# What are you thoughts on spay/neuter?



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Are you 100% for, against, in the middle? Does it depend on the situation for you? 

Another thread got me thinking about this a lot. On another forum I'm a member of, many members (who are breeders, average owners, AND showers) are completely against neutering (I'm using this as the general term) or against it in most cases. I recently realized that here many people are for it and there are a lot of -what I feel- myths associated with neutering and open opinions with nothing to back it up. 

So I was wondering. Do you put your dog's health first (IMO) and keep them intact? Do you neuter to prevent accidents? Do you neuter because you think it's safer? To try to stop behavior issues? Would you neuter your dog because of something that COULD happen just to make sure it doesn't, or would you take the risk to keep your dog safer? Do you neuter, but AFTER it's safe for your breed? Do you only neuter dogs that can't be shown otherwise, taking to special parks/daycares, or because you're adopting a new pet and have to? 

Just trying to find out why everyone does or does not neuter their dogs. I don't want this to turn into bashing or flaming, just an open debate/discussion. 

I personally feel that it is healthier for dogs to remain intact. Yes, there are things beyond our control that can happen and it's possible for dogs to mate. I feel personally that my dog that I am attached to is more important that what _could_ or _may_ happen. 

That said, I will be neutering my current dog so that I can show him. I wish it didn't have to be that way, but it does. No, I don't have to show him, but I want to and I know he would like it. I am also very concerned about him being stolen for breeding with such obvious manhood. Many day cares that I may need to take him to will not accept intact animals. I will be neutering him at a safe age.


----------



## Deron_dog (Feb 21, 2009)

Wally is a year old, and unnuetered I wanted to get him done at 6 months but stuff happened and now he's a 13 months old. And I don't know when he will be getting neutered. Wally is a Mix Breed mutt dog, we know Mom was a Lab but no clue who or what dad was. As for Ianto he'll be a year in January, and now that's he's 100% mine and I have no plans to show him and or breed him. He'll be getting snipped, not because I can't keep him from getting out, its because I live on a hill above my mom and sister and if one of them walked in and wasn't paying attention and I wasn't right there Ianto would be gone.


----------



## Morrwyn (Aug 13, 2009)

Puck is about a year and a half now and isn't neutered. We haven't had any issues with him still being intact and are perfectly capable of watching him to make sure no unwanted litters happen. If I had a female on the other hand I would probably have her spayed, simply because of the risks, pyometra and the fact that it would be other dogs trying to 'break in' rather than her trying to escape.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

It depends on the situation. If the dog is simply a household pet I see no reason for it not to be fixed. If it is a working dog or a show prospect then obviously I don't have a problem with them not being fixed. I think all cats unless they belong to a licensed breeder should be fixed.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I'm all for it. I understand that obviously breeders aren't going to do it, but personally I cannot fathom why anyone would want an intact animal living in their house. There's not just the risk of someone getting pregnant accidentally (it could happen to the best of us, dogs sometimes get out, and then they either have puppies or end up being desexed anyway), but also dealing with a dog in heat, which lasts a whole month (!) where the dog is more prone to try to get out than normal. There's not just bleeding and confinement for a month, but also the moodiness and then you have false pregnancies and all that stuff.

For male dogs they get all weird and difficult if there is a female dog in heat somewhere in the whole general area where they live, plus you have behavioural problems and general hormonalness.

Both my dogs were desexed young, my adult was done at about 4 months (before I got her) and my puppy was done at 3 months. All 6 of our cats are also desexed, and they are all confined to the yard, so they wouldn't get pregnant anyway. I just can't understand why anyone would want to deal with all the *stuff* that comes with an intact animal.

And as far as I'm concerned, the health risks of desexing are minimal, and worth the risk.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I have read all the studies pertaining to the subject, and, in my interpretation of the results, and in my opinion, the health issues that could (correlation does not equal causation, etc.) be linked to neutering are not statistically worth worrying about. The only one I would give any credence to is the effect it has on the development of joints/closing of growth plates in large dogs. But this usually doesn't cause a problem for an average pet dog. A working/sports dog with greater stresses on the joints will have different considerations.

Now, I personally will always wait until my male dogs are at least a year old (if I have a choice in the matter), no matter how small/large, because the male dogs I've known who were neutered early seem a bit "girly". JMO, of course, I don't mean to insult all the fine masculine early-neutered doggies out there  . I do like my boys to be boys. But if I get him from a shelter that neuters before adoption (as all shelters should) or requires him to be neutered before a year old, I'm not going to sweat it.

For females, oh, I might allow my next female to have one heat, just to make sure everything is fully developed. If having a dog in heat isn't possible at the time, I'll have her spayed at 6 months and not worry about it. I would never consider leaving a female intact past her first heat---a 25% risk of pyo is too high for me to be comfortable with.

Note: this only applies to dogs. Cats should be speutered as young as possible!! No exceptions, except for responsible breeding programs.

