'll learn, but maybe not.

Ladyjane, I'm not sure why the long post SHEESHing me... I was making a generic statement to the whole thread. I read all your posts clearly, and wasn't really addressing them, simply stating... well read Wylie's Mom's post, I'm tired of typing... lol..

Originally Posted by 107barney (Post 4452473)

This article says nothing about of diagnosis of MPL vs. time of spay. Most yorkies are diagnosed w/ MPLs earlier than their spays. Mine was 8 weeks old and dx'd with bilateral Grade IVs, was spayed at 16 weeks old, is 14 now and never suffered a CCLR although there is a question of a soft tissue vs. partial tear in the leg not previously surgically repaired.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452465)

Lol okay... If you say so. Clearly we are not understanding each other.

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88 (Post 4452490)

I know that 4 years ago when Callie went to the orthopedic surgeon and he said her ACL was tearing and the cause was her LP and that he never asked what age she was spayed and he prides himself on keeping up with the research. When we went back this time and were trying to figure out the best time to do the surgery and again he said the LP could cause the ACL to tear. Never once did he suggest the age she was spayed had anything to do with the ACL and tearing. I am so much more likely to trust my specialist then parts of a study we don't know the info on the dogs from. I feel if there was research that was important my specialist would have read it and told us early spaying was the reason. Callie came from a puppy mill there is no doubt in my mind her poor genetics are what caused her to have LP and the LP led to the tearing of the ACL not because she was spayed before a year.

Originally Posted by Maximo (Post 4452488)

I'm butting in . . . I come in peace:

Brit, re-reading your post, it does say Linda's views are shaped by her work in rescue. By suggesting she go hang around sporting dogs, you are assuming she doesn't have knowledge of that world. Linda posted about her view that these health problems are the result of bad breeding/breeders, and not spaying/neutering. That was her emphasis. Edit: not advocating for spay/neuter.

So this isn't a breeder vs rescue motive thing.

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452500)

The reason your vet wouldn't mention it is because cause and effect has not been proven. I cited two studies, one of which had 46% small breed dogs, and the second of which was all small breed dogs, with Yorkshire Terriers heavily represented. The association between spaying and MPL/CCL problems was small, but statistically significant. Cause and effect was not implied at all, and one of the possible reasons given for the association is that spayed dogs might (in general) receive better veterinary care, resulting in the the diagnosis of MPL/CCL issues that would otherwise go undiagnosed in unspayed animals receiving less frequent veterinary care. Direct cause and effect have not been proven, and that is why no specialist would mention it at all, unless they were actively involved in this type of research and collecting data for their studies.

Originally Posted by Britster (Post 4452501)

Lol this makes sense... And clearly we, or maybe I, just had a misunderstanding.

My main point stands there. I honestly didn't put a ton of thought into this and didn't have a desire to sit and nit pick all the posts. I'm on vacation and posting from my phone in an RV. So I'm out.

I don't care either way what people do with their dogs as long as they aren't abusive and live in a good home. The end.

Originally Posted by gemy (Post 4449452)

A retrospective cohort study published in Feb 1 2014 of Journal of the American Veterinary Association.

The link provided is an article by Dr Becker, who with-in the article provides the link to the actual study.

In line with the GR and Rottweiler studies, more confirmation of the health risks to spayed/neutered animals.

I leave it to the readers to look up the study.

Will Spaying/Neutering Increase Your Dog's Risk of Cancer?

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88 (Post 4452503)

If there was significant evidence then vets and actual orthopedic specialist would be using the information. There were issues with the study big issues in my opinion.

Originally Posted by gemy (Post 4452512)

Here is the link directly to the Viszlas study.

http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Hea...izslaStudy.pdf


On the subject of mammary tumours here is one extract. If you click the link the full 12 page or so report is available to any reader.

The association between gonadectomy and various

neoplasms in dogs has been examined in several


studies.15–20 Mammary gland cancer is an important



condition in female dogs, with approximately 20% to


50% of the tumors being histologically malignant.33,34



It is commonly believed that gonadectomized female

dogs have a reduced risk of mammary gland cancer and

that the earlier a dog is gonadectomized, the lower the


risk.28,29,34,35 However, authors of a recent systematic review36



of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the

associations among neutering, age at neutering, and

mammary gland tumors concluded that the evidence

that neutering reduces the risk of mammary gland neoplasia

is weak and not a sound basis for firm recommendations

on neutering because of limited evidence

and bias in published results.

