# facts about castrating pups too early



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

You obviously can insist on whatever you wish with your puppy families, but here is a rebuttal.

http://www.sheltermedicine.vet.cornell.edu//spayNeuter/young.htm


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Here is an excellent article written by Rhonda Hovan, respected breeder/judge and very active in the arena of Golden Retriever health:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...TFJ6_-&sig=AHIEtbQBcUQrq3PRT7V6We99o9LV_brz0g 

I will probably never neuter another one of my personal dogs again. However, since I breed, I am set up to be able to handle intact dogs and bitches.

My friends and I are also discussing leaving an ovary (or ovaries) intact, if and when, we spay our bitches. There is some evidence that female hormones offer some protection in terms of longevity. This is a new study, but taken in conjunction with other articles, makes some sense:

http://www.gpmcf.org/respectovaries.html


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

fostermom said:


> You obviously can insist on whatever you wish with your puppy families, but here is a rebuttal.
> 
> http://www.sheltermedicine.vet.cornell.edu//spayNeuter/young.htm


That's actually a rebuttal to this article, not the one Lestorm linked:
http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

There's some overlap but all three articles have good points.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

JimS said:


> That's actually a rebuttal to this article, not the one Lestorm linked:
> http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
> 
> There's some overlap but all three articles have good points.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. The article I posted was a rebuttal to the ones that say that early spay/neuter is detrimental. Thanks for clarifying that Jim!


----------



## Susan6953 (Jun 9, 2008)

Obviously there are strong feelings on both sides of this debate.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

I do not think that vet offices are "out to get your money."

A lot of vets recommend spay/neuter early because it can prevent _unwanted_ litters of puppies and kittens that may end up homeless or later euthanized. 

Vets often see reality. In some cases, people get puppies, the puppies get their puppy shots, and then are not seen or heard from again in years or until there is some type of emergency. In my eyes, the vet is doing much, MUCH _less_ harm by spaying and neutering these dogs early because some owners won't come back to have it done. In these cases it ends up saving thousands in the long run, IMO. That's a good thing.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

CarolinaCasey said:


> I do not think that vet offices are "out to get your money."
> 
> A lot of vets recommend spay/neuter early because it can prevent _unwanted_ litters of puppies and kittens that may end up homeless or later euthanized.
> 
> Vets often see reality. In some cases, people get puppies, the puppies get their puppy shots, and then are not seen or heard from again in years or until there is some type of emergency. In my eyes, the vet is doing much, MUCH _less_ harm by spaying and neutering these dogs early because some owners won't come back to have it done. In these cases it ends up saving thousands in the long run, IMO. That's a good thing.


I had a really long, negative post written that I've decided against. All I can say is that if you think the above is a valid argument than by all means have your dogs mutilated. Why take responsibility when there's surgery?


----------



## hgatesy (Feb 14, 2007)

> Why take responsibility when there's surgery?


I'm sorry, but most people are not equipped to handle an intact male or female dog, so I completely disagree that spaying/neutering is not doing the responsible thing. It's the responsible way to go for the majority of the population. 

And I would hardly call it mutilation... unless of course you're chopping your dogs testicles off yourself...


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The one thing that is clear, even the Veterinary profession is undecided on when to spay/neuter, or even if spay/neuter is right for your dog. As with many other things in life, you have to consider the source of the information you're receiving. Is the source concerned with you obtaining optimum results with YOUR dog? Or are their primary concerns focused elsewhere? You also have to consider your own living situation and lifestyle. What works for you?


No matter which way you choose to go, there are costs, risks and benefits to weigh. You're ****** if you do and ****** if you don't. There is no one single right answer, and one size does not fit all. That's why Spay/Neuter is such a contentious issue.

I don't usually spay or neuter my dogs until much later in life, and then only when there is a medical reason to do so. Keeping intact animals isn't all that difficult, but it does require that you pay attention to your dogs and keep track of them 100% of the time. 
The most difficult part of keeping intact animals isn't containing your own dogs, It's keeping everybody else's out of control animals out of your yard and off of your property.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

JimS said:


> I had a really long, negative post written that I've decided against. All I can say is that if you think the above is a valid argument than by all means have your dogs mutilated. Why take responsibility when there's surgery?


I really think that you've gone a bit too far by saying that early spay and neuter is mutilation. Is it ideal? NO. But just as hgatesy said below- many, many pet owners simply don't know enough and aren't equipped to handle the situation. In these cases, I think neutering before an unwanted litter is doing the responsible thing. I would rather have these dogs neutered early if their owners can't be sure that they'll be able to keep the dog under control during heat/around bitches in heat. 

When I get my male puppy in the summer, I will be waiting to have him neutered until 12+ months. I understand the challenges and accept them, other pet owners may not.




hgatesy said:


> I'm sorry, but most people are not equipped to handle an intact male or female dog, so I completely disagree that spaying/neutering is not doing the responsible thing. It's the responsible way to go for the majority of the population.
> 
> And I would hardly call it mutilation... unless of course you're chopping your dogs testicles off yourself...


Agreed.


----------



## Jackson'sMom (Oct 13, 2007)

Mutilation? Then I guess I'm guilty of having my stunted puppy mill breeding dog, whom I adopted from rescue, mutilated. Having an animal spayed or neutered IS taking responsibility.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

hgatesy said:


> I'm sorry, but most people are not equipped to handle an intact male or female dog, so I completely disagree that spaying/neutering is not doing the responsible thing. It's the responsible way to go for the majority of the population.
> 
> And I would hardly call it mutilation... unless of course you're chopping your dogs testicles off yourself...


If that's really the case, then most people aren't equipped to be dog owners. But, I don't believe that. Keeping an intact dog isn't rocket science. It just takes common sense, a leash and training. 

As long as the dog is under anesthesia anyhow, let's snip their vocal cords...they may bark and disturb the neighbors. Maybe we can declaw them too, they may scratch someone. Oh, and as long as we're at it, those teeth are awfully sharp. Let's file them down. On second thought, let's just get a stuffed toy and be done with it.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

Jackson'sMom said:


> Mutilation? Then I guess I'm guilty of having my stunted puppy mill breeding dog, whom I adopted from rescue, mutilated. Having an animal spayed or neutered IS taking responsibility.


I'm sorry, but it's elective surgery as a convenience so that you can shirk your responsibility and still feel good about yourself. Controlling your dog is responsibility.

I had my Labrador, Kali spayed when she was seven months old because I was told it's the responsible thing to do....and had to deal with the consequences of it for a decade so far.


----------



## jwemt81 (Aug 20, 2008)

JimS said:


> I'm sorry, but it's elective surgery as a convenience so that you can shirk your responsibility and still feel good about yourself. Controlling your dog is responsibility.


So, I guess that would make me an irresponsible dog owner for having my 2 boys neutered when they are over 18 months old to prevent them from getting testicular cancer. Okay then...I guess that will make me a horrible, lazy dog owner. I'd better call and cancel Tucker's neuter appointment that we have scheduled for next month then. :no:


----------



## hgatesy (Feb 14, 2007)

> If that's really the case, then most people aren't equipped to be dog owners.


Good golly... I'll agree with that one! 



> Keeping an intact dog isn't rocket science. It just takes common sense, a leash and training.


How about going and volunteering for your local rescue/spca for a few weeks? I'm sure you'll realize all too quickly how things really work. 
As Swampcollie said...


> it does require that you pay attention to your dogs and keep track of them 100% of the time.


 However, a lot of people DON'T keep track of them 100%. A lot of dogs are chained outside or when put out to potty are just allowed to roam. So, although you and people on this site have the common sense to use a leash and train our dogs, I'm just pointing out that A LOT of people don't live by those rules.



> On second thought, let's just get a stuffed toy and be done with it.


Funny you say that... I think quite a few current dog owners should have taken this advice prior to getting their pets.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

jwemt81 said:


> So, I guess that would make me an irresponsible dog owner for having my 2 boys neutered when they are over 18 months old to prevent them from getting testicular cancer. Okay then...I guess that will make me a horrible, lazy dog owner. I'd better call and cancel Tucker's neuter appointment that we have scheduled for next month then. :no:


It's a trade off. No chance of getting testicular cancer without testicles...but their odds of getting osteosarcoma is now much higher. Osteosarcoma occurs much more often in goldens than testicular cancer. 

Read the NAIA article linked. The folks at NAIA have a definite agenda. So take it or leave it. Just don't blindly believe everything you read from the veterinary community, or some wacko on the internet like me.


----------



## cola3812 (Nov 29, 2009)

I think it's easy to think this way but have you ever actually worked in a local Humane Society and have you actually seen the number of dogs/cats euthanized before a animal control officer starts his/her day in the field???? Believe me, it is not a fun way for anyone to start their day. Especially when you are euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals that shouldn't be euthanized and are due to the irresponsible people that do not spay/neuter their animals. I STRONGLY suggest people spend some time in a shelter - perhaps for a month or so, and see what really goes on. I think it will change your mind completely.

I understand that there are some responsible people and do the right thing with intact animals, but you have to realize that a good majority in our country are not that responsible and the end result is unwanted puppies and kittens being euthanized each and every day.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

JimS said:


> If that's really the case, *then most people aren't equipped to be dog owners. *But, I don't believe that. *Keeping an intact dog isn't rocket science.* It just takes common sense, a leash and training.
> 
> As long as the dog is under anesthesia anyhow, let's snip their vocal cords...they may bark and disturb the neighbors. Maybe we can declaw them too, they may scratch someone. Oh, and as long as we're at it, those teeth are awfully sharp. Let's file them down. On second thought, let's just get a stuffed toy and be done with it.





JimS said:


> I'm sorry, but i*t's elective surgery as a convenience *so that you can shirk your responsibility and still feel good about yourself. Controlling your dog is responsibility.
> 
> I had my Labrador, Kali spayed when she was seven months old because I was told it's the responsible thing to do....and had to deal with the consequences of it for a decade so far.


My original argument is that vets promote early spay and neuter was _not_ because of financial gain, but because they want to help prevent the already overwhelming pet-overpopulation problem. Imagine these pets already filling humane societies were all intact and reproducing each cycle, our communities would be even more over burdened with wanted pets. Spaying and neutering a non-conformation dog is a _responsible_ thing to do. 

Last time I checked, owning a dog wasn't rocket science, you're right. It is the training part that takes some work. It isn't done by everyone b/c it isn't always easy and for that reason, those individuals should have their dog altered. 

I understand that you think sterilizing an animal is a senseless surgery. I think euthanasia is senseless. Which hurts more?


----------



## hgatesy (Feb 14, 2007)

> I'm sorry, but it's elective surgery as a convenience so that you can shirk your responsibility and still feel good about yourself.


I personally neutered my dogs because I was BEING responsible. Although all of my boys are wonderful, none of them would be classified as "breeding material"... I feel good knowing that none of them are capable of impregnated the neighbors dog and creating yet another litter of pups in this world. Although my dogs have been through years and years of training and I'm a responsible person, I'm sorry crap happens friend-o... accidents happen, you're ignorant if you think they don't. Even the most responsible person can have an oops moment. As I remember learning in health class many years ago... it only takes once.

Taking the necessary precautions to avoid contributing to the unwanted pet population is hardly "shirking your responsibility".

Besides, doesn't the vast majority of the human population practice safe sex? :bowl:


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

cola3812 said:


> I think it's easy to think this way but have you ever actually worked in a local Humane Society and have you actually seen the number of dogs/cats euthanized before a animal control officer starts his/her day???? Believe me, it is not a fun way for anyone to start their day. Especially when you are euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals that shouldn't be euthanized and are due to the irresponsible people that do not spay/neuter their animals. I STRONGLY suggest people spend some time in a shelter - perhaps for a month or so, and see what really goes on. I think it will change your mind completely.
> 
> I understand that there are some responsible people and do the right thing with intact animals, but you have to realize that a good majority in our country are not that responsible and the end result is unwanted puppies and kittens being euthanized each and every day.



It is definitely not the way to start your day, especially at age 18-19. I had this gruesome task every Sunday morning before our Humane Society opened with another co-worker. It still physically pains me to think about all of the healthy, happy animals that were senselessly euthanized. The way their tails wagged when they saw me come with the leash is something that haunts me, because we walked their last walk on this Earth. I actually have so much guilt over this that I am having a hard time allowing myself to enjoy getting my puppy from a breeder.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

hgatesy said:


> How about going and volunteering for your local rescue/spca for a few weeks? .


I did for many years, doing basic manners training, leash training and dog walking in the mornings before work....and it has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

In the end, all I'm trying to say is there are consequences one way or the other. Spaying and neutering shouldn't be done for political correctness, or because someone is too lazy to take proper precautions with their dog. It can cause real, long term harm to some dogs. 

With that, I'm going to bed. Good night one and all.


----------



## cola3812 (Nov 29, 2009)

CarolinaCasey said:


> It is definitely not the way to start your day, especially at age 18-19. I had this gruesome task every Sunday morning before our Humane Society opened with another co-worker. It still physically pains me to think about all of the healthy, happy animals that were senselessly euthanized. The way their tails wagged when they saw me come with the leash is something that haunts me, because we walked their last walk on this Earth. I actually have so much guilt over this that I am having a hard time allowing myself to enjoy getting my puppy from a breeder.


CarolinaCasey...I know exactly what you are talking about. My last straw was walking around the corner and seeing a healthy adoptable dog, wagging his tail and his legs shaking uncontrollably. It still haunts me.

Please don't feel guilty for other people's mistakes. You DESERVE to be happy about this.


----------



## sophiesadiehannah's mom (Feb 11, 2007)

i believe in spay and neutering, and i am a responsible dog owner and rescuer. i have owned dogs for over 20 years and my personal dogs which have been 4 were spayed at 6 months of age. only 1, my sophie had consequeces which is spay incontinence. she takes 1 cheap hormone pill a week and is fine. i do however question pediatric spay/neuter. when i have rescued a puppy, they are not spayed/neutered until 6 months. i guess i figure if i have been spayed, then it is good enough for the ones i love.


----------



## pburchins (Mar 11, 2009)

Riley just turned a year old and we have not had him neutered. I have read that you should wait until 18 months old to allow the hormones to have a full impact on the dog.

The staff at our vet asks me every time about him being neutered while checking out. I spoke to our vet and his comment was......Do you have dog who lives outside all the time ? No, we dont........Is he overly aggressive ? No, he is not.......Is there a female dog in the house ? No, he is a single dog. Does he have a medical condition that warrants neutering ? No...... He further stated that if you can honestly answer these questions that the dog will be under full control then you don't have to do this. We have a woman in the neighborhood who asks us all the time. She will roll the window down in her van and yell across the yard,LOL.

Our first golden was intact and we never had health issues with him. At 12 his thyroid did give out on him and he had to take a couple pills. Nothing major. We were blessed with his good health and mannerisms.....

These type of discussions certainly confuse me on what is correct. I certainly want our dog to be healthy and a good citizen. I understand why people working in a shelter or rescue group are pro neutering/spaying. It is a shame to put someones dogs healthy in jeopardy because some irresponsible people allow their dogs to roam or doesn't live up to their responsibility.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hgatesy said:


> I'm sorry, but most people are not equipped to handle an intact male or female dog, so I completely disagree that spaying/neutering is not doing the responsible thing. It's the responsible way to go for the majority of the population.
> 
> And I would hardly call it mutilation... unless of course you're chopping your dogs testicles off yourself...


I agree with this. In my experience, a gelding is a much more appropriate horse choice than a stallion for most horse pet owners, and a neutered/spayed dog is a much more responsible pet for most pet dog owners. I think the 100 years of science studying the beneficial effects of spay/neuter is compelling. In my opinion, only very experienced homes should have intact dogs.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

When we got our first golden in 1981, the general thought was let the females have 2 heat cycles and then spay. We spayed after one. Even living in the country, fairly remote, there were 8-10 dogs outside the house every day. Most were strays, some were farm dogs allowed to wander. 

I was a responsible owner, in control of my female. The only time she could be outside during her heat was to go potty. On a leash, of course. I carried a baseball bat to keep the dogs off of her. I decided to take the easy way out and had her spayed sooner rather than after it was too late.

BTW, jilly, I luv my geldings!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> The one thing that is clear, even the Veterinary profession is undecided on when to spay/neuter, or even if spay/neuter is right for your dog. As with many other things in life, you have to consider the source of the information you're receiving. Is the source concerned with you obtaining optimum results with YOUR dog? Or are their primary concerns focused elsewhere? You also have to consider your own living situation and lifestyle. What works for you?
> 
> 
> No matter which way you choose to go, there are costs, risks and benefits to weigh. You're ****** if you do and ****** if you don't. There is no one single right answer, and one size does not fit all. That's why Spay/Neuter is such a contentious issue.
> ...


Thank you, SC!


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Growing up, none of our dogs or cats were spayed or neutered, most pets weren't at that time. 

When we got Sam in '94, the first thing the Vet suggested was to neuter him when he was 6 months old since I had no intention of breeding him. I had no clue that it might be a cancer risk, I thought I was being a responsible pet owner. Fast forward to 2007 and Ike. We had him neutered at 6 months also, thinking we were being a responsible pet owner. It wasn't until I joined this Forum in Feb '08 that I learned of the risks of neutering. Had I known this, neither of my boys would have been. They are not outside dogs, they are always with me or my husband, and under control, nor are they around female dogs. Sam lived to be 12 and did have cancer, a tumor next to his heart. Did I possibly cause this? Now I worry about Ike...

My son just rescued a puppy. This little guy was neutered at 7 weeks old. I had no clue you could neuter or spay at that young an age...but being a Rescue, I know the policy is to spay or neuter every animal before adopting them out. Now I'll worry about this little guy's future too.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Well I certainly stirred up a hornets nest with this subject. I said in my original post that I understood that in the states there are more dogs PTS than found homes. I will take that a step further and say that there are more dogs PTS than actually live happily within a home. That has nothing to do with castrating dogs, thats the 'throw away culture' of people that live in the states, Ireland and many other coutries. 

Having thousands of dogs castrated hasnt had any effect on the amount of pups born each year. The 'responsible owner' that have their dogs castrated wouldnt have let them out to find a bitch in heat to mate in the first place. So should there be a law to get all dogs castrated? 

To get a dog done because of a risk of a possible 'health issues' is wrong. The vet are a business and will take your money as quickly as they possibly can (If they cared so much about the animal they would offer people that cannot afford their silly charges the opportunity to pay less). We have vets convincing puppy owners that once castrated, their pups will be so easier to control, healthier and that the breeders havent a clue what they are talking about. 

We have had both Aya and Lottie done, already Poppy senses that Aya isnt as important in the pack and will try to intimidate her. My only reason for her having this done was due to her coming into season totally randomly and often without a trace of blood, this is the reason she had a litter last summer, her season was only three months ofter the previous one, Gunner picked up on this and acted accordingly!! 

Some trainers that work dogs in agility state that a dog that has been castrated do far better in competition. Is that a reason to chop em off. Mutilation is just a word for having a part of the body removed and actually that is exactly what happens but this wasnt my concern. My concern is the excuses vets give to have this done.

Change the laws for people to own a dog. Insist breeders only breed dogs that have all the health checks (this will keep vets businesses healthy) Only allow people to own a dog if they agree to train them properly - this will lead to more training clubs being opened. There are changes needed. Where do we start?


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

I've been on each side of the coin with this.

Jake was never neutered and very late in life (16 1/2) he developed a mass in one testicle that I know was very uncomfortable for him but he was just too old to undergo surgery. At that point I did regret not having him neutered at a younger age.

Griff has been neutered as per a contract with his breeder - she allowed me to wait until he was 2 as after reading the pros and cons I decided it was better to wait until he was mature.

I never had to deal with marking or excessive humping as neither dog did it with exception to _one person_ that Jake seemed to adore in that way. A quick yank and a NO was enough to stop it.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> Well I certainly stirred up a hornets nest with this subject. I said in my original post that I understood that in the states there are more dogs PTS than found homes. I will take that a step further and say that there are more dogs PTS than actually live happily within a home. That has nothing to do with castrating dogs, thats the 'throw away culture' of people that live in the states, Ireland and many other coutries.
> 
> Having thousands of dogs castrated hasnt had any effect on the amount of pups born each year. The 'responsible owner' that have their dogs castrated wouldnt have let them out to find a bitch in heat to mate in the first place. So should there be a law to get all dogs castrated?


Personally, I think you are totally off base with these comments. If you allow unaltered dogs to wander around, they will make puppies. There are only so many homes for the puppies. At some point the puppies have to go somewhere and that is either wandering around or to the shelter. How does castrating dogs NOT have an effect on the number of puppies born every year? That makes no sense at all to me.

I had an intact female for several years. I "couldn't afford" to get her spayed. She developed pyrometra at 7 years old and almost died. I will always have my dogs altered in the future unless they have a medical condition that doesn't allow it.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Well, my spayed purebred Cocker Spaniel lived to be 17. She was put to rest due to old age. My childhood, spayed at 6 months old terrier, lived to be 16. Tucker was neutered at 11 months and Shadow at 6 months. Hopefully we did the right thing.


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> I agree with this. In my experience, a gelding is a much more appropriate horse choice than a stallion for most horse pet owners, and a neutered/spayed dog is a much more responsible pet for most pet dog owners. I think the 100 years of science studying the beneficial effects of spay/neuter is compelling. In my opinion, only very experienced homes should have intact dogs.


I completely agree with this. I have no problem with someone who devotes 200% to training their testosterone-filled dog to ignore their instincts. But in most cases, people have children, work, etc. that limits their ability to train.....no matter how devoted you are. It is much easier to teach a dog without the testosterone affecting their actions. A dog is still an animal - with strong instincts. I would never want my Dusty digging under or climbing over the fence because he smells a dog in heat and then get hit by a car - or attacking the female's owner because he can't see past his sexual need - he's 80 lbs, I certainly don't have a shot against defending someone - and yes, Goldens are tame and gently - but see what happens when one is around a bitch in heat. If neutered, he has the ability to focus on us, his family, rather than his instincts. That is just basic SCIENCE. You cannot take those instincts away without taking away the source of the testosterone - by neutering.