What if something did happen and my intact dog did get out? So he knocks up a bitch across town and I never know about it. That's a bunch of puppies right there who, statistically speaking, probably won't live to be a year old, and it would be MY fault they died. I couldn't live with that. Or if my female dog got pregnant and I didn't know about it in time for an early-pregnancy spay/abort (I'm not comfortable, medically or morally, with a late-pregnancy spay/abort), and she had, oh, 8 puppies, probably mixed-breed, what would I do with them? Sure, baby puppies place easily, but then they're dumped at the shelter when they're 8 months old, and again, those 8 deaths would be MY fault entirely. Really, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if that happened. Maybe there's a very low chance of my dog getting out and reproducing. But there's still a chance, and it's not one I'm willing to take.

What it really boils down to is that spay/neuter saves lives. Most people greatly overestimate their level of responsibility, and if they get cocky and think they can keep an intact dog, that's when accidents happen. The entire reason we don't have 30 million animals killed in shelters every year like they were in the 70s is because of the prevalence of spay/neuter.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I pulled this quote of DJEtzel's from the other thread because it is what I advocate.



> Couldn't you preach responsible ownership and be a good example of that? Yes, neutering is best if you can't be responsible for your intact animal, but why not advocate keeping animals healthy intact and keeping an eye on them?


I have read up on the risks/benefits thoroughly and delved into the studies. I see no compelling reason for neutering as long as an owner is responsible. I do believe stopping unwanted pregnancies in dogs does save lives, and that can be done with and without spay/neuter - allowing the choice. Living through the 60s and 70s, I would say the reason there were so many 'accidents' is because very few cared - they were allowed to happen. The spay/neuter message along with a change in attitude about what pets mean in our lives, has been important in allowing people who previously wouldn't take the time to be responsible to have an easy way to manage their animals. In that way it has served a great benefit and I hope that all those who won't manage a intact animal with care continue to spay/neuter.

The first three dogs I took in were intact their full lives - one male that lived to 14, and two females (both tiny housedogs) that I had through the last 5 years of their lives. There were no management issues that were the least bit difficult to handle. I knew all three of those dogs from puppyhood forward (they came in from family or friends) and none produced pups throughout their life, before or after they became ours. That is because their original owners, and then we, did not want to deal with pregnancies or pups. These dogs were all born in the early/mid 70s when spay/neuter was not the norm.

I currently pupsit a 5 year old intact male (another small housedog) that is easily managed intact - no marking, no aggression towards other males, no desire to escape the fence (he doesn't desire to leave my side and is always in the same room), no humping and a great personality just the way he is. 

For me, I think it does depend on the situation and the owner's life and ownership style plays into that.

On this topic, I would like to add that I was just earlier today looking at this paragraph on spay risks, and it left me with some questions.

From - http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/3-23-08DiscoveriesArticle.pdf - page 3

_"Mammary neoplasia, or breast cancer, is a very common disorder of female dogs, with a reported incidence of 3.4%; this is most common tumor type in female dogs. Of female dogs with mammary tumors, 50.9% have malignant tumors. Risk factors for mammary neoplasia in female dogs include age, breed (Table 1), and sexually intact status. Multiple studies have documented that spaying bitches when young greatly decreases their risk of developing mammary neoplasia when aged. *Compared with bitches left intact,* those spayed before puberty have a 0.5% risk, those spayed after one estrous cycle have an 8.0% risk, and dogs spayed after two estrous cycles have a 26.0% risk of developing mammary neoplasia later in life. Overall, unspayed bitches have a seven times greater risk of developing mammary neoplasia than do those that are spayed. While the benefit of spaying decreases with each estrous cycle, some benefit has been demonstrated in bitches even up to 9 years of age. The exact cause-and-effect relationship between intact status and development of mammary neoplasia in female dogs has not been identified. The genetic and hormonal causes of breast cancer identified in women have not been consistently identified in female dogs despite extensive research."_​
I read a comment from Laura Sanborn long ago that said that one of the important phrases of this paragraph is often left out of quotes, and it changes the full interpretation of the paragraph. I've bolded the phrase she was referring to, and changed the text to red.

I'm still trying to decipher what this all means but I believe Laura was correct in that the risk for a female after two estrous cycles is not 26%, as is commonly quoted, but is 26% of that *compared with bitches left intact* their full life - so 26% of 3.4% - for a risk of 0.884%. 

I hope someone else can chime in on these numbers. I'm seriously perplexed by the wording in that paragraph.

SOB


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

I don't have an issue with responsible people keeping their pets intact if they want.

For _myself_ and my_ own_ pets, I will spay and neuter. Working in vet offices for years, I see far too many cases of pyo (even on younger dogs), mammary tumors, testicular tumors and perianal hernias for me to have any desire to keep my pets intact. Does leaving my dog intact mean that they'll definitely get those things? Of course not. But, since I have no desire to breed or show, there's no reason for me to keep them intact and take a risk. I do not spay/neuter my pets extremely young (with the exception of our dog who had a retained testicle and whose being neutered at around 6 months was part of the adoption agreement) and will let them grow, but eventually I will spay and neuter them. The age I do so is on a case by case basis.

In my years with spayed and neutered dogs, I've never had one look weird, gangly or immature, and the only dog with joint problems had those issues long, long before he was neutered. None have had bone cancers, etc. 

