Linda, there needs to be a better way, to educate, to avoid indiscriminate breedings; one that isn't based on let us say a gross mis-representation of the actual risks and benefits of de-sexing a dog.

Pet owners need to know what is at stake. And particularly large breed pet owners.

It could be if more vasectomies or tubal ligations were available and actually done, the dogs could keep the protective sex hormones. It could be if the public was aware that this was an option, and that vets were routinely trained in this, the public would actually have an informed choice.

I don't believe that there is a gross misrepresentation of the risks to our small breed. I am not going to get into this discussion about research in this thread, but suffice it to say that I don't buy all of this. These sources freely admit that there can be medical issues, but that they can be fixed. Uh, hello? So, put your pup at risk of cancer but that's ok because it is easily fixed? I read that and shook my head. Then, the remarks about pyometra floored me....another condition that can be treated. Oh, it can, but it can and is deadly. They gave it what a 1% death occurrence? That is IF treated successfully. It is hard enough to get people to spend money to alter their pets and then we assume these same people are going to want to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to correct these health conditions that occurred due to their pups being intact?? OH...and to suggest that they will want to spend money on sterilization ?? I don't know for a fact, but my guess is that would cost more??

I find it sad that it is being put all over YT every time someone mentions altering their pet; but nothing I can do but tell people how sad I think it is.

I don't think anyone is saying that dogs and bitches should never be altered. People just need to know what possible long term problems can occur. Altering a dog may decrease the chances of one type of cancer but at the same time increase the chances for a different type. There is no way I would ever recommend someone keeping a female unspayed unless there were health issues that made the surgery risky. I think the main issue with females is what is the best age to spay. Personally I just feel that waiting until they are closer to a year old is best but that is just my personal opinion.

As for the money issue, it goes both ways. For example a spay female is more at risk for hypothyroidism, obesity, certain types of cancer etc. A pet owner would have to deal with any type of health issue whether the dog was altered or not. As dogs get older, whether altered or not, they can possible develop all kinds of health issues. Some of these health issue could be related to spaying and neutering, diet, or over vaccination. I just think everyone should be aware of all the issues. YT is just a great site where we can all educate pet owners on all the issues. I have learned a lot just by listening to both sides of a story.

Well, then, hopefully they will read this thoroughly because in my reading it, it sounds to me that the best way to avoid testicular cancer is to neuter (and, I felt the same way about mammary tumors and pyometra risk in females). It does say that these are treatable cancers...in my home NO pup is going to be intentionally put at risk of cancer just because it can be treated. Of course some will say that they have issues due to being altered, but I have not seen anything yet that convinces me of it.

AND I do think that people on this forum and others are being frightened about altering their pets with much of this. As I said, it saddens me. I don't want to debate this...I merely wanted to say that I wish this were not occurring. That's all.


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

Testicular Cancer
Since the testicles are removed with neutering, castration removes any risk of testicular cancer (assuming
the castration is done before cancer develops). This needs to be compared to the risk of testicular cancer in
intact dogs.
Testicular tumors are not uncommon in older intact dogs, with a reported incidence of 7%8
. However, the
prognosis for treating testicular tumors is very good owing to a low rate of metastasis9
, so testicular cancer
is an uncommon cause of death in intact dogs. For example, in a Purdue University breed health survey of
Golden Retrievers10, deaths due to testicular cancer were sufficiently infrequent that they did not appear on
list of significant causes of "Years of Potential Life Lost for Veterinary Confirmed Cause of Death” even
though 40% of GR males were intact. Furthermore, the GRs who were treated for testicular tumors had a
90.9% cure rate. This agrees well with other work that found 6-14% rates of metastasis for testicular tumors
in dogs11
.
The high cure rate of testicular tumors combined with their frequency suggests that fewer than 1% of intact
male dogs will die of testicular cancer.
In summary, though it may be the most common reason why many advocate neutering young male dogs,
the risk from life threatening testicular cancer is sufficiently low that neutering most male dogs to prevent it is
difficult to justify.
An exception might be bilateral or unilateral cryptorchids, as testicles that are retained in the abdomen are
13.6 times more likely to develop tumors than descended testicles12 and it is also more difficult to detect
tumors in undescended testicles by routine physical examination.

Yes, but that same article also stated that neutering increase the chances for other types of cancer and other health issues. This was their conclusion in regards to neutering males:

I understand that the research is in regards to health issues related to neutering. There are other things to consider such as marking and the crazy behavior of males if they are around a female in heat.