Some of the articles against spay neutering are the result of the writer's personal experience. Which is a very very rare occurrence. If everyone lived their lives on negative articles that may never happen to you - you wouldn't drive a car, ride in a plane, eat out of plastic containers, use a cellphone, have your children vaccinated, etc...... The negatives of these actions are extremely rare and you still do these things because you KNOW that they are rare.


----------



## beccacc31 (Aug 17, 2009)

I am a simple puppy owner and learn a lot about what I should and should not do from my breeder, my vet and this forum. This forum gives me things to think about. I typically would never even chime in negetively about anyone elses post unless it was just plain old rediculous... Which brings me to the "MUTILATION COMMENT". Such a comment is plain old irresponsible. I think that going forward we should send ALL UNWANTED PUPPIES TO YOU WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE TO NOT MUTILATE....YOU ARE CLEARLY EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THEM(RIGHT?). CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DO THE MATH AND GIVE A SMALL SYNOPSIS ON HOW MANY UNWANTED PUPPIES COME FROM ONE SET OF UNALTERED CANINES...
We will all continue to do what we think is best for our pets, and I think education is key. I think that some of us weigh the pro's and con's, listening to the people who are more educated than us on all subjects. Unfortunatley there are probably more people that don't care to educate themselves or don't think to educate themselves. Have you traveled to any of the Carribean Islands and experienced all of the stray dogs? Right or wrong can you imagine how many dogs would be in just our country if we all had that same thought process.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

beccacc31 said:


> I am a simple puppy owner and learn a lot about what I should and should not do from my breeder, my vet and this forum. This forum gives me things to think about. I typically would never even chime in negetively about anyone elses post unless it was just plain old rediculous... Which brings me to the "MUTILATION COMMENT". Such a comment is plain old irresponsible. I think that going forward we should send ALL UNWANTED PUPPIES TO YOU WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE TO NOT MUTILATE....YOU ARE CLEARLY EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THEM(RIGHT?). CAN *SOMEONE PLEASE DO THE MATH AND GIVE A SMALL SYNOPSIS ON HOW MANY UNWANTED PUPPIES* COME FROM ONE SET OF UNALTERED CANINES...
> We will all continue to do what we think is best for our pets, and I think education is key. I think that some of us weigh the pro's and con's, listening to the people who are more educated than us on all subjects. Unfortunatley there are probably more people that don't care to educate themselves or don't think to educate themselves. Have you traveled to any of the Carribean Islands and experienced all of the stray dogs? Right or wrong can you imagine how many dogs would be in just our country if we all had that same thought process.


I found this article. It is about cats, but it gives some insight into how many unwanted kittens are produced in a feral colony per year per cat if you go to the link. Over the lifetime of a cat, 3200 kittens- WOW! I'd only imagine the numbers are comparable for dogs. 

_"Realistically, over 12 years one unspayed female with all her unspayed female offspring can reasonably be expected to be responsible for over 3200 kittens if there is no human intervention."_
http://www.cfa.org/articles/trap-alter-release.html


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

Becca, while the word mutilate probably has more harsh connotations than I had originally intended, it is accurate and used correctly. 

I'm old enough to remember when breeders still practiced culling. I didn't have a problem with it then, and I really don't still. Euthanasia (when performed in a humane fashion) really isn't any different. If it were legal for me to do, I would have no problem at all administering the injections. 

My dogs, intact or otherwise have never, and will never contribute to the pool of unwanted puppies. I don't see the sense in potentially compromising the health and integrity of my dogs because someone else may be less responsible.



beccacc31 said:


> CAN SOMEONE PLEASE DO THE MATH AND GIVE A SMALL SYNOPSIS ON HOW MANY UNWANTED PUPPIES COME FROM ONE SET OF UNALTERED CANINES...
> .


Yep. I can do that math for you. Assuming that the unaltered dogs are properly trained and handled, the answer is zero.


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

Lestorm said:


> Having thousands of dogs castrated hasnt had any effect on the amount of pups born each year.


Seriously?

How do you know this? How do you know it hasn't had an effect on the amounts of puppies born each year?


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

JimS said:


> My dogs, intact or otherwise have never, and will never contribute to the pool of unwanted puppies. I don't see the sense in potentially compromising the health and integrity of my dogs because someone else may be less responsible.


Wow. I really hope none of your dogs ever get out, break off their leash after a squirrel, jump a fence, dig under a fence, run out the door, etc. :uhoh:


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

JimS said:


> My dogs, intact or otherwise have never, and will never contribute to the pool of unwanted puppies. I don't see the sense in potentially compromising the health and integrity of my dogs because someone else may be less responsible.


I won't even address the first part of your post.

Regarding what I have quoted above. Nobody said you had to alter your dog(s). Nobody called you irresponsible or suggested that you were shirking your responsibility for NOT altering your dog(s), yet you feel like you have an obligation to say that about people who DO alter their dogs.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

JimS said:


> Becca, while the word mutilate probably has more harsh connotations than I had originally intended, it is accurate and used correctly.
> 
> I'm old enough to remember when breeders still practiced culling. I didn't have a problem with it then, and I really don't still. Euthanasia (when performed in a humane fashion) really isn't any different. If it were legal for me to do, I would have no problem at all administering the injections.
> 
> ...


This. Every word of it.

And yes cutting off body parts is mutilation. Look it up in the dictionary or online. This would include routine neutering and spaying, circumcision of infants (hmm, when a female is mutilated, we are all horrified, but for some reason it's okay to mutilate baby boys), ear cropping, tail docking, and removal of dewclaws. Sure, it's not a warm and fuzzy word. But it is the correct usage.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

Mssjnnfer said:


> Wow. I really hope none of your dogs ever get out, break off their leash after a squirrel, jump a fence, dig under a fence, run out the door, etc. :uhoh:


I don't even have a fence. Never saw the need for one. In more than a decade as an adult dog owner, my dogs have never been out of my control. I'm not dense enough to believe it cant' happen. If it did and resulted in a litter of puppies, I would take responsibility for those puppies.


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

JimS said:


> My dogs, intact or otherwise have *never, and will never* contribute to the pool of unwanted puppies.





JimS said:


> I'm not dense enough to believe it cant' happen.


If you say so.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

fostermom said:


> I won't even address the first part of your post.
> 
> Regarding what I have quoted above. Nobody said you had to alter your dog(s). Nobody called you irresponsible or suggested that you were shirking your responsibility for NOT altering your dog(s), yet you feel like you have an obligation to say that about people who DO alter their dogs.


I don't mean to imply that altering dogs is irresponsible. I believe people mostly do it because they're sold a bill of goods from the anti-breeding and AR industries. I do believe that many people who have their dogs altered do so as a convenience which allows them the leisure of being less responsible with their dogs behavior.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

JimS said:


> I don't even have a fence. Never saw the need for one. In more than a decade as an adult dog owner, my dogs have never been out of my control. I'm not dense enough to believe it cant' happen. If it did and resulted in a litter of puppies, I would take responsibility for those puppies.


I think there is a lot of paranoia about this subject. And yes, I am positive my dogs won't break their leashes after a squirrel. In fact, even my hound who has coursed and killed them will not do so without permission- leash or no leash. Training is really cool. And not that hard


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I think there is a lot of paranoia about this subject. And yes, I am positive my dogs won't break their leashes after a squirrel. In fact, even my hound who has coursed and killed them will not do so without permission- leash or no leash. Training is really cool. And not that hard


I thought your greyhound lived at the breeders or at the track?



> I don't mean to imply that altering dogs is irresponsible. I believe people mostly do it because they're sold a bill of goods from the anti-breeding and AR industries. I do believe that many people who have their dogs altered do so as a convenience which allows them the leisure of being less responsible with their dogs behavior.


I am not involved in animal rights and I am not anti-breeder if it is done responsibly. I truly believe that an altered pet will live a happier, healthier life in general. And I don't feel I am one whit less responsible with my dogs' behaviors. No, I *know* I am not one whit less responsible with my dogs' behaviors.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I was speaking of Rigby


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

Man, I must be the worst dog owner ever... I worry CONSTANTLY about them breaking loose. 

Oh, not to mention... I mutilated my dog at a very early age!

Shame. On. Me.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

Mssjnnfer said:


> Man, I must be the worst dog owner ever... I worry CONSTANTLY about them breaking loose.
> 
> Oh, not to mention... I mutilated my dog at a very early age!
> 
> Shame. On. Me.


Actually, that's the sign of a good dog owner. Worry, make contingencies, plan and train...that's how you prevent them from breaking loose and deal with the situation should it happen.

You can't prevent an incident if you don't prepare for it.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Oh, I am very careful about having no escapees! Never lost a dog in my life and I've sure had my hands on a ton of them- mostly rescues who didn't even know who I am. Now, Goldens are so easy to train. I haven't had one ever that couldn't walk nicely by my side without a leash. For that matter, Whippets, Borzoi, and Salukis too. Track Greys can be trained that well but it takes a lot longer due to not having a normal "pet dog" upbringing. Personally, it would make me nervous and uncomfortable to have dogs that would dart out the door and tear off through the neighborhood. That's dangerous, and a sure sign of a dog that does not get nearly enough off leash exercise and freedom. When I open my front door, my dogs run to the van. If they realize no ride is in store they sigh, look bored, and come back in to the air conditioning. Or the Whippet will just stretch out in the sunshine and bake himself  Freedom is so normal to them that it is not interesting. Common sense and paying attention is vital, obviously. There is a time and a place for off leash and a time and a place where it is a very bad idea.


----------



## Jackson'sMom (Oct 13, 2007)

JimS said:


> I'm sorry, but it's elective surgery as a convenience so that you can shirk your responsibility and still feel good about yourself. Controlling your dog is responsibility.
> 
> I had my Labrador, Kali spayed when she was seven months old because I was told it's the responsible thing to do....and had to deal with the consequences of it for a decade so far.


I did not have my dog spayed so I could "feel good" about myself. I had her spayed so she would never, ever produce another litter of puppies. I am a responsible dog owner; I also worked for many years at a very large humane society. I know that accidents happen. And I know that spaying greatly reduces the chances of developing breast cancer, and eliminates pyometra. This entire argument is beyond ridiculous. Goodbye.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

And, I would NEVER class you as a bad dog owner. If spaying/neutering is right for your dog at this time, then do it. I guess that's really my point. DO what YOU want... We should all have the freedom to choose what is right for OUR dogs, and it shouldn't have anything to do with what other people do.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I was speaking of Rigby


Sorry. I had never seen you refer to him as a hound, always as a whippet.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Jackson's Mom: You also did not spay your dog when she was five months old and not developed naturally...


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

I live on a relatively busy area of my town. There's an old folks' home AND an apartment on the end of my street, so there's a lot of traffic. I've never felt confident enough to train Mojo off leash in the front yard. If he got away he'd be gone. There are TONS of places he could hide... Lots of bushes and stuff. Maxie came to me at 9 months old, so I REALLY didn't feel confident training her off leash.

Something I am confident of: if they were ever alone in the backyard (which they never are) and the gate blew open... they would run out. No doubt about it. I'm pretty sure my 90% recall wouldn't work with it, too.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

No problem  They're all "hounds" technically so sometimes I interchange, or just say hound to include all of them. Emily, the puppy, hasn't chased anything so far except her littermates and stuffed toys. Apparently she's a stuffy killer!


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

They actually did get out the gate once, when Maxie's old owners came for a BBQ. They ran down the street and in circles around the front yard, but came back because they realized there were new people to terrorize... er... I mean greet. Oh, and food. Lots of food. 

But yeah, I about crapped myself when I saw them run out. NOT the best feeling in the world.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I think it is scary, though, to know that your dog would actually tear off down the road if he slipped out. That would scare me. I would spend a lot of time working on that so it would not happen!

Oh, and definitely padlock your gate from the inside! Always a good call! I keep bricks on both sides too. No, I don't think my dogs would run away if the gate was open, but I take these precautions.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

That sounds like two pups who just want and need to run good and hard! Most dogs run big happy circles when let off leash. Not saying you should do this- just that that's a good sign that they came back.


----------



## beccacc31 (Aug 17, 2009)

JimS said:


> Becca, while the word mutilate probably has more harsh connotations than I had originally intended, it is accurate and used correctly.
> 
> I'm old enough to remember when breeders still practiced culling. I didn't have a problem with it then, and I really don't still. Euthanasia (when performed in a humane fashion) really isn't any different. If it were legal for me to do, I would have no problem at all administering the injections.
> 
> ...


Jim - We were all taught not to assume! There are to many irresponsible pet owners so where your number might be zero what about the realistic number? We may not agree but it's safe that we should say and do what is responsible and sets the best example. I will say it again and again... Most people will not even consider educating themselves so they won't have the ability to properly train and handle.I am writing this as the simple pet owner who takes my dog to the vet, is going through the proper training, wanting to join my local GR club because I understand the importance. Even with all of that I will not have the ability to properly train (that's why I go to an insturctor to learn). Many people set out with good intentions but then they forget them. Something becomes to difficult so they quit. I do appreciate your feedback..


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

If I could train them, believe me, I would. It's not fun to worry. UGH. I just don't know HOW I could train them off leash. We don't really have anything around here where they could run off leash, either. 

Our gate has one of those bungee hook thingies. Works pretty well and keeps the meter man happy. LOL


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

Anyway. Sorry if I was a little grumpy. Haven't slept in two nights because of the WORST TOOTHACHE IN THE WORLD. I even went to the ER last night for it. My drugs are JUST NOW kicking in... I'm gonna go sleep for a couple of years.


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

To me, a decision about when/if to castrate or spay your dog depends greatly on the environment you live in and ability to look after an intact animal. It certainly isn't rocket science to make sure your pet doesn't either get pregnant or inpregnate others...and I would question the integrity of an owner that thought they couldn't handle a bitch in season...you basically have to just *look after* her and look after her well! (unless you own intact males aswell, yes that could be tricky) 

But going back to the environment you live in...in this country it is much less common to spay/neuter young puppies. It seems in the US the message is to castrate everything that moves. I do understand the reason why. Healthy animals being put to sleep every day, it is shocking. Where I live, however, it is not that dire. We do not have stray dogs roaming about, dogs are not left unattended in gardens, dogs are generally very well cared for and people take their responsibility seriously. I could easily still walk Tilly (probably kept on the lead) if she were going through seasons, I can walk for miles knowing I won't bump into a single other person or dog. If I left her in the garden for 5 minutes there wouldn't be any loose dogs that could come and get to her so things are much easier. In some European countries it was illegal until quite recently to spay/castrate dogs and is very definitely seen as mutilation. I would rather be on there side to be honest! Living in a world where crossbreeds are uncommon and rescue centres are rare...and castration is viewed as mutilation. Why on earth should people, that look after their dogs so well, feel pressured into chopping off their bits when it is, for the main part, completely unnecessary. If you always have your dog under control, and the others that ou live alongside do also then there is not the need to routinely castrate every living pet. If you live around morons that let their dogs roam or kick them out to the streets when they have had enough of them, then by all means spay your bitch to ensure she is going to be safe. Responsible owners will always be responsible and should not feel irresponsible if they decide they can keep their dog how nature intended.


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

I love you all. <3


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

There are some talking points in this thread that are not true.

Myth #1 "Spay/Neuter IS Responsible" 
That is complete nonsense. Responsible dog ownership is all about keeping an eye on your dog and knowing everything about what it's doing. A responsible owner knows where the animal is and what it's doing every single minute of its' life. If somebody were to stop you in the middle of your day and ask where your dog is and what it's doing, you should be able to easily answer that question. 
For too many people spay/neuter is a license to become irresponsible. They lose their vigilance when it comes to keeping an eye on Fluffy and no longer know his whereabouts or behavior. Where's Fluffy? They don't know, but it's OK because "He's Fixed". 

A Responsible Owner is aware of the dog, its' needs and surroundings 100% of the time, for the life of the animal. If you live up to your obligations, there's no need to spay/neuter to control pet population. If you're not capable of living up to your obligations, you should be asking yourself if you should really have a dog.



Myth #2 "The Pet Overpopulation Problem"
I don't believe in the "pet overpopulation" myth. "Overpopulation" infers that there are more animals being created than there is a demand for, and that is simply not the case. What we do have is a Shelter System that is dysfunctional for a number of reasons. Insufficient facilities, insufficient staffing, insufficient training and above all insufficient funding.

The need for a Shelter System exists because the public owns pets. I happen to believe as do the majority of people, that pets are a good thing. They enrich peoples lives and bring a great deal of joy and happiness to our world. Because the public wants to keep animals there will always be a small percentage that will drop out of the system for a variety of reasons including but not limited to moving, marriage, births, deaths, job loss, and the occasional bad animal. 

The Shelter System was created to be a safety net and clearing house for that small percentage of animals that dropped through the cracks. Even today the number of animals that are euthanized in shelters is a very small percentage of the total pet population. Yet the existing shelter system is overwhelmed. It did not expand in proportion to the overall pet population as it grew over the last 40 years. The net result is a system operating in "survival mode". Rather than focusing on getting pets to where they need to be so they can be adopted, their focus is warehousing animals for "x" number of days and then euthanizing when no prospective owner materializes and time runs out. 

As much as I despise HSUS, I'll use their number of 4,000,000 pets euthanized in shelters each year. Four million. Sounds like a large number doesn't it? It's easy to manipulate people into believing the "Pet Overpopulation" myth when you're looking at that many zero's in a number. You may be surprised to learn that four million is actually a very small number when compared to the pet population as a whole. That four million represents less than 2 percent of the total pet population in the U.S.. That means that more than 98% of the total pet population has a place to call home. 

The pet owning public has allowed the Shelter System to become dysfunctional to the point that it can no longer keep up and fulfill its' mission. That doesn't mean there is a pet overpopulation problem, it means the shelter system needs some upgrades to bring it back into balance with the total pet population that exists today.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

JimS said:


> My dogs, intact or otherwise have never, and will never contribute to the pool of unwanted puppies. I don't see the sense in potentially compromising the health and integrity of my dogs because someone else may be less responsible.
> 
> Yep. I can do that math for you. Assuming that the unaltered dogs are properly trained and handled, the answer is zero.


No one here is questioning your ability or you as an owner. Obviously you're able to 100% watch over your dogs, just like many of us. That is why a lot of us here are safely able to wait for our puppies to reach maturity before opting for spay/neuter. However, I don't think the same can be said for everyone everywhere. I prefer to neuter/alter because it is my personal choice. Does that make me a lazy owner? I don't think so. I think of all of the fun-off leash walks that my dogs get to go on. I think that I might be a little more apprehensive, despite their good recall, if they were intact if a bitch in season were around because of an owner that is unattentive to his dog during heat.



Jackson'sMom said:


> I did not have my dog spayed so I could "feel good" about myself. I had her spayed so she would never, ever produce another litter of puppies. I am a responsible dog owner; I also worked for many years at a very large humane society. I know that accidents happen. And I know that spaying greatly reduces the chances of developing breast cancer, and eliminates pyometra. This entire argument is beyond ridiculous. Goodbye.


:appl::appl:



beccacc31 said:


> Jim - We were all taught not to assume! There are to many irresponsible pet owners so where your number might be zero what about the realistic number? We may not agree but it's safe that we should say and do what is responsible and sets the best example. I will say it again and again... Most people will not even consider educating themselves so they won't have the ability to properly train and handle.I am writing this as the simple pet owner who takes my dog to the vet, is going through the proper training, wanting to join my local GR club because I understand the importance. Even with all of that I will not have the ability to properly train (that's why I go to an insturctor to learn). Many people set out with good intentions but then they forget them. Something becomes to difficult so they quit. I do appreciate your feedback..


:yes: This is the jist of my argument. I agree with Rebecca.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> There are some talking points in this thread that are not true.
> 
> Myth #1 "Spay/Neuter IS Responsible"
> That is complete nonsense. Responsible dog ownership is all about keeping an eye on your dog and knowing everything about what it's doing. A responsible owner knows where the animal is and what it's doing every single minute of its' life. If somebody were to stop you in the middle of your day and ask where your dog is and what it's doing, you should be able to easily answer that question.
> ...


I don't think that anyone disputes that we should all be aware of our animals and vigilant in keeping them safe, healthy, and under our supervision. However, unless we can regulate WHOM owns a pet, I really think that spaying and neutering is the way to go for these individuals. There are probably hundreds of thousands of people that own a pet and shouldn't for your very reasons, but how do we stop them? At best, we're able to alter their pet in these situations.


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

SwampCollie could not have stated my opinions any better, along with AquaCC; I also want to add that here in the US, we really don't have a handle on the extent of the "pet population" problem because shelters aren't uniformly reporting statistics to a central database. So much of this is guesswork. Someone posted what goes on in the Caribbean--here in South Florida, the local humane society imports puppies from the islands. Do we have a shelter over population problem? Or do we have an adult dog over population problem and no pups turned in? (and that would lead my pea brain to think that if the shelter is overrun with adults, then we have a responsible ownership problem--that owners are giving up on their pets due to training, behavior or health issues--but I just don't know).

And as for cats, how many surrenders/turn ins are feral cats? Do we have a feral cat problem? That is different from a cat owner problem, IMHO.

Each owner has to make the decision that is right for them--but I think any law that forces "mutilation" (and this is a correct term) is wrong.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

jwemt81 said:


> So, I guess that would make me an irresponsible dog owner for having my 2 boys neutered when they are over 18 months old to prevent them from getting testicular cancer. Okay then...I guess that will make me a horrible, lazy dog owner. I'd better call and cancel Tucker's neuter appointment that we have scheduled for next month then. :no:


The chances of tucker getting tescular cancer is 0.0001% If dogs are castrated their chances of getting bone cancer is far higher.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Swampcollie wrote:The Shelter System was created to be a safety net and clearing house for that small percentage of animals that dropped through the cracks

IMO, Shelters were put into place to get the strays off the street. More to protect people than to help the animals. Some shelters are still in this mode today but many have been changing their ideas to be more about the animals but the wheels of moderinization and the money to follow through is much slower than the actual thought process for these animals.