I would try to copy and paste this report but right now my p.c. is telling me my disc is full:confused:

The above finding on Viszlas and no apparent association on age of spaying and relationship to mammary cancer is surprising to me. Most previous research I have read is for slight iincrease in incidence rate associated with spaying before first heat, spaying after first but prior second heat, but a minimal increate in risk/incident rate. How ever a sharp increase in unbred older intact females.

This study I need to look at more to see about pyrometra, which is imo, much more of a concern than mammary cancer is. Of course these two conditions affect predominately female dogs, or solely female dogs. And most studies indicate that pyrometra is rare in young females.

And as the study authors have said much more research is needed to be done not just for Viszlas but for all breeds.

It could very well be that there is a breed disposition to mammary cancer, as there seems to be for sarcomas, hemangiosarcomas, Von Willenbrands disease (which thankfully now there is a genetic test for). If you look at the report on cancers male/females you do not see mammary cancer delineated, and was included in the other types of cancer Mammary cancer was lumped in with all other cancers.

Other cancers including mammary and most specifically by breed type are only suspected, some breeds with strong suspicion that there is not only a breed disposition to, but an association with timing of s/n. So the first question to be answered by science is there a breed disposition to cancer? If so, what kinds and by what breed? Then what causes this breed disposition? Is it truly genetic? Some combo of genetics, nutrition, environment etc. Are all breeds or only certain breeds made more or less susceptible by judicious timing of a full s/n? Would it be better to use alternative methods of s/n to keep the sex hormones? For males, for females, for which breed types?

And having asked all the above questions, which will be decades in the answering, all we as breeders can go by is the best information at the time we need to make the decisions and or recommendations to our puppy owners. And all you can do as pet owners is to educate yourself as well for the breed (s) you own.

Some breeds are further ahead in answering these questions then others. Some answers perhaps mammary tumour and pyrometra is consistent across all or most breed types or sizes.

I await reading and posting new research and findings on this topic.

Originally Posted by gemy (Post 4452512)

Here is the link directly to the Viszlas study.

http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/Hea...izslaStudy.pdf


However, authors of a recent systematic review36

of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the

associations among neutering, age at neutering, and

mammary gland tumors concluded that the evidence

that neutering reduces the risk of mammary gland neoplasia

is weak and not a sound basis for firm recommendations

on neutering because of limited evidence

and bias in published results.

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452520)

I think that these results could very well be breed-specific, and also related to the types of cancer under discussion. Here is a quote from the article "Pros, Cons, and Techniques of Pediatric Neutering," by Margaret V. Root Kustritz (Vet Clin Small Anim 44 (2014) 221–233), also a 2014 article:

"Mammary neoplasia

For female dogs and cats, the greatest benefits are decreased risk of development of mammary neoplasia when aged and lack of development of pyometra. Incidence of mammary neoplasia in cats is 2.5% and is virtually always malignant adenocarci- noma.22–24 Mammary neoplasia is 7 times more likely to occur in aged queens than in spayed female cats, with the greatest decrease in incidence associated with spaying before the first estrus.24 Incidence of mammary neoplasia in dogs is 3.4%, with about 50% being benign fibroadenomas and 50% malignant adenocarcinomas.22,25–32 Incidence is greatly decreased by spaying, especially by spaying before the first heat.1,33,34 A recent attempt to determine the significance of these data by systematic review of the veterinary literature was unable to identify strong evidence suggesting that spaying decreases the risk of mammary cancer; however, this systematic review is based on work in human medicine and requires a massive body of literature, which does not exist in veterinary medicine.35"

Originally Posted by pstinard (Post 4452527)

AHA!!!! The systematic review mentioned in the Viszlas study stating that risk of mammary cancer shouldn't be a concern in making decisions about spaying is the same review mentioned in the study that I just quoted in my last post:

"A recent attempt to determine the significance of these data by systematic review of the veterinary literature was unable to identify strong evidence suggesting that spaying decreases the risk of mammary cancer; however, this systematic review is based on work in human medicine and requires a massive body of literature, which does not exist in veterinary medicine.35"

So there is a difference of opinion on the validity of that systematic review...

Originally Posted by megansmomma (Post 4452541)

This We Don't Have a Cure for Cancer Yet - or Do We?