Well, bottom line in my book is that more people need to alter their pets, not less. We have serious, serious problems from too much breeding now....so many dogs are euthanized because of it and if altering dogs puts them at some remote risk of being ill, so be it. It makes me sick to my stomach when I see emails and posts on facebook of all of the animals that are dying. And, here in Texas, the numbers of yorkies is ridiculous! Over and over and over....every single day there are more of them. I really should start a thread in the Rescue forum just to show it.... I don't think people have even a remote idea how many there are and that's just yorkies. Forget about the other breeds...it is horrific.

I don't believe the risks from altering are higher than the risks of not altering.

And that is not the only person to say this after review of the medical literature.

The whole package needs to be considered, and pet owners should be informed of the risks and benefits for their individual dog/breed, prior to making this decision.

Right now most pet owners think it is a "neutral" or even an overall beneficial decision in terms of health for their dog.

For some dogs that might be true. For other dogs and or breeds not so much.

I re-iterate what seems to me a logical solution, offer choices, such as tubal ligation and or vasectomies as the case might be. Do a female spay after heat; delay neutering males until mature.

It is time for owners of pets to be given all information to make an informed choice.

Research often times flies in the face of what we always "understood" to be true. That is why research is so very important.

:thumbup::thumbup:

You may very well be right. Since you are involved with rescue I am sure you have seen a lot. I respect your opinion. I just think people need to be aware of all the possible things that can happen before they make the decision to spay and neuter. That's all I am saying on this subject.

In one paragraph you are saying to give people the information to make a choice; but in the other you are pretty much trying to push your beliefs. I am finished with this.
As I said it is very, very sad to me. I can only hope and pray that common sense will prevail when people read these threads and make decisions about their pets.

I understand what you are saying....but, I don't see any long term effects of altering a pet at 6 months as being worse then the effects of not doing it.

Mine are going on 9 were spay and neutered at 6 mos get their recommended vaccinations and have not had health problem one. Genetics is the biggest factor in health problems

I agree.

Excellent post. I don't ever think being educated is a bad thing. I came to YT with a fifteen year old dog with irritable bowel. I had complete faith in my vet, and I never hesitate to see him when any issues arise. Still, I just wanted to learn more myself. I stayed on YT when we lost her close to her seventeenth birthday for two years without a dog. I continued to educate myself about the health and welfare of dogs, because I knew I would have a dog in my life again. I will do everything in my power to keep Katie healthy, so I continue to read what I can. I believe in being proactive, and this information is helpful to me. I know at what age Katie was spayed and the implications it MIGHT have for her. The decision of when to spay or neuter is an important consideration. YT has always been an area where there is healthy discourse and great information. We need to continue to educate people about the importance of keeping our dogs safe and healthy. It's what we owe them.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: It sounds like you are doing everything the responsible way. There are so many choice to be made in selecting a pet and in maintaining one. You can't every know to much. I learn new things all the time.

I have been around for a few decades and I have seen the medical fashions change from one side of this argument to the other. Most of this is opinion and preference. It is always best not to look at things with just a general outlook but generating fear on the subject is uncalled for.

The original question here was about the OP's fear of having the surgery done. Many vets do both dental and spay/neuters at the same time. If the dog's teeth are in very bad condition, personally, I would have the two procedures done at different times. Both procedures are considered routine and generally are safe interventions.

If it is just a general cleaning then having both procedures done at the same time would save the dog from having to be put under anesthesia twice. A neuter is not as invasive as a spay so the time frame would be shorter. If your dog is healthy and has had a good check up with blood work done ahead of time, and if you trust your vet, you should not be fearful of having the procedures done. If you are uncertain about your vet then you probably should not be going there anyway.

Anytime a human or an animal goes under a general anesthetic there is a danger. This type of thing is done thousands of times a day. A study of the incidence of complications involved in spay/neuter procedures was shown to be between 1 and 3% of the time which over all is a tiny percentage.


I don't think the OP mentioned the size of the dog in question. If you have a very small Yorkie you might want to ask your vet if he/she has much experience doing small dog surgery. There are vets that work mainly with larger pets and if that were the case I would feel more comfortable with a surgeon that is experienced with small dog procedures.

[QUOTE=gracielove;4256723]

The original question here was about the OP's fear of having the surgery done. Many vets do both dental and spay/neuters at the same time. If the dog's teeth are in very bad condition, personally, I would have the two procedures done at different times. Both procedures are considered routine and generally are safe interventions.