Now, I do not think that neutering is a magic switch, although I think in SOME dogs it can help them focus a bit. 

I could easily keep an intact male from getting out (my dogs do not wander, even without their bits) and I would have no concerns of a female getting pregnant. I am just more comfortable with my own dogs being spayed/neutered.

Just my own thoughts for my own dogs, and I don't shove those views at others. 

and for what it's worth, I'd happily give up my own uterus as well, lol.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I don't think I will ever neuter a dog again. For the forseeable future, all my dogs will be sport dogs, and if the link to ACL/CCL tears is even tenuous, it's not something I will risk. A mature, retired dog maybe, but unless his career was cut short I don't know that I would bother. If I were placing him in a pet home after a short career, he would leave me neutered. 

I have no desire to breed at ALL, and it's my understanding that the current knowledge is that spaying before/after the first heat is slightly more beneficial to the dog. I'm not as up to date on this information, though. I'd probably still spay, heats are not something I'm eager to deal with.

In short, speuter unless you have a reason not to - breeding or the unusual physical stress of sports.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

100% Agree with SOB's post, and the quote from Danielle's post. 

Trent is a pet/companion only. Won't be bred, and showing and sport is always a possibility, but never a priority. He'll be left intact. Why? I'm not an advocate for surgical alterations for the convenience of the owner. 

Sure, it's better to be safe than sorry, but I'm confident enough in my responsibility and my ability to control and watch over my own dog. For me, there are not enough pros to neutering to outweigh the cons, but only strictly for a dog that I own. I don't push keeping intact dogs on anyone, just as I hope they will not pushing spaying/neutering on me. 

Yes, Trent does have issues with larger, intact males. No, he does not go to the dog park. Dog parks are not a necessity, nor a place I enjoy to be anymore, either. I prefer spending one on one time with him, or arranging play sessions with dogs I know he gets along with. He does have a highly assertive temperament and does enjoy pushing the boundaries. That came with maturity, and I do suspect that he would have had a less "intensive" personality had he been neutered prematurely. But German Shepherds are commonly an assertive, pushy breed, and I honestly do not mind. It is nothing I cannot control, and I would not neuter him just to make my own life easier. 

Of course, if someone was informed of the risks and benefits of neutering/spaying and considered the situation carefully (as DJEtzel/Danielle has), and still decided neutering is the best option, I think that is fine. Likewise, if someone was not confident in their own abilities to keep their dogs appropriately confined, then I would not encourage they keep their dogs intact...



grab said:


> For _myself_ and my_ own_ pets, I will spay and neuter.


^ This, too. What I am saying regarding my stance on spaying/neutering is for a dog that I own, not what I believe everyone else should think.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> where the dog is more prone to try to get out than normal.


not necessarily. all dogs are not the same dogs...and the same way PMS affects different women differently as well as the same as a hornball male on the one hand and a more communicative and respectful male..different dogs respond differently to sex hormones. 



> There's not just bleeding and confinement for a month, but also the moodiness and then you have false pregnancies and all that stuff.


the intact bitches ive had have dropped maybe a quarter's diameter of stain every little while during heat. Little boy underwear/boxers take care of it. 

Ive also not experienced moodiness. 


> For male dogs they get all weird and difficult if there is a female dog in heat somewhere in the whole general area where they live, plus you have behavioural problems and general hormonalness.


I only have girl dogs but i can tell you this...only ever had ONE intact male come sniffing around. the majority of the males that have tried something have been neutered. Ive even known a neutered male to actually mate with a bitch in heat..full tie. 



> Both my dogs were desexed young, my adult was done at about 4 months (before I got her) and my puppy was done at 3 months. All 6 of our cats are also desexed, and they are all confined to the yard, so they wouldn't get pregnant anyway. I just can't understand why anyone would want to deal with all the *stuff* that comes with an intact animal.


because all that "stuff" isnt really a big deal. Ive NEVER had an unwanted pregnancy. never will.



> And as far as I'm concerned, the health risks of desexing are minimal, and worth the risk.


have you ever dealt with intact animals or did someone just tell you that? Im not bashing you..im seriously curious.


that said, as per the op..sometimes i do, sometimes i dont. but if i do...i do it older. as in fully adult.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> In short, speuter unless you have a reason not to - breeding or the unusual physical stress of sports.



Does this mean neutered dogs should never play dog sports?

I ask because, perhaps one day, I want to expose Wally to agility or maybe some day canine dance or either for competition or just to do it for fun because we enjoy it. It's part of the reason why I do things to try to improve his balance, his leg/paw strength, etc. He's neutered (he "came" that way). 

As far as if I would spay/neuter - probably not, at least not for the "don't make more puppies" reasons. That said, I'm now worried about these health risks I've read in this thread because, like I said, Wally's been neutered and I have no idea when he got it done...

Should I now be worried (and worry my mom as well since he's hers) about the health risks since Wally is neutered?


