# Does Spaying Your Female Shorten Her Life?



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Found this in my "in Box" this morning and thought it would be a good subject for debate. 

*Preliminary Research Suggests Unspayed Dogs May Live Longer 

Dr. Eric Barchas, DVM​*

I am a proponent of spaying and neutering pets. Canine spay surgeries virtually eliminate the risk of breast cancer when performed before sexual maturity. Spays also dramatically reduce the rate of a potentially fatal infection called pyometra. Spayed dogs cannot develop ovarian cancer.

Spayed dogs do not go into heat. Their temperaments are more predictable. They are not injured during intercourse. They do not attempt to escape from the house in order to engage in trysts.

The most important thing is that spayed dogs do not get pregnant. Pregnancy is very metabolically demanding. Pregnancy and labor can lead to fatal complications. And pregnancy leads to puppies. Responsible people find homes for puppies (although each successfully housed puppy translates, roughly, into one shelter puppy being euthanized). Irresponsible people–I’m sure you realize there are plenty of irresponsible people in this world–dump the puppies at shelters, abandon them on roadsides, put them in gunny sacks to be thrown in rivers, or find other unsavory and unconscionable ways of dealing with an undesired litter.

There is no doubt that spaying is good for dogs as a species. But is it good for your dog?

Probably. But maybe not. From koamtv.com (article author: Jennifer Viegas).

Spaying is a procedure few of us question. This year alone, thousands of female dogs will undergo the hysterectomy operation, which removes the ovaries and uterus. Chances are your own pet has already undergone these removals.

A groundbreaking new study, however, may change the way we view this common surgery.

Longevity and Ovaries Linked

Women tend to live longer than men do, but did you know this life span edge holds true for female dogs too? “Like women, female dogs in our study had a distinct survival advantage over males,” according to project leader Dr. David Waters, Ph.D., a veterinarian, director of the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation and associate director of Purdue University’s Center on Aging and the Life Course.

Nevertheless, female dogs do not always reach the same age. That became obvious when Waters and his team studied information on the oldest living pet dogs in the United States. (Data on these canine seniors is tracked by the Center for Exceptional Longevity Studies.) Waters had a nagging suspicion: “We think that ovaries are part of a system that impacts longevity and perhaps the rate of aging.”

To test out the theory, Waters, who is also a professor in the department of veterinary clinical sciences at Purdue, and his team analyzed 119 rottweiler “centenarians,” which were elderly dogs that survived to 13 years. That’s 30 percent longer than the life span of most breed members. “We found that female rottweilers that kept their ovaries for at least six years were four times more likely to reach exceptional longevity compared to females who had the shortest lifetime ovary exposure.”

This study, in my opinion, does not prove that your dog will live longer if you don’t have her spayed until she is middle aged. And don’t forget that stunningly few people have the wherewithal to own an unspayed female dog for six puppy-free years.

I wish the study had shown that spayed dogs generally live longer than unspayed ones. But a conscientious clinician must accept facts rather than try to create them.

This subject demands more research. I will await the results with trepidation.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Well the famale dobe we had that lived to be 16 was unspayed, We'll see what happens with Angel, who was spayed at 2 years old (she turns three in July). It certainly is interesting research though.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

I know there are responsible owners out there that can handle intact pets. But, I think the current situation in our country is enough proof for me to say that the majority of pet owners need to have their pets fixed to avoid the unwanted litters. The evidence for not castrating/spaying isn't even close enough for me to suggest otherwise. I'd have to see some pretty solid numbers done on different breeds (I feel like Rottes get picked for this sort of thing and I don't know why?). I'm sure I'll get blasted for this, but, I've seen enough animals put down to last me 100 lifetimes.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

My curiosity (and this is more for Mr. V) is if you can do a tubal on a human woman to render her infertle why can't they do something similar with female dogs in order for them to keep the organs and gain the benefit from the hormones they produce? The benefit from spay as far as mammary tumors and the like the numbers imo are nominal at best. 5% chance of decreasing tumor development versus possibly another 5 or 6 good years with your dog? That's a no brainer tome. I'd opt for the tubal insted of the full spay.