The OP said:

I'm scared. I'm scared of putting him under and i'm scared his personality is going to change or that i might see a huge difference in his behavior because of his age. Is neutering really the BEST thing to do

Yes she was scared of the surgery but as you can see, she is also scared of personality change and if neutering is actually the best thing to do.

I am not Trying to PUSH my beliefs but to offer what seems to me a sensible solution. And you can do both, give people the information which also happens to include some options for full spay or neuter, and an option that what research seems to continue to indicate is of benefit for the long term health of a dog. Which is to re-iterate yet again, there appears to be some long term benefit for keeping the sex hormones.

And if you mean Push what I believe in, which is the long term health of dogs, yeah you betcha I do. And I will continue to do so.

[quote=gemy;4257534]So why not educate about anesthesia and the fact that the risks are not so high if the vet is up to date.
And he is three years old....are you saying that they should never be altered?

What breeders call sensible is not what I call sensible. All of this is pushed by breeders. Period.

I have a strong feeling that you don't really know how many dogs die each day because of irresponsible people. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this.

I have had some thoughts for some time on this topic. I had seen that NAIA article...actually about 6 or 7 years ago I saw it...it says it is updated...I don't know. BUT...I have a terrific idea. Since so many breeders (and that IS who is behind that organization) feel so strongly about not altering dogs; perhaps someone should start making them responsible for all of the puppies that are born because of this push to leave dogs unaltered. Instead of rescues cleaning up for them, why don't they assume responsibility for these puppies? Let them start pulling all of these poor dogs from the shelters because let's face it...every single last one of them came from a breeder. Anyone who breeds is a breeder.

We could do away with rescue if the breeders would be responsible for their messes...and they can also be for all of the people they tell not to alter their pups! I shudder to think of a world where no one altered their pets. Think about it! If only for one day...just think how people would be so restricted in when and where they could take their pups out. Think of the pregnancies..think of the fights. Forget about dog parks. Oh good grief....

This thread is beyond my comprehension at this point. I am going to go hug my vaccinated, heartworm protected, flea protected, dental disease free pups and tell them how lucky they are.

Not really understanding why this thread would be so upsetting. Most of us here on YT are responsible and "not your average dog owner" and I think spreading knowledge on both "sides" is always a good thing. There's nothing wrong with discussion and information. You can't just force people or avoid giving information out on both sides. All pet owners should be able to become educated and informed on issues regarding their beloved pets.

With that said, I would agree that probably 85% (pulling that number out of my a*s but you know) of the dog owning public needs their dogs altered. I think vasectomies and OSS are good options for dog-savvy owners, but really the average Joe Schmo doesn't need to be dealing with hormone related behaviors that come along with unaltered dogs.

Training around hormones is entirely possible and people do it all the time. But how many people (again, in the 'general' world of dog owning population) truly take the time to train their dogs the way they should?

People want easy. People want to be able to let their dog out in the yard without them smelling a female in heat miles away and running away. People want to be able to go to the dog park and stand around while their dogs play. People want their dog to be able to be off leash in their yard.

Really, traditional spay/neuters are the ideal for most owners IMO. But I still think it's great there are other options for dog owners who are prepared and able to handle these other options. And really, nowadays (in my neck of the woods anyway) spay/neuter seems to be shoved down everyone's throat anyway. I think I only know ONE person who does not have her dog fixed and has thought about breeding it and she's a 75 year old grandma with a puggle mix from the pound who simply doesn't know any better. From a different era. But anyone I know who gets a dog these days is typically getting them from rescue anyway (where they're already fixed) or it's not a question that spaying/neutering has to happen. I know it's not like that everywhere in the world. But around here at least, it just doesn't even seem to be a question when people get a dog. So anyone who is going to take the time, research or money to get their dog a vasectomy or get their female an OSS surgery, all the more to them! Heck, even if you choose to get your dog intact, it's really none of my business. And if you can own that dog responsibility for it's entire life, (which many people have and do) then that is fantastic. :)

I also feel there is somewhat of a rift between breeders and rescue that comes into play in these kinds of arguments. I think there should be more of a middle ground. If you are being responsible and going a route that you are happy with and a dog is getting a home... then go ahead! Not everyone wants a rescue, and not everyone wants to go purchase from a breeder. But I sure as heck am glad the options are all there for me. I also feel there's kind of a moral superiority attitude when it comes to both people who are very into rescue and then people who are very into their 'purebred' dogs. As if one is better than the other. Looking down on people who don't rescue or those who breed or vice versa, lumping them all together, is where I draw the line and have a problem. As if ALL breeders are somehow responsible for the lives of thousands of dogs in shelters....