Swampcollie wrote:As much as I despise HSUS, I'll use their number of 4,000,000 pets euthanized in shelters each year. Four million. Sounds like a large number doesn't it? It's easy to manipulate people into believing the "Pet Overpopulation" myth when you're looking at that many zero's in a number. You may be surprised to learn that four million is actually a very small number when compared to the pet population as a whole. That four million represents less than 2 percent of the total pet population in the U.S.. That means that more than 98% of the total pet population has a place to call home.

Adding my thoughts to this..... I believe there are still tons of irresponsible jerk owners out there. They dump their dogs into the shelter system because the dog is ill and expensive to up keep in its old age. They dump their older pups into the system because they weren't willing to train the dog into a well mannered companion. Many of these dogs are not adoptable and the shelter cannot keep them forever, lack of funds, and space. Besides that there really are a small percentage of dogs that no matter what care they have received would be a safety hazard to keep. So, in that 2% of dogs being killed should not be listed as adoptable and not put into the statistics at all?

I see nothing wrong with States having mandatory castration laws for all dogs purchased through a shelter or rescue. These dogs were already dumped into the system they are just lucky to still be alive. I see nothing wrong with breeders having contracts on when and if to castrate the dogs they sell. If I don't like the contract the breeder wants then I will either let them see I am responsible or move on and not purchase from them.

We as dog owners need to look at all the research out there and following our state laws and our contract with our breeder should make the best decision for each individual dog.

I do not believe there is an over population problem with dogs. There may be pockets where there are to many puppies but most of the dogs in shelters are there because of irresponsible ownership. They had a home the home dumped them. 

A roaming dog is a training/management problem. If a person feels more comfortable having the dog fixed as an owner that is their choice. 

I still do not understand what is the Health Benefit to having a 6 month old male neutered.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

JimS said:


> Becca, while the word mutilate probably has more harsh connotations than I had originally intended, it is accurate and used correctly.


Mutilate: "to inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on." (American Heritage Dictionary). Is that what you meant?


----------



## Muddypaws (Apr 20, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> There are some talking points in this thread that are not true.
> 
> Myth #1 "Spay/Neuter IS Responsible"
> That is complete nonsense. Responsible dog ownership is all about keeping an eye on your dog and knowing everything about what it's doing. A responsible owner knows where the animal is and what it's doing every single minute of its' life. If somebody were to stop you in the middle of your day and ask where your dog is and what it's doing, you should be able to easily answer that question.
> ...


I have to take exception to this statement as I am offended by the notion that you would consider me an irresponsible pet owner because I cannot supervise my dogs 24/7. 

I have a male and a female, I enjoy having one of each sex, their differences make them fun to interact with. However I DO NOT want puppies . I am not a breeder nor do I have any desire to become one. And although I am home, I do not have the time or means to monitor them constantly nor do they need it, the are happy, well behaved and extremely well cared for. They have the run of the house because they are well behaved, a large back yard, I work (train) and play with them and we enjoy training classes together. I AM a very responsible parent to my two dogs and my two cats. 

Neutering is responsible ownership, it does prevent unwanted pregnancies and it is also a health benefit (think cancer). It is also a choice. I don't consider you an irresponsible pet owner because you don't neuter.

Please do not make generalizations about people, you stated your opinion but in my opinion you are wrong.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> There are some talking points in this thread that are not true.
> 
> 
> Myth #2 "The Pet Overpopulation Problem"
> ...


It's only your opinion that it's a myth. You have every right to that opinion, but the facts actually differ from your belief.

http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/vet/pdf/snreportsummary0107.pdf

This is just for North Carolina. You may not think that 200,000 animals being euthanized each year is an overpopulation problem. I do. It sure doesn't look like a "myth" to me.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> Personally, I think you are totally off base with these comments. If you allow unaltered dogs to wander around, they will make puppies. There are only so many homes for the puppies. At some point the puppies have to go somewhere and that is either wandering around or to the shelter. How does castrating dogs NOT have an effect on the number of puppies born every year? That makes no sense at all to me.
> 
> I had an intact female for several years. I "couldn't afford" to get her spayed. She developed pyrometra at 7 years old and almost died. I will always have my dogs altered in the future unless they have a medical condition that doesn't allow it.


 
I think that you are on a different wave length here. What i said is that the responsible owner will get their dogs castrated (as they feel that this is being responsible) These owners would also NOT allow their dogs to run around unsupervised anyway, so, if they hadnt been castrated wouldnt be bonking a bitch in heat. 

So stop allowing the irresponsible owners from having dogs rather than cut all the boys testicles off from the responsible owners dogs.

Were you aware that when a bitch has an hysterectomy there is a stump left behind and that 'Pyo' can still develope within that stump? 

Stump pyometra is a serious health condition that may occur in female dogs that underwent Ovariohysterectomy (spaying). In this condition, the remaining stump of the resected Uterus becomes infected and filled with a purulent fluid. The symptoms are similar to those of true pyometra. The risk of this condition is significantly reduced if no uterine or ovarian tissue remains from the original ovariohysterectomy. Diagnosis of a stump pyometra may be challenging as pyometra is often discounted as a possibility if the dog has been previously spayed


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> It's only your opinion that it's a myth. You have every right to that opinion, but the facts actually differ from your belief.
> 
> http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/vet/pdf/snreportsummary0107.pdf
> 
> This is just for North Carolina. You may not think that 200,000 animals being euthanized each year is an overpopulation problem. I do. It sure doesn't look like a "myth" to me.


 
So what on earth are we doing right in the UK? We dont put our unwanted, healthy, dogs down, we rehome them to owners that are home checked before and after homing a dog.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> Were you aware that when a bitch has an hysterectomy there is a stump left behind and that 'Pyo' can still develope within that stump?
> 
> Stump pyometra is a serious health condition that may occur in female dogs that underwent Ovariohysterectomy (spaying). In this condition, the remaining stump of the resected Uterus becomes infected and filled with a purulent fluid. The symptoms are similar to those of true pyometra. The risk of this condition is significantly reduced if no uterine or ovarian tissue remains from the original ovariohysterectomy. Diagnosis of a stump pyometra may be challenging as pyometra is often discounted as a possibility if the dog has been previously spayed


It is much, much less common in a spayed female than in an intact female, I am sure.


I don't know what is being done correctly/differently in the UK. I wish whatever it is, they would do it here!


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

solinvictus said:


> Adding my thoughts to this..... I believe there are still tons of irresponsible jerk owners out there. They dump their dogs into the shelter system because the dog is ill and expensive to up keep in its old age. They dump their older pups into the system because they weren't willing to train the dog into a well mannered companion. Many of these dogs are not adoptable and the shelter cannot keep them forever, lack of funds, and space. Besides that there really are a small percentage of dogs that no matter what care they have received would be a safety hazard to keep. So, in that 2% of dogs being killed should not be listed as adoptable and not put into the statistics at all?


I think it's safe to say that there is a portion of that 2 percent that are not really adoptable animals. Still the shelter system should sized and managed to be able to handle the small percentage of the pet population that it meets each year. The fact that it isn't is the problem.






solinvictus said:


> I still do not understand what is the Health Benefit to having a 6 month old male neutered.


There is no "health" benefit to neutering a six month old male.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

So how many responsible breeders don't require their pups to be spayed/neutered???


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> I think it's safe to say that there is a portion of that 2 percent that are not really adoptable animals. Still the shelter system should sized and managed to be able to handle the small percentage of the pet population that it meets each year. The fact that it isn't is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct! Some boys can be sexual active around six months. If only vets kept track on all the problems a castrated male goes through in its life time. The main thing is to allow the growth plates to close before removing testicles. One of my puppy families listened to the vet, had her boy castrated at six months (she will never get another puppy from me) Later this boy had to have elbow ops due to the bones growing too long and the wieght on the elbows was far too heavy for such a youngster. I will add that both parents of the dog had elbows scored and were 0-0 

This pup will suffer all his life now. The specialist who operated on the pup has stated that hes seeing this problem more and more often in pups that have been castrated.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

solinvictus said:


> Many of these dogs are not adoptable and the shelter cannot keep them forever, lack of funds, and space. Besides that there really are a small percentage of dogs that no matter what care they have received would be a safety hazard to keep. So, in that 2% of dogs being killed should not be listed as adoptable and not put into the statistics at all?


I can answer this I think. Those dogs are euthanized and should be counted because they are still part of the statistics. Just because they are unadoptable for whatever reason doesn't mean that they shouldn't be counted as coming into the shelter. Actually, euthanizing the unadoptable dog gives the adoptable dogs a little more time because that space would be taken up if the unadoptable dog had been kept alive.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> I can answer this I think. Those dogs are euthanized and should be counted because they are still part of the statistics. Just because they are unadoptable for whatever reason doesn't mean that they shouldn't be counted as coming into the shelter. Actually, euthanizing the unadoptable dog gives the adoptable dogs a little more time because that space would be taken up if the unadoptable dog had been kept alive.


 
Unbelievable! Where are all these dogs coming from? If it is puppy farms then time to spend time lobbying your local governments to close these places down. Go directly to the source, not to the well behaved dogs testicles!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Well, I'm spayed by nature and pretty darn happy about it. Thank you mother nature!

Well trained dogs have been known to dart in front of cars and such, too. Dogs that you would never expect to take a chance. One can never be too careful and irresponsible when it comes to keeping safe anything or anyone in their charge. That's MHO.


----------



## JimS (Jan 2, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Mutilate: "to inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on." (American Heritage Dictionary). Is that what you meant?


Webster's Medical Dictionary...this is a medical procedure after all:
Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myüt-&l-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: -lat·ed;-lat·ing
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of <mutilate a body>; also : CASTRATE 1 

By the way, I don't see your cite in the the 2009 American Heritage Dictionary (via the Dictionary.com entry)
mu·ti·late (myōōt'l-āt') 
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1.

To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2.

To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3.

To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


[Latin mutilāre, mutilāt-, from mutilus, maimed.]
mu'ti·la'tion n., mu'ti·la'tive adj., mu'ti·la'tor n.


----------



## beccacc31 (Aug 17, 2009)

rappwizard said:


> SwampCollie could not have stated my opinions any better, along with AquaCC; I also want to add that here in the US, we really don't have a handle on the extent of the "pet population" problem because shelters aren't uniformly reporting statistics to a central database. So much of this is guesswork. Someone posted what goes on in the Caribbean--here in South Florida, the local humane society imports puppies from the islands. Do we have a shelter over population problem? Or do we have an adult dog over population problem and no pups turned in? (and that would lead my pea brain to think that if the shelter is overrun with adults, then we have a responsible ownership problem--that owners are giving up on their pets due to training, behavior or health issues--but I just don't know).
> 
> And as for cats, how many surrenders/turn ins are feral cats? Do we have a feral cat problem? That is different from a cat owner problem, IMHO.
> 
> Each owner has to make the decision that is right for them--but I think any law that forces "mutilation" (and this is a correct term) is wrong.


Where did those feral cats and adult dogs come from? I think an interesting question would be - How many mix breeds are sitting in shelters (kill/no kill) and how many purebreads are in rescues? And.. Why? I understand when people have a change in thier living situations or the economy and of those dogs and cats turned in from people who are making the choice because it's that or feed the family (how many of those are already altered)? I went through the riggers to get my puppy from the breeder. We owned a GR prior to our new one and we were responsible pet owners then, but I can tell you that I have learned even more now. To give an example of just plain old ignorance... I have a nieghbor with an unaltered 5 or 6 yr old male GR... She thinks she is above it all and allows that sweet dog to roam. Her direct nieghbor purchased a GR puppy and was waiting the 7 months to have her spayed and that other crazy neighbor with the unaltered roaming male was accussing her of trying to get her female pregnant. This is a woman who claimed to be active in the breed, a jr judge and past breeder (still irresponsible)... I guess my point is you never know!!!! This was quite the ramble and I need to finish getting ready for my day. It's clearly a hot topic and we all have different views and I can respect that. I just fear the few idiots that will read this and all of a sudden think that they can handle a couple of intact dogs. 

Go back and find the post from a few months ago where the OP from that particular thread was talking about how their dog was unaltered and got accidently pregnant (which is exactly where the problem arises) and knew absolutely nothing about welping. The entire thing sounded very scary.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

fostermom said:


> It's only your opinion that it's a myth. You have every right to that opinion, but the facts actually differ from your belief.
> 
> http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/vet/pdf/snreportsummary0107.pdf
> 
> This is just for North Carolina. You may not think that 200,000 animals being euthanized each year is an overpopulation problem. I do. It sure doesn't look like a "myth" to me.


Facts you say?

Have you heard of the AVMA? 
According to the AVMA for 2005/2006, there were 210.2 million pets residing in the U.S. the majority of which are cats and dogs. Those numbers are also confirmed by the AAPMA who represent the pet food producers as all those pets have to be fed. 

The fact that the shelter system in NC (like many other states) is out of balance with the overall pet population that resides there, does not mean there is an "overpopulation problem". The overall pet population is still less that the "human population" is seeking. There is sufficient demand, i.e. people seeking pets, but the shelter system is not finding a way to get the animals they have into the hands of the people who want them. 

Nationally we turn over approximately 10% of the total pet population in a given year (pets don't live forever and the demand for pets is increasing along with the human population). That means the demand for new pets is approximately 21 million new pets each year. Why didn't the 200,000 pets that were put down in NC find their way into new homes as one of those 21 million pets needed to meet the annual public demand? 

They didn't because the Shelter System failed. There are a variety of reasons why they failed, but none the less it was a failure.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

SC, how does one go about making a change so more pets get into those wanting hands and less pets are put down?


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Kimm said:


> SC, how does one go about making a change so more pets get into those wanting hands and less pets are put down?


 
I guess that is the million dollar question. Are there any groups fighting to get the local governments to close down these puppy farms that create such havoc?


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

All in all - it's personal opinion and the responsibility of the owner to make sure his/her dog is abstinent. Poor buggers. "Yes I know you want it, NO you can't have it." hee hee.

It also depends on where you live. Someone who lives on 20 acres with no neighbors probably has less of an issue than someone who has a non-spayed female living down the block.

It cracks me up though, to hear someone say "Not my dog - my dogs are well trained - my dogs listen to me - I am the MASTER." Well - dogs are kind of like raising teenagers. It's always the overly trusting parents that say "Not my Johnny" that are left scratching their heads when their kid is in trouble.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Lestorm said:


> I guess that is the million dollar question. Are there any groups fighting to get the local governments to close down these puppy farms that create such havoc?


In the shelters around here, at least, the dogs I see are mostly mixed breeds-mixes of Labs, Dobies, Rotties and lots and lots of pit bull mixes-and of course the Heinz 57 mixes. Not designer mixed breeds. There are rarely purebreds and most of them are adopted fairly quickly, or rescued. Toy breeds/miexes are usually adopted pretty quickly. I know that I monitor our local shelters and contact the appropriate rescues-in the last few months, I have seen Gordon Setters, an Old English Sheepdog, a Pug and a Chinese Crested. The rest were mixes. 

I don't think the majority of the dogs in the shelters around here are coming from the so-called "puppy mills" or even BYB's. I think they are the result of ignorant owners with intact dogs, a fair number of which aren't pure bred themselves.

I don't think there is an easy solution. I oppose mandatory spay/neuter, but I also oppose just randomly allowing dogs to wander and breed. I suppose leash laws, and enforcing them, would be a start. I also pay more for licenses for my intact dogs ($10 versus $5).

I live at the intersection of 2 major county roads and have been surprised at the number of people who will let their dogs wander around with 2 roads with 55 mph speed limits. It has improved in the 10 years I've been here but I honestly think it is due to the death of the dogs, and them not being replaced, not to any improvement in the knowledge or increased responsibility of their owners.


----------



## walexk (Nov 13, 2009)

fostermom said:


> I won't even address the first part of your post.
> 
> Regarding what I have quoted above. Nobody said you had to alter your dog(s). Nobody called you irresponsible or suggested that you were shirking your responsibility for NOT altering your dog(s), yet you feel like you have an obligation to say that about people who DO alter their dogs.


My sentiments exactly!! BRAVO!!!


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

Tracy S. said:


> All in all - it's personal opinion and the responsibility of the owner to make sure his/her dog is abstinent. Poor buggers. "Yes I know you want it, NO you can't have it." hee hee.
> 
> It also depends on where you live. Someone who lives on 20 acres with no neighbors probably has less of an issue than someone who has a non-spayed female living down the block.
> 
> It cracks me up though, to hear someone say "Not my dog - my dogs are well trained - my dogs listen to me - I am the MASTER." Well - dogs are kind of like raising teenagers. It's always the overly trusting parents that say "Not my Johnny" that are left scratching their heads when their kid is in trouble.


Well said.. I've been silently reading and thinking to myself that there are some that don't believe in fences or leashes or spay/neutering and they are also the same parents that think their little 3-4 year old tots are "trained" enough to follow them through a busy parking lot or on a sidewalk by a busy road without holding their hands.

Ahhh - such is life. We make our own choices and have to live with our mistakes.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> I guess that is the million dollar question. Are there any groups fighting to get the local governments to close down these puppy farms that create such havoc?


Looking at the situation from a national perspective, puppy farms and purebred dogs in general are an insignificant fraction of the total pet population. (Hundreds of thousands of new purebred dogs each year compared to tens of millions of pets each year.)


The issue with puppy farms isn't so much a issue of quantity as it is one of quality. Make no mistake the puppy farms are in business to make a quick buck. As long as there is a line of consumers waiting to buy their product, they'll keep producing low quality puppies. When the demand goes away, so will the puppy farms. 

The key to dealing with puppy farms is education of the public. Most people once educated, won't support the market that supplies puppies from puppy farms.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> Looking at the situation from a national perspective, puppy farms and purebred dogs in general are an insignificant fraction of the total pet population. (Hundreds of thousands of new purebred dogs each year compared to tens of millions of pets each year.)
> 
> 
> The issue with puppy farms isn't so much a issue of quantity as it is one of quality. Make no mistake the puppy farms are in business to make a quick buck. As long as there is a line of consumers waiting to buy their product, they'll keep producing low quality puppies. When the demand goes away, so will the puppy farms.
> ...


See? You and I can agree on something! LOL. I think hell just froze over....


----------



## beccacc31 (Aug 17, 2009)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> So how many responsible breeders don't require their pups to be spayed/neutered???


 I thought the same thing!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> I guess that is the million dollar question. Are there any groups fighting to get the local governments to close down these puppy farms that create such havoc?


Many people in the US do not like the Government getting involved in anything. 

I live with someone who will remain nameless and did something moronic.  My Cocker Spaniel did go into her first heat at a young age. I told another family member to in no way let her out. I went to do something in another room and when I walked into the kitchen I wondered where the dog was??? Where was she? Outside, locked in position with a male dog! Never again. We had to bring her immediately to the Vet to be spayed. I did my best to be a responsible dog owner, but some decisions made by others you share your life with, can leave you shaking your head.

I'd like to know how many responsible breeders require their rehomed Stud dogs to be neutered before going to their new homes? I can understand why the decision in made, but are the dogs then at risk even if they are older at the time of neutering?


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

> _So how many responsible breeders don't require their pups to be spayed/neutered???_
> 
> I thought the same thing!


I can't be sure but I think many, very responsible breeders in this country do not dictate when/if you should castrate/spay their puppies. It would be interesting if UK breeders such as Lestorm, Tanya and Mist could answer that one, did you guys have contracts with your puppies telling people that they must spay/neuter their puppy?

If I were a breeder I would ensure I chose puppy owners that I felt comfortable enough with to leave the decision to them...infact I would have rather owners that based the decision on the needs of THAT particular dog and not just assume that it is best for every dog to routinely castrate...to me that would be the sign of a very responsible owner. To have a contract that states you MUST castrate the dog by 6 months old would worry me how much the breeder trusts the owner! I would say it is good practice for a breeder to offer advice about waiting to castrate but surely it should be left to the new owners. Even in rescue here there is leeway in when to spay/neuter. In most cases, with young dogs, you are given a voucher for the cost of the operation...but the trust in the new owner is there as when to do it. Obviously in other parts of the world, this trust is completely gone.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I believe it's quite the opposite in the states Emma. Maybe it is now changing due to recent data. I know if I purchased a show pup back when things were different spaying and neutering were not mandatory and the contract was very different. Maybe the same held true for dogs that compete in other venues as well.

Here's another question. If breeders no longer believe in spaying and neutering due to health reasons, what will happen to the limited contract? It seems like this can be a huge problem. What would make it okay to demand pups be spayed or neutered by a certain age, and others do not have to be? Hmm...


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Limited registration does not require spay/neuter. It simply means any offspring of that animal cannot be AKC registered.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> Limited registration does not require spay/neuter. It simply means any offspring of that animal cannot be AKC registered.


Thank you! SC explained this to me. I thought most breeders do require S/N at some point and wondered if there would be some sort of moral dilemma when they choose not to S/N their dogs for health reasons, but require some pet owners to do so. Very interesting...

The link Linda posted mentioned a higher incidence of Hemangio in neutered dogs of any age. I'm tired, I need to stop thinking now. LOL


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I'd like to hear SCs and Lestorm's views on neutering males with one retained testicle. Never? At a certain age? Only remove the retained?


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

ahh ok...I thought most breeders required *proof* of a spay neuter nevermind just suggesting it in the contract. Infact on another golden forum a friend of mine was threatened with court by the breeder when she asked if she could only postpone a spay op, bloody terrified her, and she is as responsible owner as they come! Maybe all breeders aren't like that then.


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I'd like to hear SCs and Lestorm's views on neutering males with one retained testicle. Never? At a certain age? Only remove the retained?


oh I wish I'd made them retain one with Harry...getting rid of all testosterone is not the best thing to do with a highly strung dog...he needs that boost!


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I'd like to hear SCs and Lestorm's views on neutering males with one retained testicle. Never? At a certain age? Only remove the retained?