----------



## TheBearCat (Jun 5, 2010)

I prefer to leave my dog(s) intact, neutering only when medically necessary, but it's not something I could recommend for the majority. In my experience, it's not extraordinarily hard to keep an intact male or female responsibly, but that doesn't stop many from making idiotic decisions. My neighborhood seems to have difficulty grasping the concept of containment, seeing not problem with letting their dogs roam for hours at a time. Obviously these people shouldn't really be owning dogs let alone intact dogs. 

I think my number one gripe about spay/neutering is the misinformation. I constantly hear it being toted as the fix-all for behavioral problems, prevention for said problems, or substitutes for training. If you wish to spay/neuter that's fine, at least make an informed decision and refrain from spreading such myths.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

I am strongly opposed to EARLY spay and neuter, especially those done during infancy, and feel should only be done at full sexual maturity, if at all. My feeling is that the risks associated with anesthesia during the surgical procedure are greater than any health risks that may present in an intact animal. Maddy wasn't spayed until she was just about 8 yrs. old, and only then because she was anesthesized for surgical repair of an injury. Beau, my rescue, was neutered at maturity because Maddy was intact, and THAT was a handful to deal with, and then some! lol Lucia is still intact, and may be bred eventually (agreement w/her breeder). With that said, the reality is that many, if not most, pet owners are simply not responsible enough to keep them intact and prevent unplanned breedings.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

I always felt a bit sorry for unneutered males and unspayed females who weren't allowed to mate. The urge is there, but never to be fulfilled, unless they manage to escape confinement. Just imagine yourself in such a situation.


----------



## Loki Love (May 23, 2010)

JuneBud said:


> I always felt a bit sorry for unneutered males and unspayed females who weren't allowed to mate. The urge is there, but never to be fulfilled, unless they manage to escape confinement. Just imagine yourself in such a situation.


Dogs aren't human so they don't have 'emotional' ties to sex. Basically meaning thatiIf their hormones don't affect the behavior, "frustration" doesn't exist. 

That said, Loki is intact (just turned 2) but he's a show dog. He's our first dog and we've had zero issues with the fact he's been left intact. I'm not sure I would recommend all pet owners take on that challenge because from what I've heard of others' experiences - intact males (especially) can be a handful and may not be for everyone.

The fact that he is intact has never stopped us from doing any of the 'regular' dog activities with other dogs. We go to dog parks, along with letting him off leash in designated areas - we have never had a problem.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

No emotions - possibly (not so sure of that - I believe dogs have emotions), but the drive is there. Sex is a basic drive in all lifeforms and certainly the dog is no exception. Every species on earth is genetically programmed to reproduce at all cost. If they weren't, their species would go extinct. You can be 100% certain that an intact animal has the drive. Many handle abstinence well without obvious problems due to domestication - others not so much. I still empathize with the intact animal not allowed to breed.


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

Rex isnt Neutered and he may or may not be neutered. 
my cats (i prefer male cats) get neutered when they reach 1 yr old or when they realize they are male. Now that i own a intact female kitten she isnt going to be spayed for a while she has no way to get pregnant and has no interest in being back outside(semi feral kitten).


----------



## LuvMyAngels (May 24, 2009)

2 years ago when my husband and I started discussing getting a puppy I insisted that any puppy coming into our home be spayed/neutered by 6 months. I have, thankfully, learned that many of the intact male issues are problems that need to be addressed via training vs surgery and that, even though the vet is pushing to have beast boy neutered, its *best for him* to wait until he grows up. 

Buster is now 21 1/2 months and still intact. I plan to have him neutered this summer (he's naturally much quieter in the summer), around 2 1/2 years old. We havent experienced a single "normal" intact male issue. He never marks indoors (even in places, such as the vets office, where other boys have done so), he's not aggressive (the most dangerous thing about him is you may trip over his snoring body) and any humping has been between him & other dogs (and stopped the moment we realize what he's up to). My main reason for neutering is that I have 4 children and there will always be a risk of him getting loose & following his nose to that female in heat across town. How I handle him will not change, Buster will still never be allowed to roam the neighborhood, mark inappropriately, act like a jerk or hump anything that moves.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

As a breeder I do not allow any of my puppies to be sexually altered before the age of 2. I recommend no altering until age 6 if possible. For the Rottweiler, there are studies showing that sexual altering carries with it a significantly higher statistical risk of certain cancers (Osteosarcoma and Hemangiosarcoma) as well as increased risk of Cruciate Rupture.

IMO if you are not responsible enough to keep a dog confined and prevent accidental breeding, you probably don't need to own a dog, in particular a Rottweiler.

I personally do not castrate male dogs who remain here with me. I spay no bitch before age 6, however all are spayed by age 7 to prevent pyometra later in life.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434.full


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Does this mean neutered dogs should never play dog sports?
> 
> I ask because, perhaps one day, I want to expose Wally to agility or maybe some day canine dance or either for competition or just to do it for fun because we enjoy it. It's part of the reason why I do things to try to improve his balance, his leg/paw strength, etc. He's neutered (he "came" that way).
> 
> ...


I say don't worry unless he gives you a reason to worry (coming up lame, pulled muscles, etc.) It wouldn't hurt to do a patella exam on him since he's a small guy before training strenuously/seriously, get him on a supplement for joint and soft tissue, and have someone do massage or PT on him (yes, very scary for a fearful dog... Marge would know lol)

But no. There are plenty of S/N dogs out there playing who are not getting hurt. Many of them still competing in to the double digit years. I don't think it should PREVENT you from trying something.