----------



## lulusmom (Nov 12, 2008)

My first dog, a toy poodle, was spayed at 2 years and lived to be almost 19 years old. Working in rescue, I agree with Mr. V and have seen enough death, neglect and abuse to last 100 lifetimes. The sad truth is that a dog's lifespan is much more likely to be shortened by a stupid, ignorant, evil, human being than a spay or neuter. I'd actually volunteer to campaign to get a bill passed mandating the sterilization of stupid people. It would certainly be a much safer and kinder world for all animals. Where do I sign up?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> I know there are responsible owners out there that can handle intact pets. But, I think the current situation in our country is enough proof for me to say that the majority of pet owners need to have their pets fixed to avoid the unwanted litters.


Which situation? The one where 75% of pets are already S/N, or that shelter death rates are the lowest they've ever been after dropping significantly since the 1980s? Keep in mind, the numbers of shelter animals went down even as the number of households in the U.S that own animals has been _growing_ for 30 years.
The number of homeless pets killed annually has held steady for the past 10 years. There are a many more factors going into why animals end up in shelters and left undadopted besides simply S/N. I feel the constant focus on S/N as if it is the silver bullet that will eliminate all shelter population problems if we just keep harping on it all the time is misguided and missing the bigger picture of other strategies that can also be used to improve the chances of homeless pets.



> The evidence for not castrating/spaying isn't even close enough for me to suggest otherwise. I'd have to see some pretty solid numbers done on different breeds (I feel like Rottes get picked for this sort of thing and I don't know why?). .


Because many of these kinds of studies are usually funded by the members of a specific breed club, in response to certain trends/problems breeders are noticing in their lines. It may very well be that Rotties are affected by S/N to a greater degree than other breeds, for whatever genetic reason. But either way, Spaying is a highly invasive major surgery that should be done responsibly and with knowledge, because it IS known to have affects on growth and development (as people who are involved in dog sports are well aware).

In my view, I agree that _most_ dogs should be S/N. But there are always exceptions. And in the case of large breed dogs, waiting for 2 years is generally accepted as much better idea since it allows for proper bone and muscle development. I'd like to see a study done comparing early S/N (done before 6 months/puberty) to mature S/N (done at around 2 years) to see if it's waiting for the dog to fully mature or not before doing it is the key issue here.

Because really, a responsible owner who S/Ns doesn't prevent an _irresponsible_ one from _not_ doing it and having an 'oops litter'. Being a responsible pet owner is more than just whether or not you fix your dog; considering the _personal_ health benefits/risks to an individual dog (taking into account their lifestyle, breed, etc) is just as important.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Dog_Shrink said:


> My curiosity (and this is more for Mr. V) is if you can do a tubal on a human woman to render her infertle why can't they do something similar with female dogs in order for them to keep the organs and gain the benefit from the hormones they produce? The benefit from spay as far as mammary tumors and the like the numbers imo are nominal at best. 5% chance of decreasing tumor development versus possibly another 5 or 6 good years with your dog? That's a no brainer tome. I'd opt for the tubal insted of the full spay.


This is just one of those weird topics. Yes, tubal ligations are done in dogs and cats (more so in Europe). I've never heard of just a tubal type blockage in any animal. I have no fancy numbers or research to show this to you, but, I've read quite a few reports from vets online that had to go back in and do an entire ovariohysterectomy because of complications with the tubal ligation. I believe the most common cause was what's referred to as "stump pyometra." This can occur in regular spays too. 

So, in short, I don't really know why it's not done more. Perhaps the fact that women are not really equipped with long, uterine horns prevents them from developing these complications? That's my only guess.

@Pai

You forgot to add this little statistic from your webpage. "Five out of ten dogs in shelters and seven out of ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them. " What % of these killed animals are the end result of unwanted pregnancy? I dont know. But I'm willing to bet it's enough for me to maintain my position. I don't think it's a silver bullet, at all. But I think it helps the situation a lot.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> @Pai
> 
> You forgot to add this little statistic from your webpage. "Five out of ten dogs in shelters and seven out of ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them."


I linked more than just one webpage; they're all worth reading imo. But one fact is this: when The Ad Council and Maddie's Fund did a survey into why more people don't adopt, they found it's because most people see shelter pets as somehow 'special needs' or 'damaged' in some way. When you have the number of pet-owning households increasing, the number of animals in shelters DECREASING at the same time, while the national adoption rate stays constant at around 50%, you don't have a problem with 'not enough homes'. You have a problem with 'not enough DEMAND'. Is that a problem? Yes. But it has little or nothing to do with the question of "Is early S/N (or S/N period) always beneficial to an individual dog?"