There is no rift. I just think it is very sad...but then, I see how many die. I think anyone who is against altering dogs should walk the shelters for a while and look into those eyes....and then perhaps watch them die.
That is all I am going to say on this topic. It really is NOT what the OP asked for and I am going to walk.
People will do what they will do and say what they will say. I am powerless over them. I need to repeat that and the serenity prayer a few times and as I said...go hug my pups. :)

Maybe I am misunderstanding but I don't see anyone who is 'against' altering dogs. Just offering alternatives. Because they do exist. And knowledgeable dog owners have a right to know about them. Well heck anyone has a right to know about them. But especially on this board.

Me? I have always had a passion for animals. I don't think I could do what you do ladyjane. And I commend you for that. I immediately begin bawling the moment I walk into our local animal control. It's an extremely heart breaking sight. And I know I'm not doing them any favors by just standing there with tears pouring down my face... but it is what it is. I volunteered for our local rescue for a bit but I get so attached. I helped get a dog out of a bad situation from a friend of a friend, knew the dog for maybe 4 hours, and when I handed him over to a very reputable rescue, I bawled like a baby when I left him and felt like I had failed him. A dog I did not even hardly know! It may be selfish, but I honestly can't handle the heartbreak.

But I am not going to make myself feel guilty for supporting a breeder in the future who truly cares and loves for her dogs, they are her life, she is active with them in sports and show, she has a must return policy if anything were to EVER happen where you can no longer keep your dog, and she's a crucial asset to you for the rest of your pups life. She and others like her are not the problem.

I am going off topic so I will stop... but it saddens ME that one side of an issue should just be shoved under the rug simply because it's not necessarily 'ideal'. I also don't think it's going to become a big enough issue for the general dog owning public. I mean, really, if I told anyone I knew I was going to get a vasectomy for my dog they would probably laugh in my face and tell me I was a real kook.

FWIW, I will always alter my animals, at least that is my opinion right now. But probably not any earlier than 8 months... I am lazy, and DO want easy. Things are just easier when your animal is fixed. I wouldn't want the added stress of him NOT being fixed. And really in the whole scheme of things... I truly don't believe in the long-run, it will make that much of a difference. I think genetics are a huge play but I do think vaccines, altering, and lifestyle will make slight differences in the lives of our dogs. But I think as far S/N goes, the risks on both sides are probably pretty close to equal.

:thumbup: You seem to have a way of saying what I am think but better!

OK, lets address personality change. In my experience of over 50 years of spaying and neutering many animals had a personality change in a dog or cat other than their being less stressed and more laid back. Many times people have the surgery done at a time in the life of a pet when a change was coming anyway. Dogs mature and many dogs burn less calories and are less active as they mature. The metabolism slows down. That happens with or without the procedure although many attribute it to the surgery. Weight issues are easily managed and have little to do with spaying and neutering.

I have known people who have taken their pets to less than desirable vets to have their surgeries done and the animals have had traumatic experiences that effected the pet for some time. Pet owners should always know their vet and the methods they use. Not every vet out there is the best choice so always take the time to do some investigation and get references.

Brit made a good observation about the training of pets. Some people are very into various training methods but most pet owners get by with the bare minimum where behavior is concerned. Teaching a whole male dog that is being tormented by the scent of a female in heat a mile away not to react to such stimulation would be next to impossible for the average pet owner. Personally, I think it is a stress that a non breeding male should not have to endure.

Male dogs are not attracted to a pretty female as the cartoons imply. Dogs are all about scent. Although a very good trainer can make a dog behave despite the scent of a female in heat being detected does not change the fact that he is being effected by and attracted to that scent.

That is where i disagree I dont think it is pushing it down someones throat to educate on the benefits of spay and neutering and i dont think its wrong for the other side to give a view however I dont think there should be scare tactics from either side. Also if they are a breeder and saying it i think they should say that because there are different reasons a breeder would maybe leave a dog unaltered than a pet owner

Other than keeping a dog intact for breeding, what other reason would someone who breeds have for not spaying or neutering--except if they think it's what is healthier or best for their dog? I would hope that a responsible breeder is always trying to learn and do everything they can to keep their pups and dogs healthy. Since being a member of YT, my deep respect for both breeders who breed responsibly and for the right reasons and for those in rescue has deepened even more. This divisiveness really upsets me. Our commitment to the well being of animals is what should count most.