If I do S/N in the future, it will be after maturity (18+ months old).

I am 100% FOR all shelters and rescues spaying and neutering their animals just to help control the population a little bit.


----------



## Adustgerm (Jul 29, 2009)

I believe in spay and neuter if you aren't going to show your dog. It's the best way to avoid oops litters.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Bones said:


> It depends on the situation. If the dog is simply a household pet I see no reason for it not to be fixed. If it is a working dog or a show prospect then obviously I don't have a problem with them not being fixed. *I think all cats unless they belong to a licensed breeder should be fixed.*


I DO agree with this.



lil_fuzzy said:


> I'm all for it. I understand that obviously breeders aren't going to do it, but personally I cannot fathom why anyone would want an intact animal living in their house. There's not just the risk of someone getting pregnant accidentally (it could happen to the best of us, dogs sometimes get out, and then they either have puppies or end up being desexed anyway), but also dealing with a dog in heat, which lasts a whole month (!) where the dog is more prone to try to get out than normal. There's not just bleeding and confinement for a month, but also the moodiness and then you have false pregnancies and all that stuff.
> 
> For male dogs they get all weird and difficult if there is a female dog in heat somewhere in the whole general area where they live, plus you have behavioural problems and general hormonalness.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how you could read up on the true risks of desexing and still think it's worth your convenience, since from your description that is the only reason you do it. Convenience. 



KBLover said:


> Should I now be worried (and worry my mom as well since he's hers) about the health risks since Wally is neutered?


I agree with MissMutt. I wouldn't be worried unless he's showing something to be worried about, but I think Raegan was talking strongly about not doing it for sport dogs because it does add risk for certain issues, _especially_ done prematurely. As with everything else, not everyone (dog) in that situation is affected by it. 



TheBearCat said:


> I think my number one gripe about spay/neutering is the misinformation. I constantly hear it being toted as the fix-all for behavioral problems, prevention for said problems, or substitutes for training. If you wish to spay/neuter that's fine, at least make an informed decision and refrain from spreading such myths.


THIS is my whole issue, too. If you want to thoroughly RESEARCH the health risks associated with the act of neutering (the surgery-like Equinox said) AND the long-term affects on health and you can fully understand them and weigh the risks to keeping your dog intact vs. not and still choose to neuter, then at least you've made an informed decision. Neutering because it's convenient, to stop marking, to create a magically trained dog are all TERRIBLE reasons. 



MissMutt said:


> I am 100% FOR all shelters and rescues spaying and neutering their animals just to help control the population a little bit.


I do absolutely agree with this. 



Adustgerm said:


> I believe in spay and neuter if you aren't going to show your dog. It's the best way to avoid oops litters.


The fact that an oops litter could happen is worth more to you than your dog's health?

Your kid could get struck by a bus any day too, are you going to keep them chained in the basement as a result?


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

Eris13021 said:


> Rex isnt Neutered and he may or may not be neutered.
> my cats (i prefer male cats) get neutered when they reach 1 yr old or when they realize they are male. Now that i own a intact female kitten she isnt going to be spayed for a while she has no way to get pregnant and has no interest in being back outside(semi feral kitten).


Just a note on intact female cats..their cycles are a bit different than dogs, so early pyometras are more common. So do be alert in watching her for any signs of illness once she's had a heat cycle. My kitten as a teen developed it at 5 months, after her first cycle. We had to argue with the vet that, no, there was no way our indoor kitten was pregnant as she only lived with a neutered male. It ended up that her uterus was full of a pound of pus, gag. She healed up fine, though, after surgery.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Hey MOD, I just realized that I wrote YOU instead of YOUR in the title, I was going through pre-migraine sight loss when I typed this up and didn't notice, could one of you change it?


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

grab said:


> Just a note on intact female cats..their cycles are a bit different than dogs, so early pyometras are more common. So do be alert in watching her for any signs of illness once she's had a heat cycle. My kitten as a teen developed it at 5 months, after her first cycle. We had to argue with the vet that, no, there was no way our indoor kitten was pregnant as she only lived with a neutered male. It ended up that her uterus was full of a pound of pus, gag. She healed up fine, though, after surgery.


shes going to get done just not right away. i want to tame her a bit more before i try to shove her in a crate and tote her to the spca clinic. i think id get clawed very bad if i attempted that now. im getting her used to a crate now by leaving it open so she can go investigate that is if my sirus ever gets out of it


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

For me, personally, my dogs, and especially my cats, will always be spayed and neutered. I think that there are health risks if you do spay/neuter, just like I believe that there are health risks if you don't. I have personally fostered a dog with pyo and my own dog had a false pregnancy before I could have her fixed, and I have seen countless dogs at the shelter with mammary tumors, so I guess I have personally seen the health risks associated with NOT spaying/neutering, and have never encountered any issues with fixed dogs (not saying there aren't any). 