I would wait until the dog has reached maturity, remove the retained testicle and castrate the dog.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Emma&Tilly said:


> ahh ok...I thought most breeders required *proof* of a spay neuter nevermind just suggesting it in the contract. Infact on another golden forum a friend of mine was threatened with court by the breeder when she asked if she could only postpone a spay op, bloody terrified her, and she is as responsible owner as they come! Maybe all breeders aren't like that then.


 
What you can enforce in a contract varies by country. 

I used to put a S/N clause in my contract but removed it about fifteen years ago when the courts refused to uphold it. The Judge made it very clear that when you sell property, it's no longer yours and you have no right to tell the new owner what they can or can't do with their property. U.S. Statute took precedence over my contract. If the new owners choose not to live up to the contract, I am entitled to not honor the warranty, but I can't force them to alter their dog if they don't want to.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger (Mar 26, 2009)

Lestorm said:


> The chances of tucker getting tescular cancer is 0.0001% If dogs are castrated their chances of getting bone cancer is far higher.


I think this research needs to be replicated and studied further before this conclusion can be drawn. I read the rottweiler study and since it was not a controlled study, there could have been another factor that contributed to the results. I'm not saying it's wrong, but in my opinion it is too early to talk about it as a fact. 

It can be dangerous to make decisions based on the results of very limited research - makes me think of the study that showed vaccinations cause autism in children. Again, I'm not saying that the research that has been done about the effects of neutering is wrong, just that I think more research needs to be done before we can make such claims. 

I think responsible dog owners should be able to decide when and if they will neuter thier dogs. People should do what they believe is right, based on thier situation.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

I have 3 dogs and 10 cats, and every animal I have is altered.
The fact is, most pet owners out there cannot be trusted with an unaltered dog. I mean, when you have someone drop off a litter of puppies bred from a brother and sister, and the person says "I never thought they'd mate...they're brother and sister!". Well, someone with that level of intelligence should be neutered, and obviously aren't smart enough to have an unaltered animal. The people who are opposed to pediatric spay/neuter, or even spay/neuter in general because of health risks, they are probably smart enough to be in control of their animals and avoid unwanted litters. But the "other" people? No. They're not. They're the people who don't want to neuter they're dogs because it's unmasculine to not have balls. OR the people who just don't want to pay for it, etc. IMO, every animal should be altered. If you want to wait until they're 18 months old, fine, do it. But Every animal in my home will be altered by 6 months of age. Sooner of they are a rescue who will be adopted out, because I am not doing my job if I let an animal go still able to make babies. My personal animals, 5-6 months is fine. I am responsible enough to not create more babies, and I like to think they're stonger at 6 months than at 8 weeks.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Originally Posted by *AquaClaraCanines*  
_I'd like to hear SCs and Lestorm's views on neutering males with one retained testicle. Never? At a certain age? Only remove the retained?_

_*If there is a health problem then yes do have done what is needed. Please also take into concideration that it can take up to a year for the retained testicle to finally show itself. If it hasnt by eithteen months, then it is wise to have that one removed as it could (over years) turn cancerous.*_


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I think responsible dog owners should be able to decide when and if they will neuter thier dogs. People should do what they believe is right, based on thier situation.


 
I totally agree with this statement. What i do disagree with is when a vet frightens a new puppy owner into having undeveloped puppies castrated.


----------



## beccacc31 (Aug 17, 2009)

Kimm said:


> I believe it's quite the opposite in the states Emma. Maybe it is now changing due to recent data. I know if I purchased a show pup back when things were different spaying and neutering were not mandatory and the contract was very different. Maybe the same held true for dogs that compete in other venues as well.
> 
> Here's another question. If breeders no longer believe in spaying and neutering due to health reasons, what will happen to the limited contract? It seems like this can be a huge problem. What would make it okay to demand pups be spayed or neutered by a certain age, and others do not have to be? Hmm...


Many breeders don't even hand over the AKC papers until they have received a copy of the spay/nueter from the pet owners vet.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

beccacc31 said:


> Many breeders don't even hand over the AKC papers until they have received a copy of the spay/nueter from the pet owners vet.


I wonder if this is just in our area? The BYB's, at least Shadow's, could care less if I did or didn't neuter him. Tucker was already neutered when he came to live with us.


----------



## Phillyfisher (Jan 9, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> I would wait until the dog has reached maturity, remove the retained testicle and castrate the dog.


This was the case with Tucker. We waited until 17 months to have Tucker fixed. Until that time, he was never off lead. Even then, we had a close call that made me realize that it only takes a split second for an un-neutered mle to take off after a bitch in heat. We went on a weekend getaway to the beach, which was one of the few year round dog beaches nearby; Tucker was about 15 months and on leash. We came up upon a beautiful red golden bitch who was off lead, and Tucker bolted and yanked the leash right out of my hands. Luckily I did not have the loop around my wrist, as I am sure he would have broken my wrist if I had the leash looped around it. (Our trainer had warned all of us in class about this) He took off after her, and they ended up playing together in the surf. My son took off and retrieved Tucker and brought him back, before anything happened. The bitch's owner said, "oh yeah, I suspect she is probably coming into heat again." :doh: Who the hell takes a bitch coming into heat to a dog beach, let alone off lead? You could also argue "who takes an un-neutered male to the beach on lead" as well. This was no uneducated hick either, this was a very affluent woman. It made me realize that accidental breedings can happen no matter what precautions you take. You can judge for yourself whether I was "responsible" or not for putting Tucker in that situation.

We were intending to wait until 18 months to have Tucker fixed, but ended up doing it a month early, since we were taking Tucker camping with us, and I did not want to be put in the same situation again. I will have my next dog spayed/neutered as well, after I review all the current research on hand as to when the best time to do it is, when the time comes.


----------



## Phillyfisher (Jan 9, 2008)

I am going to throw this out there- do they perform vasectomies or tie tubes instead of performing spay/neuters? Would this be better health-wise? Too expensive? Not practical?


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

Phillyfisher said:


> You could also argue "who takes an un-neutered male to the beach on lead" as well.


Of course you can let an intact dog off the lead! I have no idea how people properly exercise their dogs if they think you cannot let a dog off the lead...neutered or not! So for the first 17 months he hadn't been allowed to run free on walks? This is a very strange concept to me!! Well, I have no idea how we must manage it in this country...it is the norm to let your dogs run free on walks (in appropriate areas...parks, beaches, woodland) yet we aren't seeing inpregnanted bitches producing unwanted litters everywhere...Harry has been off lead on walks every day of his life and was castrated at 17 months...never once was there a hint of him trying to run away. I do think most people have the sense to keep a bitch in heat on a lead though!


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

How many people on this Forum have a Golden older than say 6 or 7 years right now - and had them neutered at 6 months? I had mine neutered at 6 months, and I'm just curious what the percentage of "issues" are. I know that it is ONLY on the Boards and not an accurate demographic study ---- but I'd like to know of any common problems (or lack of) for my own sake.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

I have Jasmine, who is a golden/lab mix and she was spayed at 5 months old. She was diagnosed with hip displaysia at 4 months old and has had two FHOs. She is 9 years old now and has not had any health issues. *knock on wood*


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Emma&Tilly said:


> ..it is the norm to let your dogs run free on walks yet we aren't seeing inpregnanted bitches producing unwanted litters everywhere...
> 
> I do think most people have the sense to keep a bitch in heat on a lead though!


Let me just say that where I live there are many surrounding towns that have Govt. subsidized housing, low income developments, and it is a high drug trafficking area. And before everyone freaks out - no I'm not saying that they breed disaster. Those programs are for people who NEED it, not people who choose to have it as a lifestyle. Due to the drug trafficking, there are a lot of pitbulls. And pitbulls are great in families, but these people remove their vocal cords and train them to attack --- male and female dogs. Anyway - there are a ton of pitbull mix dogs - when the people get arrested or are forced to move, the dogs are left behind, and yes some are out wandering around. If that situation were to persist and the ASPCA weren't so vigilant in picking these animals up - YES we would absolutely have pregnant bitches with unwanted litters everywhere and eventually a feral dog issue.

The argument has turned from the health of a dog to the reasons behind neutering/spaying. Again, if you are a responsible owner and watch your dog 100% of the time, no we won't have this issue........but there is good argument WHY the humane society alters dogs early.


----------



## Phillyfisher (Jan 9, 2008)

Emma&Tilly said:


> Of course you can let an intact dog off the lead! I have no idea how people properly exercise their dogs if they think you cannot let a dog off the lead...neutered or not! So for the first 17 months he hadn't been allowed to run free on walks? This is a very strange concept to me!! Well, I have no idea how we must manage it in this country...it is the norm to let your dogs run free on walks yet we aren't seeing inpregnanted bitches producing unwanted litters everywhere...Harry has been off lead on walks every day of his life and was castrated at 17 months...never once was there a hint of him trying to run away. I do think most people have the sense to keep a bitch in heat on a lead though!


Tucker's recall is ok, but not the best. He is walked everyday (weather permitting) on lead, and during the nicer months, we run him regularly on a 25' lead, in a fenced area at a nearby college. Right now it is hard to run him with 30" of snow on the ground. His feet get too cold. I simply cannot trust him not to bolt for another dog, whether it is to play or not. He has the need to be dominant, and I will not risk him coming across another dog unsupervised. We are working on him ignoring other dogs and focusing on us in obedience class, but we know he has a long way to go with this. He is getting better though! I am very selective as to which dog he gets to meet as we need to make sure he has positive experiences with new dogs. He met a few dogs as a pup that I realize now that we should have stayed away from. They were males that did not seem to like that he was unaltered at the time and growled and snapped at him. I do think this affected him and makes him a bit on edge now when greeting other dogs. We do let him off lead completely in our back yard which is small and fenced with a low 3 foot wall, when we are outside.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Emma&Tilly said:


> This is a very strange concept to me!! Well, I have no idea how we must manage it in this country...it is the norm to let your dogs run free on walks (in appropriate areas...parks, beaches, woodland)


I wrote something super long in response to this..and then realized it was so off topic from the thread! This is a fascinating cultural difference and something that is really unfortunate for so many dog owners and dogs here. 

...off to go out in our small woods/pastures with my intact dog loose and my altered dogs on lead....


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I agree with Emma. There is no where here where one can take walks off leash, and that's sad. I have to drive two or more hours to find such a location. We make do by sneaking onto ball fields and trying to find days when there isn't anyone at the dog park.


----------



## Phillyfisher (Jan 9, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> This is a fascinating cultural difference and something that is really unfortunate for so many dog owners and dogs here.


Thank you for noting this! You absolutely hit the nail on the head!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Tracy S. said:


> How many people on this Forum have a Golden older than say 6 or 7 years right now - and had them neutered at 6 months? I had mine neutered at 6 months, and I'm just curious what the percentage of "issues" are. I know that it is ONLY on the Boards and not an accurate demographic study ---- but I'd like to know of any common problems (or lack of) for my own sake.


Me. Shadow was neutered at 6 months of age. One of the reasons why was... during a discussion with my Vet he and I felt Shadow may become frustrated by the breeder of Newfies (he had 6) and the unspayed GR living right next door. I had never had a male dog before, so I had no idea how frustrating it is for a male dog to live so close to females that may be in heat so often. Plus, at the time, I had no clue spaying and neutering at a young age wasn't the right thing to do. 

When I was growing up, dogs always roamed the neighborhood. We had a community of dogs that were all part of our family. Spaying and Neutering was a wise thing to do back. My thoughts didn't evolve with the changing environment.

Shadow did have an FHO and a THR at 7 and 11 months old, but a few of the other pups from his litter seemed to have hip issues.

The only other thing I will add is what I observed at the local training facilty. They do not allow dogs in heat to take part in classes while in heat, but someone did come to class. Not one male dog, even those who were neutered, focused! Thankfully all the dogs were on lead.


----------



## Emma&Tilly (May 15, 2005)

RedDogs said:


> This is a fascinating cultural difference and something that is really unfortunate for so many dog owners and dogs here.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I really wonder why this is though...why is it not the norm to let your dogs enjoy public areas with you? Of course we have rules here about where dogs can and can't go but NOTHING so restrictive as it sounds in other parts of the world. What I don't understand is how on earth are people expected to exercise their dogs properly? Jenna has mentioned before that a large portion of dogs don't even get walked off an owners property around her...how has this mindset happened? Even the most idiotic of owner around here would know their dog needs a good, proper walk! And then on the other extreme, as Phillyfisher posted a few messages back, you have wonderful, caring owners that feel that letting an intact dog off the lead is somehow irresponsible and wrong! All dogs should have the right to free running everyday, it is their only chance to be free for a little part of the day. Does anyone complain about these restrictions?? They say the UK is a nation of dog lovers but I think some European countries have it better than us...In Paris I have seen dogs sat in restaurants!


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I have a 13 year old Whippet who is the vision of health and went lure coursing last weekend!!! But, he was not neutered until age 6


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

it is illegal to let dogs off leash here, and there is literally no woods or fields here. No farming, nothing like that- and unlike the UK, one cannot walk on other peoples' land. Plus, traffic is BAD, everywhere. In addition, any woods you do find in Florida is swampland with gators that eat dogs routinely, rattlesnakes, and other deadly wildlife. Even sinkholes your dog could, at best, break his leg in, at worst fall down!


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Letting an intact male off lead when there is a female nearby in heat is irresponsible! I know you weren't referring to this Emma, I'm just being funny. Sometimes many of us error on the side of caution due to the irresponsible behavior of others. 

Many states and localities have leash laws, so having a dog off lead in most areas is illegal.


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Kimm said:


> Shadow did have an FHO and a THR at 7 and 11 months old, .


Forgive my stupidness  but what is an FHO and a THR ?


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Emma, I really don't know a lot about how the differences have started/continued. I didn't realize it was so different in other areas until I heard Kay Laurence mention how crazy we are [well...that's a bit paraphrased...] for having such restrictions. Many/most dogs don't get walked off of property, in rural areas because it's a pain to elsewhere, in semi-urban areas because..same thing... and even people who live in town, because they have a fenced yard! The dog can exercise there! 95% of the dogs I work with I recommend off property walks as part of the plan to improve the dog's overall behavior. Restricting dogs to their property and minimal exercise causes serious problems. There are dog parks, but those are only open to very social dogs. Owners of reactive dogs go in the middle of the day when it's empty or super early in the morning, or they restrict their dogs to onleash walks. Other dog owners either illegally walk their dogs off leash, or use onleash exercise (...if they're exercising their dogs at all).

Letting dogs off leash in most of these areas -is- rather irresponsible...right by a bike path or a kids park...isn't usually safe... and right in town..letting your dog off leash is asking him to get hit by a car. It's a real tough spot. When dogs don't get a chance to be off leash, they can't learn to be reliable that way, but you can't teach them to be reliable without letting them off leash. People take risks in that training, and one of my favorite students had his beloved young dog hit by a car. I had warned him letting the dogs off leash really wasn't a good plan. 

And so we also run into the problem of all the responsible people have their dogs on leash, and other people often don't. So these people and dogs disturb other people, eliminate everywhere, approach and cause problem with the on-leash pets. It's really rough. these dogs are also not always well contained in their yards and roam the neighborhood. ("He's friendly!"). And these are often the people who complain, want less restrictions, etc. My dad is very much in this group. He can't believe I don't just let my dogs run at the farm. "It's better to be free and get hit by a car than to be on leash all the time. He's bad because you don't let him off leash ever. If you did that, all your problems will be solved [regarding my dog who has brain damage and serious behavior problems....]." He's not on the list of people who should really be a dog owner...
And a big aspect is when dogs are misbehaving, whether it's reactive-ness (yay for making up words!) or pulling on the leash...the owners are less liekly to take them for a walk...which doesn't help the problem and sometimes makes it worse. And so these dogs are then regulated to the yard. 

I'm very keen on keeping dogs on leash and safe, etc. But I definitely can step back and look and realize that's a cultural/societal thing here. I do want things to change. I wish I had big parks I could take my dogs to romp in, I have a few friends out west who can do this on big areas of govt land. I hear about dog owners in Europe who go hike on mountain areas forever, with their dogs off leash. I'm so jealous of all that and I definitely realize how our restrictions are further making it more difficult for dog owners and enhancing the human-animal bond.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

beccacc31 said:


> Many breeders don't even hand over the AKC papers until they have received a copy of the spay/nueter from the pet owners vet.


I'm certain one of our breeders here would know better than I, but I'm pretty sure this practice goes against AKC rules. You can sell a pup on limited registration if you choose, but to withhold the papers after the puppy changes hands is a different story, I think. Anybody know for sure?

I know in the case of my breeder (um, dad... whatever), there was a "rebate" offered for spaying/neutering. Puppy buyers were also strongly encouraged to wait at least 14 months until doing so (all the pups sold from Jersey's litter were males, not sure what the recommendation would have been for females).

Julie and Jersey


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Tracy S. said:


> Forgive my stupidness  but what is an FHO and a THR ?


Hi,

THR = Total Hip Replacement
FHO = Femoral Head Ostectomy


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

Sage, my lab mix, was spayed at 5 months. She is now 7 and very healthy. Not a health problem with her in 7 years. Sydney, my beagle mix was spayed at 4 months and will be 7 this summer. Again, no issues. Taz, my golden, was spayed at 6 months, and will be 5 in august. No issues there either. My dads german shepherd was spayed at 6 months, and she lived until she was 13 with only some mild arthritis at the end, and no other health problems her entire life. I agree there are probably good and bad points to early spay/neuter, but I will continue doing the responsible thing that a PET owner does, and that is to have all my animals fixed.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

beccacc31 said:


> Many breeders don't even hand over the AKC papers until they have received a copy of the spay/nueter from the pet owners vet.


That is a practice that is in direct violation of the Rules of the American Kennel Club. Breeders are not allowed to "hold" the Registration papers for any reason. When the sale is completed the papers must be turned over.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Phillyfisher said:


> I am going to throw this out there- do they perform vasectomies or tie tubes instead of performing spay/neuters? Would this be better health-wise? Too expensive? Not practical?


So I had to ask my vet-school sis on this one. She sent me this link http://www.dolittler.com/2010/02/08...among.veterinarians.Whats.up.with.that...html

She said some vet schools just don't teach those procedures. I remember she got to go to the zoo and observe a lion vasectomy, but they had to bring a different vet in because the regular zoo vet had never done one. I was intrigued to read that tube ties and vasectomies are less invasive as well. It makes me wonder if some day that could be the trend.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I really think that in the future we may see more of these procedures. Right now, I plan on leaving my males intact and am trying to decide what to do with my girls when their show/breeding career is over. I mentioned before that a couple of us are wondering about leaving an ovary and removing the uterus when spaying girls in the future. 

Leaving an ovary or tying tubes does not alleviate the risk of breast cancer but in 30 years I have lost one girl to breast cancer at 13, and had a friend lose one at age 12 (actually she had breast cancer but we are not sure that is what killed her, as she collapsed and died at home). I would want to remove the uterus if I was going to do anything, to help with the risk of pyometra.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> That is a practice that is in direct violation of the Rules of the American Kennel Club. Breeders are not allowed to "hold" the Registration papers for any reason. When the sale is completed the papers must be turned over.


That's what I thought.... thanks for clarifying!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Swampcollie said:


> That is a practice that is in direct violation of the Rules of the American Kennel Club. Breeders are not allowed to "hold" the Registration papers for any reason. When the sale is completed the papers must be turned over.


Actually, the AKC does allow the papers to be withheld pending proof of spay/neuter IF both parties agree to this in writing and the buyer is provided with identifying information about the puppy: sire's and dam's names and AKC numbers, puppy's date of birth, and litter registration number on the bill of sale and spay/neuter contract.

I give the Limited Registrations at the time of sale, and provide a SASE for the vet to mail back to me proof of spay/neuter. I have never had an issue with this-my biggest problem is owners whose vets insist on spaying/neutering at 10-12 weeks 

It IS against AKC rules to charge more for "papers"-ie, those ads you see which say $400 without AKC papers and $500 with AKC papers.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Does anyone know if that first listed article was peer-reviewed or showed up in a peer-reviewed journal?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Tahnee GR said:


> Actually, the AKC does allow the papers to be withheld pending proof of spay/neuter IF both parties agree to this in writing and the buyer is provided with identifying information about the puppy: sire's and dam's names and AKC numbers, puppy's date of birth, and litter registration number on the bill of sale and spay/neuter contract.
> 
> I give the Limited Registrations at the time of sale, and provide a SASE for the vet to mail back to me proof of spay/neuter. I have never had an issue with this-my biggest problem is owners whose vets insist on spaying/neutering at 10-12 weeks
> 
> It IS against AKC rules to charge more for "papers"-ie, those ads you see which say $400 without AKC papers and $500 with AKC papers.


Thank you for clarifying Linda...


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Tracy S. said:


> How many people on this Forum have a Golden older than say 6 or 7 years right now - and had them neutered at 6 months? I had mine neutered at 6 months, and I'm just curious what the percentage of "issues" are. I know that it is ONLY on the Boards and not an accurate demographic study ---- but I'd like to know of any common problems (or lack of) for my own sake.


Sage is now 12 1/2. He was neutered at 4 or 5 months (I can't remember exactly now). He has never lifted his leg in his life (I must say I love this "side effect"). He has a crippled front leg, but that started way before he was neutered. And now he has arthritis in his back, but I strongly suspect that is because of the way he walks (because of the leg). He does have some allergies, but no hip problems. I'm thinking he does pretty darn good for a puppy mill dog.

I'm probably going to get reamed for this, but I am one of those vets whose clients mostly spay/neuter at 6 months (but I do not "force" anyone to do anything with their own dog!). I practice in a city (well as city as we have in Iowa). To be perfectly honest, very, very few of my clients have any desire to deal with an intact dog. Especially a female in heat. And spaying at around 6 months is the best way to totally prevent a female from ever going into heat (most of my clients don't want to deal with ANY heat cycle). We have a lot of dogs that go into heat by 8-9 months and there is no way to know exactly when an individual dog will go into heat, so if the owner wants no chance of a heat cycle, 6 months is a good time. 