Since 75% of cats and dogs are ALREADY ALTERED (voluntarily) I really don't see how that extra 25% is going to make a huge difference, nevermind the fact that a 100% sterilization rate = _no more pets_ so it's patently unrealistic to expect it. And I'd say that the vast majority of homeless pets are the result of _irresponsible ownership in general_. Irresponsible ownership is much more than just letting a dog keep it's reproductive organs, and to assume that just because a dog has them left intact that it's going to result in offspring is pretty much unrealistic, unless you assume the only people who keep intact dogs are irresponsible, which is patently untrue. 



> I don't think it's a silver bullet, at all. But I think it helps the situation a lot.


When we're already a near-saturation level for altered (owned) cats and dogs, and when it's clear that the majority of the shelter population is the result of a _minority_ of pet owners, I think it's pretty safe to assume that concientious owners can be allowed take the time to weigh any individual health considerations of spaying their dog without getting accused of being 'part of the problem' if they haven't pulled those organs out by 6 months. Nobody here is saying 'Spaying and neutering doesn't help prevent unwanted litters'. _Of course_ it does. But so does _proper management of an intact animal_.

It's just irritating how 'shelter populations' are always brought up when people try to talk about alternative S/N strategies for _individual dogs._ As if to insinuate that _every_ dog that's left intact past 6 months is going to be having random litters all over the place that will end up being dumped on Animal Control. The topic of whether to spay a dog or not isn't some simplistic black and white issue where S/N is ALWAYS right, and leaving a dog intact is ALWAYS wrong. As owners, it's our _responsibility_ to understand the implications of ANY medical procedure we submit our animals to, both the pros AND the cons. And then we have to make a decision that we feel is in our dog's best interest, whatever that happens to be.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Interesting but I think it is far too early to tell. That said, I have had several females over the past 32 years that lived to 13 and even 14 years old. They were all Rotties and ALL spayed.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

I've presented my opinion and you've presented yours. Agree to disagree? To each his own?


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

To Pai, there HAVE been studies done to show the effects of pediatric spay/neuter and the effects it has developmentally both physically and mentally. The info is hard to find but it's out there. I usually google complications of pediatric neuter. 

Just in my own experience working with dogs for 17 years I have noticed a BIG difference in dogs that are neutered at the recommended age of 6 months versus pediatric neuter versus later in life neuter... The pediatric neuter and 6 months old neuters generally retain that "eternal puppy" status. They enver really grow up mentally and always remain frozen in time at that temperament of a 6 month old dog. I don't generally see too much physical issue but you will see then a bit longer in the leg and narrower in the body. Pediatric neuter I see HUGE differences both physically and psychologically. I usually recommend to my clients that if they have a male dog to wait until the testies drop and then wait at least a month... if it's a female I tell them (if they can't handle going thru a heat cycle) to spay as soon as their vulva starts to swell, let it go about a week before you see spotting, then spay so that the dog and bitch can benefit from the hormone surge that comes at that time. It tells the dog "time to grow up and be a productive member of my pack" and it also tells them time to stop growing. It's not that dogs get fat and lazy when they're spayed/neutered, the problem is that they outgrow their skeletal potential (with pediatric and juvenile neuter/spay) and are taxing joints and bone which causes pain and thereby resulting in a dog that doesn't want to be active because it can hurt. 

Mr. V the stump pyometra makes a lot of sense with the tubal. That was kinda my concern is that when you leave body parts in the body that are cut off from doing the job they are suppose to naturally perform eventually it is going to cause problems esp. with a primitive animal like a dog. We humans seem to be able to adapt a lot better to changes in our bodies than most lesser creatures. 

I wish that more people would make an educated decision before getting their dogs fixed insted of just taking their vet's word on it (since the vet only looks at the medical aspect of it and not the behavioral ramifications), but then again if they did I'd likely be out of business. Educating yourself is always key when deciding what's best for your pet but look at more than just the physical benefit/detriment. Mental development is also at stake here.


----------