Because I volunteer with rescue, I see too many dogs and cats dumped every day. I'm not going to even leave the chance that my dogs will add to that. Plus, my dogs (and cats) are mutts, and as great as I think they are, they don't need to breed. IMO, even responsible people have accidents so despite my vigilance of my dogs, I'm not going to kid myself that it could never happen to me. 

It was inferred by DJEtzel above that if you spay/neuter you must not be worried about your animals health, and that is patently false. I constantly worry about my dogs health and their care, and for my dogs, I feel that I have made the right choice. As I said above, there are risks with keeping dogs intact, just as there are risks with spaying/neutering dogs. I made the best decision for MY dogs, and it has everything to do with their health and nothing to do with my convenience.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> The fact that an oops litter could happen is worth more to you than your dog's health?


See, that is insulting. Of course it's not worth more to me than my dogs' health. I just don't believe the purported health problems "caused" by spay/neuter are statistically greater than the chance that my dog may father/birth unwanted puppies that will end up dead. A tiny percentage higher chance that my dog might get a cancer that's incredibly rare (and even that link is iffy) vs the small chance that my dog may get loose and his or her progeny will be killed for being unwanted = I'll take my chances with the spay/neuter, thanks. It's not even close to the comparison of locking your kid in the basement to prevent him from being hit by a bus. And if you do want to use that analogy, I could use it just as well to describe the opinions expressed by the anti-speuter crowd.

It should also be pointed out that a lot of the anti-speuter people (that I've had contact with anyway) don't have a problem with killing unwanted dogs. Non-working dogs are useless anyway, right? Since I consider that to be morally indefensible, I'm not inclined to think any of their opinions are so great.

I also think it's funny when the anti-speuter types are all like "only irresponsible dopes need to speuter their dogs! Any idiot can keep their dog contained! Morons!" Until they or one of their friends has an accidental litter. Then it's excuse time--"even the most responsible people in the world can have an accident!" I suppose it's human nature but it cracks me up every time.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

For me, all my dogs will be s/n without exception. Personally I think the risks are extremely minimal to a healthy dog. I think I did some research on this a while back and found that there is less than a 1% chance of a healthy dog dieing under anesthesia for a routine s/n. Obviously if the dog is sick or pregnant, the risk goes up. Now, if we're talking pediatric s/n, then that's another animal. I don't blame anyone who is opposed to pediatric s/n and wants to wait until their dog is fully grown. 

Zero was neutered at 1.5 so he was fully grown before he was neutered. I got him from the HS, so he was done before I adopted him. Would I have kept him intact if I could? No, I probably wouldn't. To me it's not worth the risk and there's no real reason not to do it at that age. He's fully grown. The health risks are minimal. Why not? One was spayed before I adopted her and I have no idea how old she was. She 7-8 now and is perfectly healthy. Her stomach is always empty according to her, but that's it. Personally, I encourage everyone to have their animals neutered unless they have some prevailing reason why not (i.e. showing, possibly breeding, etc.....)


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

My breed is in a world of hurt right now as a direct result of irresponsible owners of unaltered dogs. I am absolutely for neutering in almost all cases of your average American pet. I wish it didn't have to be this way, and I wish that we could all make sound healthful decisions for each dog individually, but the reality is that many people are just too irresponsible or ignorant to properly care for and contain a dog. Dog Forum members (in general) are not a good sample group for this issue, because we (in general) are not the ones filling up the shelters with unwanted litters. The people with their dog chained to the frame of a broken down Buick in their front lawn are the issue; I want every single one of those dogs to be neutered, regardless of risk or age, and most of them aren't.

I don't get a choice with my dogs because they're shelter dogs so they come spayed, and that's fine with me.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> It was inferred by DJEtzel above that if you spay/neuter you must not be worried about your animals health, and that is patently false. I constantly worry about my dogs health and their care, and for my dogs, I feel that I have made the right choice. As I said above, there are risks with keeping dogs intact, just as there are risks with spaying/neutering dogs. I made the best decision for MY dogs, and it has everything to do with their health and nothing to do with my convenience.


I didn't say that at all. I do not have anything against people that spay/neuter their animals that know what they're risking. I have spayed my own animal. 

I said that I have a problem with people who spay/neuter without doing the research, or putting animals that aren't even born yet above their own.



Willowy said:


> See, that is insulting. Of course it's not worth more to me than my dogs' health. I just don't believe the purported health problems "caused" by spay/neuter are statistically greater than the chance that my dog may father/birth unwanted puppies that will end up dead. A tiny percentage higher chance that my dog might get a cancer that's incredibly rare (and even that link is iffy) vs the small chance that my dog may get loose and his or her progeny will be killed for being unwanted = I'll take my chances with the spay/neuter, thanks. It's not even close to the comparison of locking your kid in the basement to prevent him from being hit by a bus. And if you do want to use that analogy, I could use it just as well to describe the opinions expressed by the anti-speuter crowd.
> 
> It should also be pointed out that a lot of the anti-speuter people (that I've had contact with anyway) don't have a problem with killing unwanted dogs. Non-working dogs are useless anyway, right? Since I consider that to be morally indefensible, I'm not inclined to think any of their opinions are so great.
> 
> I also think it's funny when the anti-speuter types are all like "only irresponsible dopes need to speuter their dogs! Any idiot can keep their dog contained! Morons!" Until they or one of their friends has an accidental litter. Then it's excuse time--"even the most responsible people in the world can have an accident!" I suppose it's human nature but it cracks me up every time.