As for males, a great deal of my clients don't want to deal with marking, interest in females in heat, wanting to roam, etc. Earlier neutering (before these behaviors become habits) keeps owners who don't want these things happier. Sure these behaviors can be trained out BUT when you're dealing with people who even resist going puppy/obedience classes, the amount of training necessary is beyond what the want to do. 

Does this make them irresponsible pet owners? Maybe. But if the only people who are allowed to have dogs are as dedicated as most of the people on this list, we would have A LOT less pet owners! If spaying and neutering before sexual maturity makes a dog a easier pet for people who will not put the effort and time necessary into making an intact dog a good pet, I'm all for it. Of course I'd prefer to deal with a whole practice of well-educated, dedicated owners with intact animals, but unfortunately that's not the real world. For every owner that can properly deal with an intact dog, I've got 10-20 others who can't or won't do what's needed to keep an intact animal.

FWIW, I spayed dog #2 when she was almost exactly 1 year old (had not had a heat cycle) and dog #3 is currently 6 months old and is potentially breeding quality (time will tell), so she won't be spayed until I see something that would preclude breeding her or after she is done breeding.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

_Quote "To be perfectly honest, very, very few of my clients have any desire to deal with an intact dog. Especially a female in heat. And spaying at around 6 months is the best way to totally prevent a female from ever going into heat (most of my clients don't want to deal with ANY heat cycle). We have a lot of dogs that go into heat by 8-9 months and there is no way to know exactly when an individual dog will go into heat, so if the owner wants no chance of a heat cycle, 6 months is a good time. _

_As for males, a great deal of my clients don't want to deal with marking, interest in females in heat, wanting to roam, etc. Earlier neutering (before these behaviors become habits) keeps owners who don't want these things happier."_ 


I would suggest to these families that they might be better off going to the supermarket and buying a stuffed toy. Im really sorry but to put animals at risk just to make the owner happier is terrible. We hear of owners no liking ears on certain breeds so they have the tips removed, cats have their claws removed just because they might spoil the furniture, it goes on and on. My goodness these people need to get real and see what pain they are putting their animals through just so that they fit into the way of life these sad owners dictate. Sorry if this offends but I find these reasons for castrating very offensive.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I wonder if the majority of Pet owners on this forum have castrated Goldens. If so, I guess they and I need to go and buy stuffed animals. I spent over $6,000.00 USD on Shadow's surgeries in 2003. I really hope I had his best interests at heart, but he and Tucker were both neutered.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> I wonder if the majority of Pet owners on this forum have castrated Goldens. If so, I guess they and I need to go and buy stuffed animals. I spent over $6,000.00 USD on Shadow's surgeries in 2003. I really hope I had his best interests at heart, but he and Tucker were both neutered.


I agree. It never ceases to amaze me how people are so willing to pass judgment based only on what their opinions are on a subject. Not facts, mind you, because there are many rebuttals to the "risk" of altering animals at a young age.

If I used that same type of judgmental attitude, then I would say that those who refuse to alter their animals should only owned stuffed animals. But I am willing to listen to, and understand why, someone might not want to do so.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Unfortunately, the law has taken this choice away from a lot of owner. My new town and most in the KC area, neutering/spaying is now mandatory. I believe it costs $200 a year to register an intact pet, if one has show dogs or cats.

With puppymills so common in Missouri, I am thinking this is why they have such laws.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Kimm said:


> I wonder if the majority of Pet owners on this forum have castrated Goldens. If so, I guess they and I need to go and buy stuffed animals. I spent over $6,000.00 USD on Shadow's surgeries in 2003. I really hope I had his best interests at heart, but he and Tucker were both neutered.


No Offense meant Kimm. This thread isnt about castrating a dog its about doing it as such a young age.

I dont believe in designer dogs for people. Sorry!


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

cubbysan said:


> Unfortunately, the law has taken this choice away from a lot of owner. My new town and most in the KC area, neutering/spaying is now mandatory. I believe it costs $200 a year to register an intact pet, if one has show dogs or cats.
> 
> With puppymills so common in Missouri, I am thinking this is why they have such laws.


 
Im digging an enormous hole here. Wouldnt it be better for the puppy farms to be hit by only allowing a limited number of litters a year.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> I agree. It never ceases to amaze me how people are so willing to pass judgment based only on what their opinions are on a subject. Not facts, mind you, because there are many rebuttals to the "risk" of altering animals at a young age.
> 
> If I used that same type of judgmental attitude, then I would say that those who refuse to alter their animals should only owned stuffed animals. But I am willing to listen to, and understand why, someone might not want to do so.


 
I havent seen any input from certain members, being critical of what people are offering this thread isnt constuctive. What do you feel about the problems of early castration and how would you like to act to stop so many unwanted pups being born and ending up dead in these killing rooms?


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Lestorm said:


> I would suggest to these families that they might be better off going to the supermarket and buying a stuffed toy. Im really sorry but to put animals at risk just to make the owner happier is terrible. We hear of owners no liking ears on certain breeds so they have the tips removed, cats have their claws removed just because they might spoil the furniture, it goes on and on. My goodness these people need to get real and see what pain they are putting their animals through just so that they fit into the way of life these sad owners dictate. Sorry if this offends but I find these reasons for castrating very offensive.


Seriously? For the _average_ pet owner, NOT neutering puts the animal at greater risk. Behavior issues are the #1 cause of euthanasia in the US. Of course not every intact dog has real behavior issues, but the minor annoyances that owners of intact animals must deal with are seen as major issues to many in the general pet owning public. I'm very glad the majority of people on this list are way better than average pet owners, but these numbers are very small compared to the total number of pet owners. 

I am not sure where you are from, but I get the impression it's not the US. I guess you all are just better pet owners than we are here and we shouldn't own pets at all.

P.S. I hope you train by 100% positive methods...I'd hate for your dogs to go through unnessary pain just so they fit into your way of life.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> No Offense meant Kimm. This thread isnt about castrating a dog its about doing it as such a young age.
> 
> I dont believe in designer dogs for people. Sorry!


I don't understand what you mean by designer dogs. 

I will be hammered for this and rightfully so, but I crossed my Union's picket line because Shadow needed his second surgery and it cost $4,350.00 USD, which is much more than I make in a month now. This was back in 2003. I told the Union reps what was going on and why I would not go out. I've been a Union member for most of my working years and even if I didn't agree with why we would strike, I always did what was asked to show support. This time I couldn't. There was no way I would be able to help Shadow if I stayed home and the surgery was necessary. I was called names, and you know what, those name callers were right. I couldn't blame them for being upset with me, but I did what I did for Shadow. Others crossed just because they didn't believe in the strike. 

Shadow was neutered at 6 months old. According to the links posted, 6 months is too young and I fall into the "stuffed animal" category. I just would like everyone to know, I love my two and "try" to do what is best for them. I suppose a stuffed animal would be much less expensive...:curtain:...


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

IowaGold said:


> I am not sure where you are from, but I get the impression it's not the US. I guess you all are just better pet owners than we are here and we shouldn't own pets at all.
> 
> P.S. I hope you train by 100% positive methods...I'd hate for your dogs to go through unnessary pain just so they fit into your way of life.


 
Im from the UK and twenty years ago we had the same problems with unwanted dogs as you have in the states. Laws were put into place, its still far from perfect but I think we are getting there. It takes changes to make a difference. I will repeat, Im not against castating or spaying Im against allowing it to happen before growth plates have closed.

I have four beautiful dogs, they behave in a way we are more than happy with, they are not perfect and I adore the little things that they get up to. I use no cruelty at all in my training methods. If you are refering to the thread about the dog that growls when the owner tried to get her of the bed. I see no harm in pushing the dog off the bed with ones feet and i dont mean kick it!!!!


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger (Mar 26, 2009)

Lestorm said:


> _Quote _
> My goodness these people need to get real and see what pain they are putting their animals through just so that they fit into the way of life these sad owners dictate. Sorry if this offends but I find these reasons for castrating very offensive.


I do find this offensive. I am a responsible pet owner and made the choice to have my dog neutered before he reached sexual maturity. He is a healthy and happy dog. 

Like I said, I read the study with the rottweilers. If I remember correctly, there was no difference in the overall rate of cancer between the two groups and the altered animals in the sample lived longer. To pass judgement on people based on very limited research is...well...not very nice. 

Please tell me the pain I am putting my dog through. One could argue that keeping an intact dog that will never be bred, will lead to him becomming sexually frustrated....I don't know, I'm not an expert on the subject and I don't intend to pass judgement on people who have different opinions than me.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> Im digging an enormous hole here. Wouldnt it be better for the puppy farms to be hit by only allowing a limited number of litters a year.


I am still new to this area, and I have seen puppy mills in my old state of Massachusetts and so far none in my area. We did a lot of travelling within the KC area to buy acreage. Maybe this is their way to keep the puppy mills out of these cities/towns. 

If I remember correctly, where I live there is also a "litter limit", can't remember if it is one or two.

I just did some googling, and discovered the laws were put in place instead of a ban on pit bulls and other dangerous breeds. This was the altnernative because in their research they said the "AVMA states that 70 - 76% of all dogs bites are from unneutered males." They did it to minimize dog bites.

*** Just a note, I do not believe in these mandatory laws. ***


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Kimm said:


> I don't understand what you mean by designer dogs.
> 
> I will be hammered for this and rightfully so, but I crossed my Union's picket line because Shadow needed his second surgery and it cost $4,350.00 USD, which is much more than I make in a month now. This was back in 2003. I told the Union reps what was going on and why I would not go out. I've been a Union member for most of my working years and even if I didn't agree with why we would strike, I always did what was asked to show support. This time I couldn't. There was no way I would be able to help Shadow if I stayed home and the surgery was necessary. I was called names, and you know what, those name callers were right. I couldn't blame them for being upset with me, but I did what I did for Shadow. Others crossed just because they didn't believe in the strike.
> 
> Shadow was neutered at 6 months old. According to the links posted, 6 months is too young and I fall into the "stuffed animal" category. I just would like everyone to know, I love my two and "try" to do what is best for them. I suppose a stuffed animal would be much less expensive...:curtain:...


 
Was it your vet that suggested you castrate him so early? If your vet had recommended that you wait until the growth plates closed, would you have waited? 

im so sorry you have had huge vet bills and yes i know you have done what was best for your dog. Stop taking this discussion personally, its about early castrating. A designer dog is a dog that is designed to suit its owner.


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

IowaGold said:


> Sage is now 12 1/2. He was neutered at 4 or 5 months (I can't remember exactly now). He has never lifted his leg in his life (I must say I love this "side effect"). He has a crippled front leg, but that started way before he was neutered. And now he has arthritis in his back, but I strongly suspect that is because of the way he walks (because of the leg). He does have some allergies, but no hip problems. I'm thinking he does pretty darn good for a puppy mill dog.
> 
> I'm probably going to get reamed for this, but I am one of those vets whose clients mostly spay/neuter at 6 months (but I do not "force" anyone to do anything with their own dog!). I practice in a city (well as city as we have in Iowa). To be perfectly honest, very, very few of my clients have any desire to deal with an intact dog. Especially a female in heat. And spaying at around 6 months is the best way to totally prevent a female from ever going into heat (most of my clients don't want to deal with ANY heat cycle). We have a lot of dogs that go into heat by 8-9 months and there is no way to know exactly when an individual dog will go into heat, so if the owner wants no chance of a heat cycle, 6 months is a good time.
> 
> ...


Sara - Thank you for adding your professional opinion as a veterinarian. Well said. My vet is the same. I have been going to him for years, he has an excellent reputation in the area and my dog LOVES him - which is by far the most truthful judge of character. I did ask him about waiting. He said I could certainly wait if I wanted to. He also told me that he spays/neuters many dogs per year and has not seen an enormous issue of bone problems because of that. He said most dogs that end up with these issues are predisposed and it's genetic as he gets intact dogs with the same issues. 

On another note, not really for this Board, but reminded of it as I was talking about the Dr. - as a kudos to my vet - his nephew was diagnosed with Lyme disease after a huge battle with the medical doctor not treating him. He had negative tests but actually removed the infected deer tick from his body and carried it to the doctors office. Even with this evidence, negative test meant no treatment. He eventually convinced the MD to treat for Lyme. Because of this, he has done his own voluntary Lyme Disease study on his canine patients (simple blood test) and gets many positive results. He is trying to get the medical doctors in our area to use better labs and read all the bands in Lyme tests that are done on humans since the dogs live in the same area as the humans, yet the human tests are coming up negative. We live in a high risk area for Lyme. Right now the CDC will not allow the reading of all of the bands in the test - highly due to HMOs, whereas veterinary labs get paid by the patient.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

Since people have been talking in this thread about how it puts a dog at risk to neuter and spay them at a young age or get them altered at all, can someone show me the finding that show this? From most of what I have read in the past, the biggest problems with neutering at a younger age is that the dog can be longer legged, thinner head, and more feminine appearance. Nothing about it being a problem with females. 

And someone that does not want to deal with having a dog go thru heats or dealing with a unneutered male does not make them an irresponsible owner or they should not own them. They can give just as much love and care for their dog as anyone else.

Around here you cant take a dog to a dog park that is unneutered because they might cause a fight, cant let them be taken to doggy day care, shelters or rescues wont adopt to you if you have an unaltered dog, People think that unaltered dogs will fight with any other dog because there is more testestorone.

We are all responsible owners here on the forum but unfortunately we are not the majority. And until the majority is educated there will have to be laws requiring animals to spay and neuter. Until there is not a need for shelters, there will have to be rules about spaying or neutering. Unfortunately that is the way it is in the states.

How can you police the puppy mills to have only so many litters? The only way is to not allow puppy mills or allow pet shops to sell dogs. If the demand from pet shops wasnt there, I think alot of the mills would be shut down. Or allow puppy brokers to sell dogs from millers. People that are puppy millers have been known to hide dogs in the woods in cages, move dogs around all the time to keep the authorities from knowing how many dogs they have. If there is a way, they will find it.

And none of my vets (and I have had quite a few being military and moving alot) and NOT ONE of them ever pressured me to spay or neuter early. Bama wasnt neutered until he was 2 1/2, Beau at 3. Pawley and Daisy I dont know because they are rescued.


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Lestorm said:


> I have four beautiful dogs, they behave in a way we are more than happy with, they are not perfect and I adore the little things that they get up to. I use no cruelty at all in my training methods. If you are refering to the thread about the dog that growls when the owner tried to get her of the bed. I see no harm in pushing the dog off the bed with ones feet and i dont mean kick it!!!!


Let's see...pushing a dog off the bed (not kicking) can result in broken legs, broken teeth, and injured spines. Sounds like unnessary pain to me. Will any or all of these things happen every time or even the majority of the time? Nope. Will every dog (or even the majority of dogs) neutered at six months not lead a happy long life because of early spay/neuter? NOPE. 

I will venture a guess that there are at least as many (probably far more) people that consider anything other than positive training cruel and abusive as consider it abusive to neuter at 6 months. You obviously don't agree with one, but the other. Neither directly affects you and your dogs. You can choose to train your dogs as you please and you can choose not to neuter. Why can't other people make that decision for themselves too???


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

IowaGold said:


> Let's see...pushing a dog off the bed (not kicking) can result in broken legs, broken teeth, and injured spines. Sounds like unnessary pain to me. Will any or all of these things happen every time or even the majority of the time? Nope. Will every dog (or even the majority of dogs) neutered at six months not lead a happy long life because of early spay/neuter? NOPE.
> 
> I will venture a guess that there are at least as many (probably far more) people that consider anything other than positive training cruel and abusive as consider it abusive to neuter at 6 months. You obviously don't agree with one, but the other. Neither directly affects you and your dogs. You can choose to train your dogs as you please and you can choose not to neuter. Why can't other people make that decision for themselves too???


I give up! I suggest you go back to the beginning and *read* the title of this thread.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> I havent seen any input from certain members, being critical of what people are offering this thread isnt constuctive.


What you are offering is that people who alter their dogs should only be allowed to own stuffed animals. How is that being contructive on your part?


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

Lestorm said:


> I give up! I suggest you go back to the beginning and *read* the title of this thread.


I can read very well thank you. I'm simply responding to your comments that people are causing pain to their animals just to fit into the owner's lifestyle. How is my training analogy any different??? 



Lestorm said:


> My goodness these people need to get real and see what pain they are putting their animals through just so that they fit into the way of life these sad owners dictate.


----------



## Charlie06 (Feb 10, 2007)

I will surrender my dogs cause I was bad and mutilated them at an early age. I will get stuffed dogs from now on. Is it OK to feed them Purina?


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Why does it have to be EITHER pets OR stuffed animals? I have both and I love them all. Dusty loves them too. He rips the stuffing out and curiously enough, it's usually out of the groin. Do you think it symbolizes his anger that I got him neutered? Or maybe he's showing his opinion that everything with fur should be neutered. hahahaha Maybe when he grows abnormally tall - he can reach the scissors on the counter and then it won't make such a stuffing mess on my living room floor.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> What you are offering is that people who alter their dogs should only be allowed to own stuffed animals. How is that being contructive on your part?


 
Let my remind you what the title of this thread is 'FACTS ABOUT CASTRATING PUPS TOO EARLY' what part of that do you not understand?

Its late here in the UK. Good night!


----------



## Tanyac (Jun 18, 2008)

Wow, this thread took some reading & I'd like to add my two penny's worth if that's ok.

My first Golden was never castrated, he lived to 12 and was pts eventually due to an inoperable cancer. A wonderful dog in so many ways, and yes, he did run the full length of a disused airfield once because a lady was walking an in-season bitch. He did eventually come back (no harm done), but in my experience no amount of training will stop a "call of nature" such as this...

I now have a 4 year old male who was castrated at 18 months following a developmental joint problem and surgery. The specialist ortho surgeon advised not to use him for breeding (small chance the problem could have been hereditary), but also advised to wait until he was at least a year, better still 18 months before castrating.

Why would the surgeon advise this? I'll tell you why... because he hadn't finished growing before that time! As Lestorm is saying, it's not best for the dog to take away the hormones before they're fully grown. I'm in total agreement with this idea.

I have a friend who has a young 18 month old GR. She had been having various "teenage" issues with him and was considering castration. I kept telling her he was very likely to get through his initial surge of hormones and return to the well behaved loveable puppy he was. Well we walked together last week and she's now thinking she'll put the castration off as I was right... incidentally, he doesn't go around trying to mount my girl, he's more interested in running riot with my male...

Why would her dog constantly run away and impregnate all the bitches in season? In this country (UK) or where I live at least, dogs very rarely run the streets. If they are, someone will always catch them and try to find their owners.

My intact bitch is kept under close control when she's in season, she is only alowed free running in quiet areas with no other dogs and I have yet to have any problem with any dog (intact or otherwise) we might encounter.

I have experience with entire and castrated (males) and I will never have another male in my house again unless I can keep him entire.... I've only had one bitch and she's still entire, so can't really comment on the other there. My boy struggles to keep muscle condition, he is well exercised, but my Izzie is the one with the beautiful coat and great muscle tone, whilst Obi really is a shadow of his former self, love him! His coat needs constant attention as it matts easily, it's dry, and needs trimming more. Before castration, he was a stunner! (sorry to obi, he still is a stunner, but he has lost that butchness he had before). To see him at a mature 18 months before castration and now at 4 post castration I'll not do it again. To have a pup castrated at 6 months you'll never know how they could have been....

I have no problem with those who want to de-sex their dogs, but like Lestorm, agree that vets have a responsibility to educate their owners as to the correct and sensible age to perform the operation. IMO six months is way too young. 

I agree that some people can't cope with having a bitch in season, but unfortunately she will most likely have one season before being a sensible age to spay. It's called responsible dog ownership... and the bitch which is spayed before a season for convenience is not always what is in the best interest of the dog.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I'm really not taking the thread personally and I'm sorry if I made you feel this way. I was just trying to let people know that just because we castrate our dogs and cats does not mean that we do not care about them and we _will_ go out of our way to do what we think is best at the time. Do we always make the right decision? Probably not, but we try. In the case of castration I'm not sure if the choice I made is right or wrong. All of my spayed female dogs, only two, lived to be 16 and 17 years old. Both were spayed at 6 months old and one was in heat at the time of spaying. I posted what happened on here somewhere...

I'm not sure in which thread I posted about why Shadow was castrated at 6 months of age. In in our case I had a discussion with the Vet about it because we had a breeder of Newfies (they had six Newfies) living about 10 houses around the corner and a female GR that was not spayed living right next door. I loved her. She was allowed off lead and left her yard now and then. Not often, but she used to visit me quite often. The Vet, who cared for my Cocker Spaniel for the 17 years she lived, let me make the decision. I honestly felt that Shadow would be frustrated with so many females in the neighborhood going into heat. Gawd only knows when each of them did so. So, the decision was left up to me. 

I had never had male dogs before Shadow. Growing up all of the dogs in our neighborhood were allowed to roam. Everyone's dog became a family member. They even visited within each others homes. In situations like this, spaying and neutering would probably be a good thing because I'm not sure how good owners would be about keeping their females indoors. When making the decision to neuter Shadow, I did what I was familiar with. Was it right? I don't know. Tucker came to us neutered and I believe he was 11 months old when neutered.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> Let my remind you what the title of this thread is 'FACTS ABOUT CASTRATING PUPS TOO EARLY' what part of that do you not understand?
> 
> Its late here in the UK. Good night!


The title is misleading. It's not the FACTS about castrating pups too early. It's one study that you decided to provide. I provided a rebuttal study to so-called "facts" that are found in some of these studies. So it should really be "your beliefs about castrating pups too early after reading that article".


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Kimm said:


> Growing up all of the dogs in our neighborhood were allowed to roam. Everyone's dog became a family member. They even visited within each others homes. In situations like this, spaying and neutering would probably be a good thing because I'm not sure how good owners would be about keeping their females indoors.


Same can be said for people. I have a town about 20 miles away where the people do the same thing - and MAN, you should see what their kids look like.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> The title is misleading. It's not the FACTS about castrating pups too early. It's one study that you decided to provide. I provided a rebuttal study to so-called "facts" that are found in some of these studies. So it should really be "your beliefs about castrating pups too early after reading that article".


 
Then go start a new thread!!