I never said only irresponsible dopes need to speuter their dogs, and I didn't say anything insulting. If YOU don't believe the health risks are higher than the chance that your dog will get out and get pregnant or get a dog pregnant and you want to neuter based on that fact, I am fine with it, and that would be the responsible thing to do. I am against people not researching it and/or doing it for the wrong reasons. 



hulkamaniac said:


> For me, all my dogs will be s/n without exception. Personally I think the risks are extremely minimal to a healthy dog. I *think I did some research on this a while back and found that there is less than a 1% chance of a healthy dog dieing under anesthesia for a routine s/n.* Obviously if the dog is sick or pregnant, the risk goes up. Now, if we're talking pediatric s/n, then that's another animal. I don't blame anyone who is opposed to pediatric s/n and wants to wait until their dog is fully grown.
> 
> Zero was neutered at 1.5 so he was fully grown before he was neutered. I got him from the HS, so he was done before I adopted him. Would I have kept him intact if I could? No, I probably wouldn't. To me it's not worth the risk and there's no real reason not to do it at that age. He's fully grown. The health risks are minimal. Why not? One was spayed before I adopted her and I have no idea how old she was. She 7-8 now and is perfectly healthy. Her stomach is always empty according to her, but that's it. Personally, I encourage everyone to have their animals neutered unless they have some prevailing reason why not (i.e. showing, possibly breeding, etc.....)


I recently read this statistic was up to 12%. My browser froze and shut down and I lost it. 

Another thing that gets me is that so many people shove spaying/neutering or NOT down everyone's throats and so much information about the risks and benefits gets misconstrued along the way. 

Many users here have said that they advise all dogs be s/ned if they aren't showing or breeding. That is just dumb. Why not direct owners to the research and information on the risks and let them make their own decision for their pet's health?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I have read all the studies pertaining to the subject, and, in my interpretation of the results, and in my opinion, the health issues that could (correlation does not equal causation, etc.) be linked to neutering are not statistically worth worrying about.


This is my opinion as well. 

I also am quite certain that the vast majority of John and Jane Q. Public cannot responsibly manage intact dogs of either gender.

But I also think there is no black and white, right or wrong answer for an individual person and their individual dog. Since I will likely to continue getting dogs from rescue groups, it's possible I won't ever personally face this decision. If I did, I would probably wait until 1-2 years old to spay or neuter, myself, but I would do it.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

sassafras said:


> This is my opinion as well.
> 
> I also am quite certain that the vast majority of John and Jane Q. Public cannot responsibly manage intact dogs of either gender.
> 
> But I also think there is no black and white, right or wrong answer for an individual person and their individual dog. Since I will likely to continue getting dogs from rescue groups, it's possible I won't ever personally face this decision. If I did, I would probably wait until 1-2 years old to spay or neuter, myself, but I would do it.


Even this shows thought and a well-informed decision. Likely you'll be waiting to make sure the dog is mature first, right? So you've done research and decided that it would be best for the dog and did take the time to weight risks/benefits. That's what I want to see amongst pet owners now, not a disregard for responsibility.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

Bones said:


> It depends on the situation. If the dog is simply a household pet I see no reason for it not to be fixed. If it is a working dog or a show prospect then obviously I don't have a problem with them not being fixed. I think all cats unless they belong to a licensed breeder should be fixed.


I agree with this. All my household pets will be fixed.



> Quote Originally Posted by Willowy
> I have read all the studies pertaining to the subject, and, in my interpretation of the results, and in my opinion, the health issues that could (correlation does not equal causation, etc.) be linked to neutering are not statistically worth worrying about.


And I totally agree with this, too. I think, in general, pet owners should s/n because most average pet owners don't care or research things like we on this forum do. We are a VERY small population in the dog/pet ownership category so in general, I will recommend s/n to everyone.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> I didn't say that at all. I do not have anything against people that spay/neuter their animals that know what they're risking. I have spayed my own animal.
> 
> I said that I have a problem with people who spay/neuter without doing the research, or putting animals that aren't even born yet above their own.


And what are the risks? They're extremely minimal. You seem to imply that the choice to neuter involves exposing your dog to extreme risks. Then you argue that if you're not responsible that that extreme risk may be acceptable to you. It's not as simple as that. The risk is extremely minimal. You're slightly increasing the chances of a disease that's extremely rare to begin with. It's like saying that if you eat XYZ food, you increase the chances of your pinky randomly falling off by .0005%. Well, your chances of your pinky falling off are extremely unlikely to begin with so increasing your risk means nothing. 