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

So far I've only seen "facts" in MAYBE 10 posts...

I use the word facts very loosely. 

Eh, anyway. 

I'm off to go pick out my stuffed animal. Mojo was neutered at FIVE months because it's what I thought was best for him at the time. He was also tattooed to keep him safe. THE PAIN I'VE INFLICTED JUST SO HE COULD BE DESIGNED FOR MY LIFE! Maybe I should have chosen a penguin tattoo instead of the boring National Dog Registry number one... that would have fit my life even better.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

If only we all had a reliable crystal ball...


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Do you get your children vaccinated? Holy Hannah - you should read the controversy on THAT subject !!!!

Extremists.


----------



## Tanyac (Jun 18, 2008)

Mssjnnfer said:


> So far I've only seen "facts" in MAYBE 10 posts...
> 
> I use the word facts very loosely.
> 
> ...


The fact which is undesputed is that most dogs which are neutered before they reach the age of maturity are done so on the advice of their veterinary surgeon. That is a fact! It doesn't mean that the owner isn't doing what they feel is best for their dog and it doesn't mean they don't love him/her.

The vets hold massive persuasive power in their hands, and are paid a handsome fee to de-sex the nations pets. 99% of people will do what their vet suggests....


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Mssjnnfer said:


> So far I've only seen "facts" in MAYBE 10 posts...
> 
> I use the word facts very loosely.
> 
> ...


Then you can call him MOJO HAPPYFEET !!!!! Oh wait, the pain you'll inflict with the embarassment you'll give him. You terrible furparent. (hee hee)


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

In my case I brought up the topic of neutering... 

When I had my male cat neutered and my female cat spayed, he told me I should wait another week or two because he thought they were too young. However, I began to notice some new behavior. One day I heard screaming and the male cat had chased the female up the fireplace wall. He was trying to, well, you know. I did not want an unplanned litter of kittens. They themselves were an unplanned litter that we gave a home to, so I think their age may have been off a wee bit.


----------



## Charlie06 (Feb 10, 2007)

What about over vaccinating, or the food they eat, or pesticides & chemicals they come in contact when going for walks. There are too many things to worry about. All we can do is what we think is the best for our dogs. I may think the food you are feeding your dog is crap, but to each his own.


----------



## Tracy S. (Jul 2, 2009)

Charlie06 said:


> What about over vaccinating, or the food they eat, or pesticides & chemicals they come in contact when going for walks. There are too many things to worry about. All we can do is what we think is the best for our dogs. I may think the food you are feeding your dog is crap, but to each his own.


I'm picturing my dog in a white biohazard suit eating some special food out of an indoor garden.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

Things change over the years on what should be done and at what age. Look at training dogs, years ago people were taught, you rub a dog's nose in the mess to shame them or swat them with a newspaper. Now we know that is wrong, that positive training is the way to go. As more information comes out from studies we can learn things to know what is best to do with our pets.

If you look online at professional websites with studies, you can find the pros and cons of spaying/neutering at a early age or at a later age. Some studies say spay before the first heat cycle to prevent mammary cancer, other articles say after the first heat. Neuter at 18 months or later and some say you can neuter at a younger age. How is the average person to know what is the right thing to be done. 

The best any owner can do is to look at the facts and studies, discuss it with your vet and make the decision that is right for you and your pet. To say an opinion is fact and everyone else is wrong is not the right thing. Especially to a possible new puppy owner coming here for information. I know if I was a new member that joined, this discussion would confuse me on what the right thing is to do with a pup. Post the facts and figures to back your view up and then it can be looked at wtih an open mind.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> Then go start a new thread!!


So wait. Just because I disagree with you, I should start a new thread? Sorry, it's not going to happen. You can't put something out here and claim it as fact and not expect some to disagree. I have every right to disagree on your thread, whether you like it or not. Based on what I have read here, I am not the only one who disagrees, either.


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Tracy S.*
> _How many people on this Forum have a Golden older than say 6 or 7 years right now - and had them neutered at 6 months? I had mine neutered at 6 months, and I'm just curious what the percentage of "issues" are. I know that it is ONLY on the Boards and not an accurate demographic study ---- but I'd like to know of any common problems (or lack of) for my own sake._


Both of my males were neutered at 6 months, which was my Vet's recommendation. Sam was from a friend who had puppies, Ike was from a Breeder. Neither had a 'spay/neuter' clause in their paperwork. 

Sam lived to be 12. He was a huge Golden, which I've now learned was most likely from his being neutered at a very young age. He developed seizures at age 6, a cause was never determined and he was eventually put on pheno. At age 10, Sam showed signs of arthritis and started an aspirin regimen. At age 11, Sam developed a neuro issue which caused him to drag his back end slightly. At 12.5, Sam passed from complications due to a Mega Esophagus, xrays found a huge tumor next to his heart. He showed no signs of any illness or discomfort from this tumor...in fact, he'd been enjoying a rejuvenation period of about 4 months. He hadn't had a seizure in about a year, his arthritis had stopped bothering him, his neuro condition had subsided...he seemed invigorated, even puppy like. Then everything changed...he woke up on a Friday morning seeming 'off'. A vet visit diagnosed pnuemonia, Saturday's xrays found the tumor and the ME. At this point, his health deteriorated hour by hour. We brought Sam home to spend the weekend saying goodbye and helped my best friend to the Bridge on Monday morning.

Did I do this to Sam? I'll never know, but I'll always wonder. I loved Sam, he was my best friend, and thought I was being the responsible owner by neuturing him. I believed it was a health BENEFIT. If I had any thought that it might cause cancer or other problems I would NEVER have neutured him. 

And now my worries turn to Ike...
He was neutered at 6 months also, which my Vet again recommended. He's only 3 and hopefully has a long healthy life ahead of him. He's not a large boy, as early neuturing can cause, but does have more feminine features. He has food allgeries...his only health issue. 

It wasn't until coming to the Forum 2 years ago that I learned of this controversy. My Vet is not convinced of the Study siting the health consequences of early neuturing...as evidenced here in this Thread too. 

I am a responsible pet owner....


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

*


Charlie06 said:



... All we can do is what we think is the best for our dogs.

Click to expand...

*:appl:​ I can think of *NO* better way for someone to care for one's dogs!!


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Tracy S. said:


> Do you get your children vaccinated? Holy Hannah - you should read the controversy on THAT subject !!!!
> 
> Extremists.


Actually, no. Not very often, and only for diseases that actually exist or for which there is any remote chance he could get. For example, I did not get my child a Hep B vaccine. Why? I do not have it, he couldn't get it from me. And he's not out having sex and swapping dirty needles. It's a pointless shot unless the mother has Hep B. In addition, flu shots and the chicken pox vaccine? Oh FFS, get real! NEVER!

I am also proud to say I did not allow anyone to mutilate his penis for no reason either.

How can anyone compare a mild (not painful) correction to a dog during training to the pain and suffering of CUTTING OFF or ripping out body parts? Give me a break. 

Oh, and I don't spank my son and I never ever would. Even when you call it spanking, it's still hitting, and it's still a ****** way to communicate with a child. I have never let him cry it out either. I think that's abuse. Babies can't tell time, and ignoring their only means of communicating is pretty sick, and a great way to raise a child with poor self esteem and other issues. Hmm, and my son goes to bed smiling at 6PM and sleeps until 8 or 9 every morning. He NEVER wakes in the night, and in the morning he is cooing and playing. Amazing! Meeting your child's needs and following your natural instincts works. Go figure.

I don't vaccinate my dogs either, except rabies every three years.

Hmmm, I breast fed too, and used cloth diapers. 

Watch out, I'm an extremest! 

For the record, my animals HAVE immune systems- because I leave their bodies alone, do not give antibiotics for every little thing, and do not feed them cheap garbage food. They also run, play, and act like dogs.


----------



## Phillyfisher (Jan 9, 2008)

I think we are missing a major note from the first article here:

No sweeping generalizations are implied in this review. Rather, the author asks us to consider all the health and disease information available as individual animals are evaluated. Then, the best decisions should be made accounting for gender, age, breed, and *even the specific conditions under which the long-term care, housing and training of the animal will occur. 

*


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

Are you going to home school ACC?

I'm happy to read all the articles. I will keep an open mind to all of the possibilities in the future.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I doubt DH would be on board with home schooling, and we have good public schools here. I don't want him going to any religious school. Also, since he has no siblings or even cousins or anything, and he does not and will never go to daycare, I think school will be good for him. He's very confident and never went through the stage of fearing strangers that many babies go through.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

*So here is the article in full!*

*Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs​*Laura J. Sanborn, M.S.
May 14, 2007​*Precis​*_At some point, most of us with an interest in dogs will have to consider whether or not to spay / neuter our
pet. Tradition holds that the benefits of doing so at an early age outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds
sway in the decision-making process even after countervailing evidence has accumulated.
Ms Sanborn has reviewed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise,
attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50 peer-reviewed papers were examined to
assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in female and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignore the
findings of increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently
occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be irresponsible of the veterinary
profession and the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the
animal’s health and well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further emphasizing the
need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard operating procedures for all patients.
No sweeping generalizations are implied in this review. Rather, the author asks us to consider all the health
and disease information available as individual animals are evaluated. Then, the best decisions should be
made accounting for gender, age, breed, and even the specific conditions under which the long-term care,
housing and training of the animal will occur.
This important review will help veterinary medical care providers as well as pet owners make informed
decisions. Who could ask for more?
Larry S. Katz, PhD
Associate Professor and Chair
Animal Sciences
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901​_*INTRODUCTION​*Dog owners in America are frequently advised to spay/neuter their dogs for health reasons. A number of
health benefits are cited, yet evidence is usually not cited to support the alleged health benefits.
When discussing the health impacts of spay/neuter, health risks are often not mentioned. At times, some
risks are mentioned, but the most severe risks usually are not.
This article is an attempt to summarize the long-term health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter
in dogs that can be found in the veterinary medical literature. This article will not discuss the impact of
spay/neuter on population control, or the impact of spay/neuter on behavior.
Nearly all of the health risks and benefits summarized in this article are findings from retrospective
epidemiological research studies of dogs, which examine potential associations by looking backwards in
time. A few are from prospective research studies, which examine potential associations by looking forward
in time.​*SUMMARY​*An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the longterm
health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter
Page 2 of 12
correlates with both positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do
not yet understand about this subject.
On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially
immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated
with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.
On the positive side, neutering male dogs​•​​​​eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer​
•​​​​reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders​
•​​​​reduces the risk of perianal fistulas​
•​​​​may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)
On the negative side, neutering male dogs​
•​​​​if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a
common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.​
•​​​​increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6​
•​​​​triples the risk of hypothyroidism​
•​​​​increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment​
•​​​​triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems​
•​​​​quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer​
•​​​​doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers​
•​​​​increases the risk of orthopedic disorders​
•​​​​increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may
exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the
odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the
relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.
On the positive side, spaying female dogs​
•​​​​if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common
malignant tumors in female dogs​
•​​​​nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female
dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs​
•​​​​reduces the risk of perianal fistulas​
•​​​​removes the very small risk (0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors
On the negative side, spaying female dogs​
•​​​​if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a
common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis​
•​​​​increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by
a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds​
•​​​​triples the risk of hypothyroidism​
•​​​​increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many
associated health problems​
•​​​​causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs​
•​​​​increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4​
•​​​​increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs
spayed before puberty​
•​​​​doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumors​
•​​​​increases the risk of orthopedic disorders​
•​​​​increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and
contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet
Page 3 of 12
owners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about the health risks and benefits
associated of spay/neuter in dogs.
The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear
to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically
mature, or perhaps in the case of many male dogs, foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary.
The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next. Breed,
age, and gender are variables that must be taken into consideration in conjunction with non-medical factors
for each individual dog. Across-the-board recommendations for all pet dogs do not appear to be
supportable from findings in the veterinary medical literature.​
*FINDINGS FROM STUDIES​*This section summarizes the diseases or conditions that have been studied with respect to spay/neuter in
dogs.​*Complications from Spay/Neuter Surgery​*All surgery incurs some risk of complications, including adverse reactions to anesthesia, hemorrhage,
inflammation, infection, etc. Complications include only immediate and near term impacts that are clearly
linked to the surgery, not to longer term impacts that can only be assessed by research studies.
At one veterinary teaching hospital where complications were tracked, the rates of intraoperative,
postoperative and total complications were 6.3%, 14.1% and 20.6%, respectively as a result of spaying
female dogs​​​​1. Other studies found a rate of total complications from spaying of 17.7%2 and 23%3. A study
of Canadian veterinary private practitioners found complication rates of 22% and 19% for spaying female
dogs and neutering male dogs, respectively4.
Serious complications such as infections, abscesses, rupture of the surgical wound, and chewed out sutures
were reported at a 1- 4% frequency, with spay and castration surgeries accounting for 90% and 10% of
these complications, respectively.4​
The death rate due to complications from spay/neuter is low, at around 0.1%​​​​2.​
*Prostate Cancer​*Much of the spay/neuter information available to the public asserts that neutering will reduce or eliminate the
risk that male dogs develop prostate cancer. This would not be an unreasonable assumption, given that
prostate cancer in humans is linked to testosterone. But the evidence in dogs does not support this claim.
In fact, the strongest evidence suggests just the opposite.
There have been several conflicting epidemiological studies over the years that found either an increased
risk or a decreased risk of prostate cancer in neutered dogs. These studies did not utilize control
populations, rendering these results at best difficult to interpret. This may partially explain the conflicting
results.
More recently, two retrospective studies were conducted that did utilize control populations. One of these
studies involved a dog population in Europe​​​​5 and the other involved a dog population in America6. Both
studies found that neutered male dogs have a four times _higher _risk of prostate cancer than intact dogs.
Based on their results, the researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship: “this suggests that
castration does not initiate the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog, but does favor tumor
progression”5 and also “Our study found that most canine prostate cancers are of ductal/urothelial
origin….The relatively low incidence of prostate cancer in intact dogs may suggest that testicular hormones
Page 4 of 12
are in fact protective against ductal/urothelial prostatic carcinoma, or may have indirect effects on cancer
development by changing the environment in the prostate.”6​
This needs to be put in perspective. Unlike the situation in humans, prostate cancer is uncommon in dogs.
Given an incidence of prostate cancer in dogs of less than 0.6% from necropsy studies​​​​7, it is difficult to see
that the risk of prostate cancer should factor heavily into most neutering decisions. There is evidence for an
increased risk of prostate cancer in at least one breed (Bouviers)5, though very little data so far to guide us
in regards to other breeds.​
*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.​
*Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)​*A multi-breed case-control study of the risk factors for osteosarcoma found that spay/neutered dogs (males
or females) had twice the risk of developing osteosarcoma as did intact dogs​​​​13.
This risk was further studied in Rottweilers, a breed with a relatively high risk of osteosarcoma. This
retrospective cohort study broke the risk down by age at spay/neuter, and found that the elevated risk of
osteosarcoma is associated with spay/neuter of young dogs14. Rottweilers spayed/neutered before one
year of age were 3.8 (males) or 3.1 (females) times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than intact dogs.
Indeed, the combination of breed risk and early spay/neuter meant that Rottweilers spayed/neutered before
one year of age had a 28.4% (males) and 25.1% (females) risk of developing osteosarcoma. These results
are consistent with the earlier multi-breed study13 but have an advantage of assessing risk as a function of
age at neuter. A logical conclusion derived from combining the findings of these two studies is that
spay/neuter of dogs before 1 year of age is associated with a significantly increased risk of osteosarcoma.
The researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, as sex hormones are known to influence the
maintenance of skeletal structure and mass, and also because their findings showed an inverse relationship
between time of exposure to sex hormones and risk of osteosarcoma.14​
Page 5 of 12
The risk of osteosarcoma increases with increasing breed size and especially height​​​​13. It is a common
cause of death in medium/large, large, and giant breeds. Osteosarcoma is the third most common cause of
death in Golden Retrievers10 and is even more common in larger breeds13.
Given the poor prognosis of osteosarcoma and its frequency in many breeds, spay/neuter of immature dogs
in the medium/large, large, and giant breeds is apparently associated with a significant and elevated risk of
death due to osteosarcoma.​
*Mammary Cancer (Breast Cancer)​*Mammary tumors are by far the most common tumors in intact female dogs, constituting some 53% of all
malignant tumors in female dogs in a study of dogs in Norway​​​​15 where spaying is much less common than in
the USA.
50-60% of mammary tumors are malignant, for which there is a significant risk of metastasis16. Mammary
tumors in dogs have been found to have estrogen receptors17, and the published research18 shows that the
relative risk (odds ratio) that a female will develop mammary cancer compared to the risk in intact females is
dependent on how many estrus cycles she experiences:
# of estrus cycles before spay Odds Ratio
None 0.005
1 0.08
2 or more 0.26
Intact 1.00
The same data when categorized differently showed that the relative risk (odds ratio) that females will
develop mammary cancer compared to the risk in intact females indicated that:
Age at Spaying Odds Ratio​
​​​​29 months 0.06​
​​​​30 months 0.40 (not statistically significant at the P<0.05 level)
Intact 1.00
Please note that these are RELATIVE risks. This study has been referenced elsewhere many times but the
results have often been misrepresented as absolute risks.
A similar reduction in breast cancer risk was found for women under the age of 40 who lost their estrogen
production due to “artificial menopause”19 and breast cancer in humans is known to be estrogen activated.
Mammary cancer was found to be the 10th most common cause of years of lost life in Golden Retrievers,
even though 86% of female GRs were spayed, at a median age of 3.4 yrs10. Considering that the female
subset accounts for almost all mammary cancer cases, it probably would rank at about the 5th most common
cause of years of lost life in female GRs. It would rank higher still if more female GRs had been kept intact
up to 30 months of age.
Boxers, cocker spaniels, English Springer spaniels, and dachshunds are breeds at high risk of mammary
tumors15. A population of mostly intact female Boxers was found to have a 40% chance of developing
mammary cancer between the ages of 6-12 years of age15. There are some indications that purebred dogs
may be at higher risk than mixed breed dogs, and purebred dogs with high inbreeding coefficients may be at
higher risk than those with low inbreeding coefficients20. More investigation is required to determine if these
are significant.
In summary, spaying female dogs significantly reduces the risk of mammary cancer (a common cancer),
and the fewer estrus cycles experienced at least up to 30 months of age, the lower the risk will be.
Page 6 of 12​
*Female Reproductive Tract Cancer (Uterine, Cervical, and Ovarian Cancers)​*Uterine/cervical tumors are rare in dogs, constituting just 0.3% of tumors in dogs​​​​21.
Spaying will remove the risk of ovarian tumors, but the risk is only 0.5%22.
While spaying will remove the risk of reproductive tract tumors, it is unlikely that surgery can be justified to
prevent the risks of uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as the risks are so low.​
*Urinary Tract Cancer (Bladder and Urethra Cancers)​*An age-matched retrospective study found that spay/neuter dogs were two times more likely to develop
lower urinary tract tumors (bladder or urethra) compared to intact dogs​​​​23. These tumors are nearly always
malignant, but are infrequent, accounting for less than 1% of canine tumors. So this risk is unlikely to weigh
heavily on spay/neuter decisions.
Airedales, Beagles, and Scottish Terriers are at elevated risk for urinary tract cancer while German
Shepherds have a lower than average risk23.​
*Hemangiosarcoma​*Hemangiosarcoma is a common cancer in dogs. It is a major cause of death in some breeds, such as
Salukis, French Bulldogs, Irish Water Spaniels, Flat Coated Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, Boxers, Afghan
Hounds, English Setters, Scottish Terriesr, Boston Terriers, Bulldogs, and German Shepherd Dogs​​​​24.
In an aged-matched case controlled study, spayed females were found to have a 2.2 times higher risk of
splenic hemangiosarcoma compared to intact females24.
A retrospective study of cardiac hemangiosarcoma risk factors found a >5 times greater risk in spayed
female dogs compared to intact female dogs and a 1.6 times higher risk in neutered male dogs compared to
intact male dogs.25 The authors suggest a protective effect of sex hormones against hemangiosarcoma,
especially in females.
In breeds where hermangiosarcoma is an important cause of death, the increased risk associated with
spay/neuter is likely one that should factor into decisions on whether or when to sterilize a dog.​
*Hypothyroidism​*Spay/neuter in dogs was found to be correlated with a three fold increased risk of hypothyroidism compared
to intact dogs.​​​​26.
The researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship: They wrote: “More important [than the mild direct
impact on thyroid function] in the association between [spaying and] neutering and hypothyroidism may be
the effect of sex hormones on the immune system. Castration increases the severity of autoimmune
thyroiditis in mice” which may explain the link between spay/neuter and hypothyroidism in dogs.
Hypothyroidism in dogs causes obesity, lethargy, hair loss, and reproductive abnormalities.27​
The lifetime risk of hypothyroidism in breed health surveys was found to be 1 in 4 in Golden Retrievers​​​​10, 1
in 3 in Akitas28, and 1 in 13 in Great Danes29.
Page 7 of 12​
*Obesity​*Owing to changes in metabolism, spay/neuter dogs are more likely to be overweight or obese than intact
dogs. One study found a two fold increased risk of obesity in spayed females compared to intact females​​​​30.
Another study found that spay/neuter dogs were 1.6 (females) or 3.0 (males) times more likely to be obese
than intact dogs, and 1.2 (females) or 1.5 (males) times more likely to be overweight than intact dogs31.
A survey study of veterinary practices in the UK found that 21% of dogs were obese.30​
Being obese and/or overweight is associated with a host of health problems in dogs. Overweight dogs are
more likely to be diagnosed with hyperadrenocorticism, ruptured cruciate ligament, hypothyroidism, lower
urinary tract disease, and oral disease​​​​32. Obese dogs are more likely to be diagnosed with hypothyroidism,
diabetes mellitus, pancreatitis, ruptured cruciate ligament, and neoplasia (tumors)32.​
*Diabetes​*Some data indicate that neutering doubles the risk of diabetes in male dogs, but other data showed no
significant change in diabetes risk with neutering​​​​33. In the same studies, no association was found between
spaying and the risk of diabetes.​
*Adverse Vaccine Reactions​*A retrospective cohort study of adverse vaccine reactions in dogs was conducted, which included allergic
reactions, hives, anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, cardiovascular shock, and sudden death. Adverse reactions
were 30% more likely in spayed females than intact females, and 27% more likely in neutered males than
intact males​​​​34.
The investigators discuss possible cause-and-effect mechanisms for this finding, including the roles that sex
hormones play in body’s ability to mount an immune response to vaccination.34​
Toy breeds and smaller breeds are at elevated risk of adverse vaccine reactions, as are Boxers, English
Bulldogs, Lhasa Apsos, Weimaraners, American Eskimo Dogs, Golden Retrievers, Basset Hounds, Welsh
Corgis, Siberian Huskies, Great Danes, Labrador Retrievers, Doberman Pinschers, American Pit Bull
Terriers, and Akitas.​​​​34 Mixed breed dogs were found to be at lower risk, and the authors suggest genetic
hetereogeneity (hybrid vigor) as the cause.​
*Urogenital Disorders​*Urinary incontinence is common in spayed female dogs, which can occur soon after spay surgery or after a
delay of up to several years. The incidence rate in various studies is 4-20%​​​​35,36,37 for spayed females
compared to only 0.3% in intact females38. Urinary incontinence is so strongly linked to spaying that it is
commonly called “spay incontinence” and is caused by urethral sphincter incompetence39, though the
biological mechanism is unknown. Most (but not all) cases of urinary incontinence respond to medical
treatment, and in many cases this treatment needs to be continued for the duration of the dog’s life.40​
A retrospective study found that persistent or recurring urinary tract (bladder) infections (UTIs) were 3-4
times more likely in spayed females dogs than in intact females​​​​41. Another retrospective study found that
female dogs spayed before 5 ½ months of age were 2.76 times more likely to develop UTIs compared to
those spayed after 5 ½ months of age.42​
Depending on the age of surgery, spaying causes abnormal development of the external genitalia. Spayed
females were found to have an increased risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, vaginitis, and UTIs.​​​​43​
The risk is higher still for female dogs spayed before puberty.​​​​43​
Page 8 of 12​*Pyometra (Infection of the Uterus)​*Pet insurance data in Sweden (where spaying is very uncommon) found that 23% of all female dogs
developed pyometra before 10 years of age​​​​44. Bernese Mountain dogs, Rottweilers, rough-haired Collies,
Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and Golden Retrievers were found to be high risk breeds44. Female dogs
that have not whelped puppies are at elevated risk for pyometra45. Rarely, spayed female dogs can
develop “stump pyometra” related to incomplete removal of the uterus.
Pyometra can usually be treated surgically or medically, but 4% of pyometra cases led to death44.
Combined with the incidence of pyometra, this suggests that about 1% of intact female dogs will die from
pyometra.​
*Perianal Fistulas​*Male dogs are twice as likely to develop perianal fistulas as females, and spay/neutered dogs have a
decreased risk compared to intact dogs​​​​46.
German Shepherd Dogs and Irish Setters are more likely to develop perianal fistulas than are other
breeds.46​
*Non-cancerous Disorders of the Prostate Gland​*The incidence of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH, enlarged prostate) increases with age in intact male
dogs, and occurs in more than 80% of intact male dogs older than the age of 5 years​​​​47. Most cases of BPH
cause no problems, but in some cases the dog will have difficulty defecating or urinating.
Neutering will prevent BPH. If neutering is done after the prostate has become enlarged, the enlarged
prostate will shrink relatively quickly.
BPH is linked to other problems of the prostate gland, including infections, abscesses, and cysts, which can
sometimes have serious consequences.​
*Orthopedic Disorders​*In a study of beagles, surgical removal of the ovaries (as happens in spaying) caused an increase in the rate
of remodeling of the ilium (pelvic bone)​​​​48, suggesting an increased risk of hip dysplasia with spaying.
Spaying was also found to cause a net loss of bone mass in the spine 49.
Spay/neuter of immature dogs delays the closure of the growth plates in bones that are still growing,
causing those bones to end up significantly longer than in intact dogs or those spay/neutered after
maturity50. Since the growth plates in various bones close at different times, spay/neuter that is done after
some growth plates have closed but before other growth plates have closed might result in a dog with
unnatural proportions, possibly impacting performance and long term durability of the joints.
Spay/neuter is associated with a two fold increased risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture51. Perhaps this
is associated with the increased risk of obesity30.
Spay/neuter before 5 ½ months of age is associated with a 70% increased aged-adjusted risk of hip
dysplasia compared to dogs spayed/neutered after 5 ½ months of age, though there were some indications
that the former may have had a lower severity manifestation of the disease42. The researchers suggest “it
is possible that the increase in bone length that results from early-age gonadectomy results in changes in
joint conformation, which could lead to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia.”
Page 9 of 12
In a breed health survey study of Airedales, spay/neuter dogs were significantly more likely to suffer hip
dysplasia as well as “any musculoskeletal disorder”, compared to intact dogs52, however possible
confounding factors were not controlled for, such as the possibility that some dogs might have been
spayed/neutered because they had hip dysplasia or other musculoskeletal disorders.
Compared to intact dogs, another study found that dogs neutered six months prior to a diagnosis of hip
dysplasia were 1.5 times as likely to develop clinical hip dysplasia.53​
Compared to intact dogs, spayed/neutered dogs were found to have a 3.1 fold higher risk of patellar
luxation.​​​​54​
*Geriatric Cognitive Impairment​*Neutered male dogs and spayed female dogs are at increased risk of progressing from mild to severe
geriatric cognitive impairment compared to intact male dogs​​​​55. There weren’t enough intact geriatric
females available for the study to determine their risk.
Geriatric cognitive impairment includes disorientation in the house or outdoors, changes in social
interactions with human family members, loss of house training, and changes in the sleep-wake cycle55.
The investigators state “This finding is in line with current research on the neuro-protective roles of
testosterone and estrogen at the cellular level and the role of estrogen in preventing Alzheimer’s disease in
human females. One would predict that estrogens would have a similar protective role in the sexually intact
female dogs; unfortunately too few sexually intact female dogs were available for inclusion in the present
study to test the hypothesis”55​
*CONCLUSIONS​*An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the longterm
health risks and benefits associated with spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter
correlates with both positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do
not yet understand about this subject.
On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs to prevent future
health problems, especially immature male dogs. The number of health problems associated with neutering
may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.
For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may
exceed the associated health problems in many (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the
odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the dog and the relative risk
of various diseases in the different breeds.
The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear
to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically
mature, or perhaps in the case of many male dogs, foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary.
The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next. Breed,
age, and gender are variables that must be taken into consideration in conjunction with non-medical factors
for each individual dog. Across-the-board recommendations for all dogs do not appear to be supportable
from findings in the veterinary medical literature.
Page 10 of 12​*REFERENCES​*1​​​​Burrow R, Batchelor D, Cripps P. Complications observed during and after ovariohysterectomy of 142
bitches at a veterinary teaching hospital. Vet Rec. 2005 Dec 24-31;157(26):829-33.​
2​​​​Pollari FL, Bonnett BN, Bamsey, SC, Meek, AH, Allen, DG (1996) Postoperative complications of elective
surgeries in dogs and cats determined by examining electronic and medical records. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 208, 1882-1886​
3​​​​Dorn AS, Swist RA. (1977) Complications of canine ovariohysterectomy. Journal of the American Animal
Hospital Association 13, 720-724​
4​​​​Pollari FL, Bonnett BN. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective surgeries of dogs and
cats at private practices using computer records, Can Vet J. 1996 November; 37(11): 672–678.​
5​​​​Teske E, Naan EC, van Dijk EM, van Garderen E, Schalken JA. Canine prostate carcinoma:
epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2002 Nov 29;197(1-
2):251-5.​
6​​​​Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, Ferrocone J. Immunohistochemical characterization of canine
prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status and castration time. Vet Comparative Oncology.
2003 Mar; 1 (1): 48​
7​​​​Weaver, AD. Fifteen cases of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. Vet Rec. 1981; 109, 71-75.​
8​​​​Cohen D, Reif JS, Brodey RS, et al: Epidemiological analysis of the most prevalent sites and types of
canine neoplasia observed in a veterinary hospital. Cancer Res 34:2859-2868, 1974​
9​​​​Theilen GH, Madewell BR. Tumors of the genital system. Part II. In:Theilen GH, Madewell BR, eds.
Veterinary cancer medicine. 2nd ed.Lea and Febinger, 1987:583–600.​
10​​​​Glickman LT, Glickman N, Thorpe R. The Golden Retriever Club of America National Health Survey 1998-
1999 http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/golden_retriever_final22.pdf​
11​​​​Handbook of Small Animal Practice, 3rd ed​
12​​​​Hayes HM Jr, Pendergrass TW. Canine testicular tumors: epidemiologic features of 410 dogs. Int J
Cancer 1976 Oct 15;18(4):482-7​
13​​​​Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. (1998) Host-related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J 1998
Jul;156(1):31-9​
14​​​​Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ. Endogenous gonadal
hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40.​
15​​​​Moe L. Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds. J of Reproduction and
Fertility Supplment 57, 439-443.​
16​​​​Ferguson HR; Vet Clinics of N Amer: Small Animal Practice; Vol 15, No 3, May 1985​
17​​​​MacEwen EG, Patnaik AK, Harvey HJ Estrogen receptors in canine mammary tumors. Cancer Res., 42:
2255-2259, 1982.​
18​​​​Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and
Postsurgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969​
19​​​​Feinleib M: Breast cancer and artificial menopause: A cohort study. J Nat Cancer Inst 41: 315-329, 1968.​
20​​​​Dorn CR and Schneider R. Inbreeding and canine mammary cancer. A retrospective study. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 57: 545-548, 1976.​
21​​​​Brodey RS: Canine and feline neoplasia. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 14:309-354, 1970​
22​​​​Hayes A, Harvey H J: Treatment of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc
174:1304-1306, 1979
Page 11 of 12​
23​​​​Norris AM, Laing EJ, Valli VE, Withrow SJ. J Vet Intern Med 1992 May; 6(3):145-53​
24​​​​Prymak C, McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, Glickman LT. Epidemiologic, clinical, pathologic, and prognostic
characteristics of splenic hemangiosarcoma and splenic hematoma in dogs: 217 cases (1985). J Am Vet
Med Assoc 1988 Sep; 193(6):706-12​
25​​​​Ware WA, Hopper, DL. Cardiac Tumors in Dogs: 1982-1995_. _J Vet Intern Med 1999;13:95–103.​
26​​​​Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994 Mar
1;204(5):761-7​
27​​​​Panciera DL. Canine hypothyroidism. Part I. Clinical findings and control of thyroid hormone secretion and
metabolism. Compend Contin Pract Vet 1990: 12: 689-701.​
28​​​​Glickman LT, Glickman N, Raghaven M, The Akita Club of America National Health Survey 2000-2001.
http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/akita_final_2.pdf​
29​​​​Glickman LT, HogenEsch H, Raghavan M, Edinboro C, Scott-Moncrieff C. Final Report to the Hayward
Foundation and The Great Dane Health Foundation of a Study Titled Vaccinosis in Great Danes. 1 Jan
2004. http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/great_dane_vaccinosis_fullreport_jan04.pdf​
30​​​​Edney AT, Smith PM. Study of obesity in dogs visiting veterinary practices in the United Kingdom. .Vet
Rec. 1986 Apr 5;118(14):391-6.​
31​​​​McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Pride C, Fawcett A, Grassi T, Jones B. Prevalence of obesity in dogs
examined by Australian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec. 2005 May
28;156(22):695-702.​
32​​​​Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk, CA, Klausner, JS. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Obesity in Adult Dogs
from Private US Veterinary Practices. Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 4, No. 2, 2006.​
33​​​​Marmor M, Willeberg P, Glickman LT, Priester WA, Cypess RH, Hurvitz AI. Epizootiologic patterns of
diabetes mellitus in dogs Am J Vet Res. 1982 Mar;43(3):465-70. ..​
34​​​​Moore GE, Guptill LF, Ward MP, Glickman NW, Faunt KF, Lewis HB, Glickman LT. Adverse events
diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. JAVMA Vol 227, No 7, Oct 1, 2005​
35​​​​Thrusfield MV, Holt PE, Muirhead RH. Acquired urinary incontinence in bitches: its incidence and
relationship to neutering practices.. J Small Anim Pract. 1998. Dec;39(12):559-66.​
36​​​​Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary
incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:233-6...​
37​​​​Arnold S, Arnold P, Hubler M, Casal M, and Rüsch P. Urinary Incontinence in spayed bitches: prevalence
and breed disposition. European Journal of Campanion Animal Practice. 131, 259-263.​
38​​​​Thrusfield MV 1985 Association between urinary incontinence and spaying in bitches Vet Rec 116 695​
39​​​​Richter KP, Ling V. Clinical response and urethral pressure profile changes after phenypropanolamine in
dogs with primary sphincter incompetence. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985: 187: 605-611.​
40​​​​Holt PE. Urinary incontinence in dogs and cats. Vet Rec 1990: 127: 347-350.​
41​​​​Seguin MA, Vaden SL, Altier C, Stone E, Levine JF (2003) Persistent Urinary Tract Infections and
Reinfections in 100 Dogs (1989–1999). Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine: Vol. 17, No. 5 pp. 622–631.​
42​​​​Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs.
JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.​
43​​​​Verstegen-Onclin K, Verstegen J. Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering: Effects on the
Urogenital System. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical
Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control
http://www.acc-d.org/2006 Symposium Docs/Session I.pdf​
44​​​​Hagman R: New aspects of canine pyometra. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, 2004.
Page 12 of 12​
45​​​​Chastain CB, Panciera D, Waters C: Associations between age, parity, hormonal therapy and breed, and
pyometra in Finnish dogs. Small Anim Endocrinol 1999; 9: 8.​
46​​​​Killingsworth CR, Walshaw R, Dunstan RW, Rosser, EJ. Bacterial population and histologic changes in
dogs with perianal fistula. Am J Vet Res, Vol 49, No. 10, Oct 1988.​
47​​​​Johnston SD, Kamolpatana K, Root-Kustritz MV, Johnston GR, Prostatic disorders in the dog. Anim
Reprod. Sci Jul 2;60-61:405-415. .​
48​​​​Dannuccia GA, Martin RB., Patterson-Buckendahl P Ovariectomy and trabecular bone remodeling in the
dog. Calcif Tissue Int 1986; 40: 194-199.​
49​​​​Martin RB, Butcher RL, Sherwood L,L Buckendahl P, Boyd RD, Farris D, Sharkey N, Dannucci G. Effects
of ovariectomy in beagle dogs. Bone 1987; 8:23-31​
50​​​​Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: Effects on skeletal,
physical, and behavioral development, JAVMA, Vol 198, No. 7, April 1991.​
51​​​​Whitehair JG, Vasseur PB, Willits NH. Epidemiology of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. J Am
Vet Med Assoc. 1993 Oct 1;203(7):1016-9.​
52​​​​Glickman LT, Airedale Terrier Club of America, Airedale Terrier Health Survey 2000-2001
http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/Airedale final report_revised.pdf​
53​​​​van Hagen MA, Ducro BJ, van den Broek J, Knol BW. Incidence, risk factors, and heritability estimates of
hind limb lameness caused by hip dysplasia in a birth cohort of boxers. Am J Vet Res. 2005 Feb;66(2):307-
12.​
54​​​​B. Vidoni, I. Sommerfeld-Stur und E. Eisenmenger: Diagnostic and genetic aspects of patellar luxation in
small and miniature breed dogs in Austria. Wien.Tierarztl.Mschr. (2005) 92, p170 – 181​
55​​​​Hart BL. Effect of gonadectomy on subsequent development of age-related cognitive impairment in dogs.​
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jul 1;219(1):51-6.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Lestorm wrote
*"So here is the article in full!"

Unfortunately that is just one person's findings/interprettions. If you read the article from Cornell ( http://www.sheltermedicine.vet.cornell.edu/spayNeuter/young.htm ), although a rebuttal to Dr. Zink's ascertations of the detriments of early spay/neuter, many of Dr. Howe's points could also be a rebuttal to the article you posted.
Does it mean one is right and one is wrong, not yet in my opinion. Hopefully more research will be done to determine what is truly in the best interest of the dog. 



*


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> How can anyone compare a mild (not painful) correction to a dog during training to the pain and suffering of CUTTING OFF or ripping out body parts? Give me a break.


But yet you have no problem with altering your rescues, according to what you have posted here. So it's okay only in certain circumstances, when you aren't going to keep the dog? Well, that can't be right either because you have the male and female goldens who are altered. It all comes across as hypocritical to me. Either you believe in it, or you don't.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

What I was saying is that comparing corrections to surgical altering is not valid. 

I never said no dogs should ever be altered. My points have been:

1) Mandatory spay/neuter is ridiciulous
2) S/N of immature dogs is not something I approve of.

With the exception of one seven month old female dog (Crystal) who had ALREADY come in heat, these are the animals I had altered late last year:

1) 3.5 year old Golden
2) 4 year old Golden
3) 18 months plus (unknown) mix (Lindsey) who'd clearly had at least one heat cycle
4) 2 year old Labrador Retriever
5) 3-5 year old GSD who'd had a litter
6) 1.5 year old cat

I know there were more- none were puppies.

I also agree that the average moron perhaps should alter his pet. However, I think it sad that we cannot advance to the level of pet care practiced in Western Europe. And, again, I do not think I should have to alter MY pet because someone else is a moron.

Whether you alter your pet or not is up to you. I don't care. My primary point is that I a anti- S/N law.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> How can anyone compare a mild (not painful) correction to a dog during training to the pain and suffering of CUTTING OFF or ripping out body parts? Give me a break.


I'm sorry, but these are not words that someone who believes in altering rescues would say. I just don't get it. With what you say it's okay to cut off and rip out body parts of rescues. But not with a dog that you personally want to breed. That's where I see hypocrisy. If it's really cutting off and ripping out body parts, why is it okay with some animals and not others?


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Oh it is pain and suffering no matter what dog you do it too. And I don't like it. But because I cannot control what people do once I release the dog, I alter rescues. I also alter my personal animals before/if I place them in a new home. Same reason. To me it is a necessary evil, kind of like corrections in training.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Okay, I am lost now. Why would you re-home your personal pets? I guess I just can't understand making a pet part of my family and then re-homing them. When you take an animal on as a rescue, that's different. But your personal pet? Once they are here and I have committed to them as my pet, they are here forever.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I would and have rehomed dogs for severe aggression towards one of my other dogs, dogs which seem in the end as though they would do better in a single dog (or at least not a four or five dog) household, Dogs that growl at my son are not staying here, dogs that do not enjoy the activities and lifestyle that my dogs and I lead (out a lot, in crowds, in public, dog park, dog shows, training class, etc). I take responsibility for them for life whether they live here or not. For example I rehomed a Whippet years ago because I was actively showing dogs, and at five months he sucked up a testicle and it never came back. I see this dog routinely! I made someone's family complete and they adore him and he adores them. He greets me with much zest- even whining and pulling on my clothing and licking my face. Then he follows me about for about 15 minutes, goosing me now and then (he's so cute!). But, then he goes back to Mom and Dad!


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Forgot to say! I would ALWAYS take him (and any other) back! But I'd have to kill his people first LOL


----------



## sophiesadiehannah's mom (Feb 11, 2007)

i continue to read this thread with interest, however no one will change my mind or convince me that i am a terrible pet owner. roxanne golden was spayed at 6 months and lived to be 12 with no health issues, allison gordan setter was spayed at 6 months, lived for 13 1/2 years with no health issues, sadie and sophie were both spayed at 6 months and are now 3 1/2, sadie has no problems, sophie has spay incontinence, 1 inexpensive hormone pill a week and she is just fine. my rescue pups are spayed at approximately 6 months. my vet did not encourage or discourage my decision, he is not in it for the money or why would he spay and neuter rescue pets at 1/2 price. as for the pain involved, they are anesitized and within 24 hours i had a hard time keeping them down. kimm, no guilt for you, stop second guessing yourself, you are an awesome dog owner. hey i would rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

I have never disagreed that the people here (for the most part), would be totally capable of having an intact animal and not having an unwanted litter of puppies. A person who is interested enough in their dog and their breed to join a forum full of other crazy animal people probably have enough sense to know these things. Not saying all, but most. But I do rescue. I don;t breed. I never will. I'll also never buy from a breeder. Not that I have not learned a great deal about reputable breeders and what they stand for, I just don't have a use for buying a dog. My lifestyle can accomodate nearly any type of dog. I don't have kids. I don't want to show. I don't want to do agility, etc. I just want a pet. Obviously I cannot ever have a dog who is cat aggressive or DA, but those are about the extent of my requirements. SO in reality, in rescuing my pets, they will probably all be altered already. I foster for 3 different rescues, but have done several rescues of my own where I have spent my own money vetting and altering kittens before placing them. I simply cannot trust ANYONE to alter their pet after I place them, so I have to do it myself. And if that means altering a litter of 8 week old kittens, then so be it. I have to get the kittens out and adopted before that small window of time where they're cute and cuddly and adoptable closes. And for the record I have never lost a kitten during or after a neuter or spay surgery.


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I never said no dogs should ever be altered. My points have been:
> 
> 1) Mandatory spay/neuter is ridiciulous
> 2) S/N of immature dogs is not something I approve of.


No arguement on #1 with me.

Let's say you get a 6 month old male into rescue. What do you do? Send him to his new home and hope they neuter him in a year (and hope he doesn't sire a litter or be allowed roam, etc.)? Keep him in rescue for a year until he's "old enough" to be altered? Neuter him and find him a loving home now?


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> Oh it is pain and suffering no matter what dog you do it too. And I don't like it. But because I cannot control what people do once I release the dog, I alter rescues. I also alter my personal animals before/if I place them in a new home. Same reason. To me it is a necessary evil, kind of like corrections in training.


 Not a slam on your Jenna. 

I highlighted exactly why rescues, shelters and humane societies spay or neuter their animals before they let them leave. I dont believe every shelter or rescue wants to do it to young animals but when you cannot control the people that adopt them, you have to do it to protect the animals and help control the population. Because no matter how good a person looks on paper and in person, you dont know what their true motive gould be for getting a dog. People all over have been fooled at one time or another. 

Not all vets are pushing the owners to alter their pets, they unfortunately see the bad side day in and day out of what happens when people dont do it or want to make a fast buck off the animal, so they tell the owner the risks and benefits and it is up to the owner. The ultimate decision is the owner not the vet. 

I know of a reputable breeder that was diagnosed with incurable cancer and she decided to rehome her dogs with a friend of 20 years. These dogs were show dogs and just gorgeous. The people promised to spay and neuter them so she could rest easy that her dogs would live out happy and loving lives. The same friends turned around and have refused to do what they promised and have since bred two of her girls. One of the dogs almost died in the surgery to save her. The woman had to live with this the rest of her life. Unfortunately she has since lost her battle with cancer. And her dogs are not fixed. She trusted these people and they broke her heart. 
(Off Topic I know) 

It is not a cruel or painful to spay or neuter. Vets are not ripping body parts off like a wild animal. It is safe procedure. They are under anesthisia and are given pain pills. They heal way faster than humans and I dont believe they miss the parts once they are gone.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Depends on the situation. Depending on who is taking the dog, how well I know them, and their set up, I will offer a refund of the adoption fee, and change the microchip to their name, once the dog is altered. Aside from a couple females (done at six months), I don't think I've had to get a dog under seven or eight months neutered. You can bet I would not alter young puppies!


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> Okay, I am lost now. Why would you re-home your personal pets? I guess I just can't understand making a pet part of my family and then re-homing them. When you take an animal on as a rescue, that's different. But your personal pet? Once they are here and I have committed to them as my pet, they are here forever.


 
You are so hell bent on argueing with whatever is said, you twist peoples every word and turn it into something that you can turn into sarcasm. If you cant be constuctive then just go away.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Lestorm said:


> You are so hell bent on argueing with whatever is said, you twist peoples every word and turn it into something that you can turn into sarcasm. If you cant be constuctive then just go away.



Whoa. Fostermom is a long-time forum member, and she is as entitled to be heard as you are. Let's not get so personal.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> You are so hell bent on argueing with whatever is said, you twist peoples every word and turn it into something that you can turn into sarcasm. If you cant be constuctive then just go away.


I didn't twist anything. The person I quoted said that they altered their personal pets before rehoming them. I was shocked that they were rehoming their personal pets.

Thanks Ljilly. Apparently I have rubbed Lestorm the wrong way, even though I am not the only one to disagree with him/her. But I am not going to leave a thread that has been posted on a public forum just because he/she doesn't share my opinions.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> That is a practice that is in direct violation of the Rules of the American Kennel Club. Breeders are not allowed to "hold" the Registration papers for any reason. When the sale is completed the papers must be turned over.


That has only happened twice in nine goldens for us. It took me a whole year of nagging to receive the reg papers for one of our goldens bc of a dispute between the breeder& stud dog owner, lol.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Well, I have to say that was a bit rude and off topic to suddenly attack me for rehoming a dog to a great home, when it was far from the point of my post. I don't keep a dog just because it's here. If it turns out not to be the best match, then I let it go for everyone's benefit (including the dog's). I've let dogs go that I did NOT want to let go at ALL because our household wasn't the best for them. Every since the HSUS thread you seem to hate my guts.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> Well, I have to say that was a bit rude and off topic to suddenly attack me for rehoming a dog to a great home, when it was far from the point of my post. I don't keep a dog just because it's here. If it turns out not to be the best match, then I let it go for everyone's benefit (including the dog's). I've let dogs go that I did NOT want to let go at ALL because our household wasn't the best for them. Every since the HSUS thread you seem to hate my guts.


I don't hate your guts, I just don't understand how you can say so adamantly that you are against spay/neuter, or as you put it "CUTTING OFF or ripping out body parts", yet feel that it's just fine to do to an animal that you aren't keeping. I also don't know how you can have what you say are perfectly trained dogs who have the best temperaments ever, and then you rehome one or more of them because of aggression. That's why I was so surprised when you threw it out there that you have rehomed personal pets. I didn't attack you, I just questioned what you were saying.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

As you probably know, when doing rescue and taking dogs from the actual sources (not just fostering dogs someone else has already pulled and found to be adoptable) you get some real nutcases. Often, I can fix them. Sometimes I cannot. Fear or minimal initial human aggression never really concerned me much in the past, so long as I could get them socialized enough to enjoy the public with me. I fall in love and want to keep every dog, I definitely use my heart first and my brain later. 

At any rate, my comments about it being cutting off and ripping out organs were directed at the person claiming that neutering was no different from giving a correction with a leash. While neither one is necessarily cruel, the comparison was ridiculous. 

With a child, a 13 year old dog who hasn't got any desire to play hard-ass anymore, and a husband with minimal tolerance and understanding for and of dogs that are not "normal" the fruitcakes just don't work here. I'm also getting back into performance with dogs. I don't really care what anyone thinks. I do right by my dogs, my fosters, and those I decide in the end not to keep. I do what is best for them, my child, my other dogs, and their new families. 

Doing the "dirty work" of rescue is, to me, the most rewarding. It's also the hardest, the most emotionally scarring, and the most heart wrenching. I have placed dogs I loved so much it shattered me for months. I've had to put dogs down because they were not adoptable. 

Yes my dogs are trained, socialized, well mannered, do not bark or lunge at dogs on walks, do not jump, and have excellent recalls. That does not automatically make them the perfect match for my rather unusual dynamic and the activities I enjoy with my dogs (both competitive and not). It also does not automatically exclude them from suffering from genetic poor temperaments or the after effects of a life of complete isolation. I find the isolated ones the hardest (the ones who never left the barn or the yard or the kennel for their entire lives- have never met a human other than their owner who ignored them, have never seen a leash or a collar, have never been in a car or seen a dog other than their own breed, have never seen or heard a child, etc). In fact they are tougher to rehabilitate than the abuse cases in my experience. 

I make no apologies for the fact that if any one of these nutjobs that would probably dead if I hadn't given them a chance goes after me, my child, or Rigby, they're history. Not necessarily dead, but they will not live here. Speaking of dogs in need of homes, there's plenty that do not do those things who get killed every day. In addition, if a dog OBVIOUSLY would do better in a different setting, it would be selfish of me to keep them just because I am attached.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

well now I'm just curious as to what dogs you DO still have, because the only one you talk about is Rigby. Can't imagine that 3 goldens and 1 GSD would all of a sudden turn aggressive in just a short period of time.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

No, did I say they did? Nope, sure didn't. If this is going to turn into let's all attack and be ****** towards ACC, then I have nothing further to add. I can't compete with saints. 

I speak of Rigby because he is OLD and he is my heart dog and he would not stand a chance if a large dog attacked him. Whatever... since you guys are perfect and your line of thought is the only acceptable one... that discredits everything I've ever done for dogs. 

Hmm, I know why I so enjoyed my time away from here.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

still didn't answer my question, but that all good. It just tends to pique peoples curiosity when theres a post every other day about your goldens, or whippets, or GSD, then they all just disappear into thin air. It's human nature to wonder.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

How about the fact that I didn't come here at all for like, what, two months? Didn't post about any dog!

Stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. The dogs are all happy, healthy, safe, and in the best possible places for THEM. Some at my house, some not. Which ones is none of yours or anyone's business. To me THAT is what matters. _The dogs. _If you want to harp on the other ******** because you think dogs are more important than babies, and that it's wrong to want certain traits in a dog or god forbid do something with them other than let them sit around and grow dust bunnies between their toes, then that's not something I want to be part of. Yes I am one who says I am keeping them the first day, then as time goes on realizes which situation the dog would actually do best in. Hmm, sounds like fostering to me, only to justify spending a couple grand on each of them, and simply because I wear my heart on my sleeve, I make them MINE when they are here. How can I not fall in love with such wonderful dogs? It's a little different but it's how I work and those who know me know it and know how good I treat them and what great lives they have whether they stay or go.

While we are on the subject of being nosy, how many dogs have you paid completely for their spay, all shots, chip, Advantage, four cups per day of food that costs $60 a bag for a 20-30 pound bag, HIP X RAYS just to be safe on dogs with no symptoms, heartworm tests, full blood and thyroid panels even on dogs with no symptoms (not just that fat or sickly ones).... yeah, I'm a real piece of garbage, right? Then I go and GIVE these dogs away for NO charge, with full vet history paperwork and lifetime support, books, a leash, collar, tags, food, etc. I don't want a pat on the back, but a lack of abuse is the minimum I will accept.

I'm pretty sick of adoptions, though. I think you lot are honestly worse and more judgmental than the breeders and show folks. And **** that's saying something. My money spends just as well at the Greyhound farm and on entry fees. Low and behold I have come full circle... I find myself agreeing with Pointgold a lot these days :

Maybe it's because now that I'm healthy I don't feel like I have to take peoples' **** and obsession with my private life. Notice I don't give a **** what dogs you have?


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

Honestly, if you want to go there, we can go there. I have 3 dogs and 10 cats. I have spayed/neutered, vaccinated, tested, treated for any disease they might have, etc etc etc. I have a cat who has had $1500 worth of surgeries to correct his narrow urethra so that he can pee. I have a cat who just had a bladder stone removed, to the tune of $602. I have lost track of how many litters of kittens I have traveled to the other side of BFE to pick up from people who found my name from someone and called me hoping I could help. These cats who I have nursed through URI's, bionic fleas, worms, have tested and vaccinated and altered EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. I have to pay to feed 3 large dogs, 1 small dog, and 10 cats high quality food. I don't skimp and give the fosters cheaper food. They all eat the same.
Fostering, to me, is taking in an animal and caring for them until they correct type of home can be found. NOT taking in an animal, telling everyone you're keeping them , then deciding to get rid of them when they don't fit into your lifestyle. I have turned my household, and checkbook, upside down more times than I care to admit, to accommodate an animal. But I make it work.I never sit down and call an animal MINE until I know that they are going to be a good fit, or that I am capable of making it work. 
I never said dogs are more important than babies. But I don't have a baby. So I don't have to worry about that. And don't think for one minute that my dogs are laying around growing dust bunnies between their toes, as you put it. My dogs are pets. I did not get them to be anything but companions for myself and the other pets. But, then again, that might be why they're still in my home, because I didn't get them thinking they were going to be something they're not.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Great, sounds like we have both done a lot for our dogs (and you for cats). BTW how do you know what dogs I still have? Oh yeah, you don't.

Since I take outstanding care of them and have fun with them and they LOVE it here and always are happier and healthier than they were before they got here, can I ask again what your personal problem with me is?


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Oh, and I DO have a baby, so I do have to "worry about that"


----------



## Old Gold Mum2001 (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> Personally, I think you are totally off base with these comments. If you allow unaltered dogs to wander around, they will make puppies. There are only so many homes for the puppies. At some point the puppies have to go somewhere and that is either wandering around or to the shelter. How does castrating dogs NOT have an effect on the number of puppies born every year? That makes no sense at all to me.
> 
> I had an intact female for several years. I "couldn't afford" to get her spayed. She developed pyrometra at 7 years old and almost died. I will always have my dogs altered in the future unless they have a medical condition that doesn't allow it.


 
I actually get what OP is trying to say, whether one spays/neuters or not, if one is responsible, they're not letting their dog out to produce litter after litter...


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

Oh my :no:


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Real classy. I didn't resort to personal attacks, but you had to go there. Anyway, I'll keep taking the best care possible of my dogs, spoiling them, loving them, and enjoying my life: even if I'm over emotional and too easily attached. Since you're perfect, you wouldn't know what it's like.


----------



## regspeir (Jan 4, 2010)

*thoughtful, informative and helpful*

This is the kind of discussion that helps a lot in facing difficult decisions for our new family member and the information I visit this forum for. Thank you for the open discussion (and the place to view it).


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

BTW, what is your thought of the guide dog schools, dog show breeders, greyhound racing people, lure coursing fanatics, and others who rehome dogs because while the dog showed great promise initially, it is clear the dog will not succeed at the task at hand. In my circle of friends, dogs are rehomed all the time for these types of reasons, so they can get more one on one attention and allow for a new dog to compete or work with. So the dog is allowed to go to a loving home. Do you think that's bad? I'm just curious if it's across the board bad to you, or only if I do it.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Griffyn'sMom said:


> Oh my :no:


Yes, I'm pretty annoyed and a little hurt that I cannot share my view on the actual topic of this thread without being publicly attacked off topic. Especially since I thought the attackers were friends.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

I won't even share how much I have donated in the past few years on other dogs. I have not had them live with me though. My husband will not let me foster because he does not want to have to let them go. Saving animals is a huge responsibility and very expensive. We do have two incomes, but I could never afford to save so many or as many as I wish.

Some day maybe I will hit lotto!


----------



## Charlie06 (Feb 10, 2007)

I think some of us are also hurt when neutering is referred to as "mutilation", but whatever.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I wasn't asking you Kimm. You aren't picking select phrases from my posts and trying to hurt me in public.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

By technical definition, it is. But it's certainly not the term most would use for the obvious reasons. I didn't bring that word up, by the way.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

I don't really agree with any of those things, because to me it seems like the dog is a piece of property or merchandise, and when deemed defective, it gets returned. Which is not how I view my animals. But, people who use dogs as a means of income, I guess its necessary. Guide dogs I can agree with. They have a very important job to do, but its usually very clear before their first year is up that they will or will not be good at it. Greyhound racing, don't get it. Sure they enjoy racing, but do they enjoy living the rest of their lives in a kennel? Probably not. A couple in my friends apartment complex adopted a retired racing greyhound. This dog was an absolute schizo. Til the day he died they had to carry him up and down steps. He had no idea how a real dog was supposed to act.If he hadn't lived his entire life in a kennel, doing nothing but chasing a rabbit, he probably would have. I just don't understand how people don't have anything better to do than watch a dog run around a track.


----------



## Taz Monkey (Feb 25, 2007)

And it has nothing to do with friends. I have genuine, actual concern for the pets of everyone on here. When I see one that is hurt, or sick, or god forbid a new post in the Rainbow Bridge section, my heart hurts just like it would for the animal of someone I would know IRL.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Well that is it then. While I love my dogs to death, I enjoy the performance aspects of working sighthounds. I have never been able to get into field work with Goldens, but would have loved to. Most greyhounds are not nuts at all, btw. But, bad breeding and some poor care exists there too. I do own my dogs and dogs are property to me. VERY SPECIAL property, but still property. We are just on totally different sides of the animal rights fence (you may not be extreme, I have no idea, but your views are quite different from mine). To me as long as the dogs are happy and healthy and enjoying life and are safe and protected, it's all good. I used to be more of your mindset, but once I got to know some better show people and any race people at all, I've changed my views.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I care about animals too. I am thinking that surly that's obvious.


----------



## Old Gold Mum2001 (Feb 25, 2007)

WOW!!!!! *** is what I'm gonna say!!!!! I know you ladies, n some really well!!!! 

No need for personal attacks!!!!

WE ALL know that our personal homes are NOT the perfect home for EVERY dog, EVEN if we get attached to a dog, he/she may be better suited for another home, no matter how much we want that dog!!!!!!! To keep a dog for that reason alone is just really selfish n not doing anyone justice, especially the dog!!!!! For anyone to say anything to another member for rehoming a dog to a better home for any reason, well, put yourself in that position!!!

N before any of you harp on Jenna about rehoming....just letting you know, she had good reason to, I've met them, and also would have made the same choice she did!!!
See I know Jenna, n know her situation. 

Yes, sometimes our hearts are bigger than our brains in rescue, n sometimes there is no time to think, but to act or it could mean a dogs life. As long as the rescued dog is in it's perfect home, does not matter whose home it actually is does it, if the dog blossoms n gets to fully be the dog it was meant to be, THAT is the reason we do rescue isn't it!!!???

Quite a few of us on here own our dogs for different reasons, some only to show, some as assistance dogs, competitions, some are just our beloved pets n companions. I know plenty of polivce officers that have had to "get a new dog" because the one they have chosen is not suitable, do you blame them???? Hell NO!!!! we wouldn't think of it!!!! Yes we are gonna have different views on "rescue," on training, on just about every aspect of dog ownership, and not everyone is going to agree on quite a few things... UNTIL every one of us has walked in the other's shoes, we should not be judging ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!

I once said I would NEVER feed my dogs crap food!!!! Well, guess what, never say never!!!!! I have found myself NEEDING to feed them with what money I have. I didn't ask to be in this situation, but it's that or give one up, and I'm not willing to do that. So yes, I have learned a lesson, don't judge, cuz ya NEVER know what's around the corner!!!!!!!


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

How very true. You just never know. And I learn that every day. What a judgmental prick I used to be. Still can be at times. (AND NO I AM NOT SAYING ANYONE here is that)!


----------



## Old Gold Mum2001 (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> But yet you have no problem with altering your rescues, according to what you have posted here. So it's okay only in certain circumstances, when you aren't going to keep the dog? Well, that can't be right either because you have the male and female goldens who are altered. It all comes across as hypocritical to me. Either you believe in it, or you don't.


 
I kinda took it as a necessary evil to have to have it done on rescues, or in a rehoming case, just because not all people do what they say, nor do are all people totaly responsible, n some people may pass a home visit, a vet check, and look great on paper, but sometimes not all is as it seems.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

For some people too, as much as the individual dog is loved, it is the breed as a whole that is equally or even in some cases maybe more important. I know plenty of breeders who have dedicated their lives to preserving their BREED and that means rehoming (and in the past often culling) those dogs which were not the best performers (hunters, showers, whatever). That, in fact, is why we even have the breeds we do. 

This is largely my interest in dogs now that I have the means to pursue canine sports (couldn't really afford it before). I have no desire to breed and intend to keep only male dogs if I get into showing, not too likely there. If my track bitch is really good, then her co owner can breed her and give me half the sales or free half interest in all the pups. Whatever. We'll see. She's too young right now to even know.

I think <insert breed name, in this case Greyhounds> are magical, incredible, amazing athletes. I think to lose the breed, and especially those that can perform as intended (coursing, ultimately) would be a tragic loss. It's not about not having anything better to do than stand at the fence and get chills while those powerful yet elegant creatures thunder by me with huge grins on their faces... it's about preserving this literal living piece of history forever.


----------



## Old Gold Mum2001 (Feb 25, 2007)

SC n Amb. I love reading your posts!!!! Always full of knowledge n respect


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Oh and for me it is not about money. The majority of my dog's winnings (or money from puppies if she IS bred) is being donated to a racing neutral adoption group.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Whoa. Fostermom is a long-time forum member, and she is as entitled to be heard as you are. Let's not get so personal.


 
I agree that she is entitled to be heard and i am willing to hear her. Just look back at threads and see how she picks up on every word and makes remarks about things that have nothing to do with the thread. Long time member or not, she doesnt have to be so rude.


----------



## Old Gold Mum2001 (Feb 25, 2007)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> it is illegal to let dogs off leash here, and there is literally no woods or fields here. No farming, nothing like that- and unlike the UK, one cannot walk on other peoples' land. Plus, traffic is BAD, everywhere. In addition, any woods you do find in Florida is swampland with gators that eat dogs routinely, rattlesnakes, and other deadly wildlife. Even sinkholes your dog could, at best, break his leg in, at worst fall down!


Exactly!!!! Very thankful for my huge backyard!!!


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> I agree that she is entitled to be heard and i am willing to hear her. Just look back at threads and see how she picks up on every word and makes remarks about things that have nothing to do with the thread. Long time member or not, she doesnt have to be so rude.


If someone has posted something to a thread, why should I not be allowed to address it? If I do that, I am not the one who has taken if off topic, I am just replying to whatever has been taken off topic by someone else. I am not one to let something that is outrageous to me go by without commenting on it.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> I don't hate your guts, I just don't understand how you can say so adamantly that you are against spay/neuter, or as you put it "CUTTING OFF or ripping out body parts", yet feel that it's just fine to do to an animal that you aren't keeping. I also don't know how you can have what you say are perfectly trained dogs who have the best temperaments ever, and then you rehome one or more of them because of aggression. That's why I was so surprised when you threw it out there that you have rehomed personal pets. I didn't attack you, I just questioned what you were saying.


See there you go again. Picked up on a word and moved away from the thread. It appears that you just cannot help yourself.


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> If someone has posted something to a thread, why should I not be allowed to address it? If I do that, I am not the one who has taken if off topic, I am just replying to whatever has been taken off topic by someone else. I am not one to let something that is outrageous to me go by without commenting on it.


 
Exactly! Like a dog with a bone, you just cant let it go!


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lestorm said:


> See there you go again. Picked up on a word and moved away from the thread. It appears that you just cannot help yourself.


How did I move away from the thread. It was about castrating dogs......


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!!!!!:hijacked:


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

fostermom said:


> How did I move away from the thread. It was about castrating dogs......


 
Well done! So now you can leave 'rehoming a dog' out of it. 

How many dogs have you rescued and had castrated? Most of these dogs are required to be castrated as that is the rules of the charities that find homes for them. I dont have a problem with that, I do have a problem with castrating a puppy before its growth plates have closed. Look at the pictures of Goldens on the states, so many of them have legs that are so long they resemble table legs. They are totally straight, no turn of stiffle. absolutely straight second thigh. Now go look at the english goldens, see the difference? most are castrated after growth plates are closed. 

The proof is in the pudding!


----------



## Lestorm (Feb 25, 2007)

Griffyn'sMom said:


> PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD!!!!!:hijacked:


 
I totally agree with you. An innocent thread has become a battle field.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Yeah really, this thread needs to die.


----------



## Griffyn'sMom (Mar 22, 2007)

It's a ruddy train wreck! :wavey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Ggb_Ozl4E&feature=related


----------