The fact is there is very, very little additional health risks to neutering a dog. It's the same as the very, very little health risk you get from not neutering a dog. The risk is minimal either way. The benefits of neutering being the prevention of unwanted animals is gigantic though.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> And what are the risks? They're extremely minimal. You seem to imply that the choice to neuter involves exposing your dog to extreme risks. Then you argue that if you're not responsible that that extreme risk may be acceptable to you. It's not as simple as that. The risk is extremely minimal. You're slightly increasing the chances of a disease that's extremely rare to begin with. It's like saying that if you eat XYZ food, you increase the chances of your pinky randomly falling off by .0005%. Well, your chances of your pinky falling off are extremely unlikely to begin with so increasing your risk means nothing.
> 
> The fact is there is very, very little additional health risks to neutering a dog. It's the same as the very, very little health risk you get from not neutering a dog. The risk is minimal either way. The benefits of neutering being the prevention of unwanted animals is gigantic though.


Great post! Totally agree.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I tend to agree that for the average dog owner, spaying and neutering is the best thing. I think you run the large risk of having people who CAN'T responsibly keep an intact dog contained leave their dogs intact if you start having them read the spay/neuter literature. So then you have people who think they're responsible, but aren't. So for Joe Schmoe, if he asks my opinion, I'll tell him to spay or neuter his dog (and no, not at 12 weeks or anything ridiculous like that).

Maybe I just don't trust people enough to keep dogs and not breed them aimlessly... but I think only really informed, active, knowledgeable dog people should have intact dogs (which pretty much qualifies any one in this thread).


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

If my dogs hadn't come to me already neutered I probably wouldn't bother unless there was a medical reason to do so on that particular dog. I however know that I can properly contain an intact dog. Most of the public . . . probably should fix their dogs.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Lars is intact and will remain so. He is a performance dog and I've had long discussions with his breeder about using him back into her program. He has passed all of his health clearances and has an CHIC #. If he hadn't passed them, he would have been neutered. He has been extremely easy to keep...no marking inside, he's extremely tolerant of other dogs, and he's not a pig around females. He's been able to work and focus on the job at hand at shows where there are conformation classes too (and in season bitches present.) He has yet to give me a reason to neuter him and I don't expect that he will. 

I volunteered with a New England based Rottweiler rescue group for several years and my first rottie was a rescue from a local shelter. That being said, I do believe that John Q. Public should and need to keep their pets altered. Unless someone is planning to better their breed through thoughtful and careful breeding with multiple health clearances in place on both the dam and sire, both of which have been proven through work/conformation...they don't need to have an intact animal in their house. That's my opinion.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> For male dogs they get all weird and difficult if there is a female dog in heat somewhere in the whole general area where they live, plus you have behavioural problems and general hormonalness.


Really? All Strauss has ever done is whine. Same for Justin, and Ranger dog. None of them have ever gone nuts.

I'll never neuter again, unless health warrants it.

My contract states that males cannot be neutered before 24 months of age, and bitches before 18 months. I do think that for the health of bitches, a spay is better for them, but preferably not until after sexual maturity.


----------



## Conard10 (Sep 25, 2010)

Personally, we will always s/n our dogs. There is no reason for us to have an intact dog and not nearly enough evidence to show that s/n has health risks.

A few folks have commented (paraphrasing)..if you aren't responsible to keep a dog confined and prevent accidental breeding, you shouldn't own a dog.

Not sure I agree with this completely. We are VERY responsible pet owners, but not everyone else is. I worry more about bad dog owners (with intact dogs) allowing their dogs to run loose.

IMO, our personal lifestyle requires that our dogs be s/n. For example, our neighborhood does not all physical fences so everyone (including us) has an invisible fence. While we are very responsible and always go outside with our dog, other's are NOT. There are many dogs that run free in the neighborhood after running through their fence. 

We do a lot of off-leash hiking with our dog. Although we go to remote trails and rarely see someone, there is a possibility of coming into contact with loose intact dogs. We also utilize doggie day care and visit a local dog park....neither of these options would be available if we did not s/n.

The vast majority of people who own dogs as pets should s/n. IMO, only a select few people have legitimate reasons to keep their dogs intact and are responsible enough to do so.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I will also add that I think the vast majority of people who think they're responsible probably are not. I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect the vast majority of people to keep an eyeball or two on their dogs 24/7/365 for 10-15 years straight. Poop happens. 

My dogs broke down a rail in my fence that looked plenty sturdy to me even after the fact. What do you do if the dog bolts one time while you're coming in with groceries? (I know. Responsible owners all have dogs who would never, ever, ever, ever bolt out the door no matter what.) What if a kid or a guest leaves the door or the gate open? What if you're sick that day and you know you have a fenced yard so you let the dogs out in the fenced yard just once? What you don't realize is that board that looked perfectly fine really isn't. Or that a storm knocked a section of the fence down that you can't see. Or maybe you're gone and the dogs are confined in the house, but you get burglarized and the burglar leaves the door open? Or some punk kid opens the gate? You can't protect against every single thing and it's unreasonable to expect the vast majority of people to IMO.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> The risk is minimal either way. The benefits of neutering being the prevention of unwanted animals is gigantic though.


It is true that risks really are minimal - for most breeds - either way. However, the prevention of unwanted animals can happen without neuter - through responsible ownership. That idea keeps getting the go around - skipped over or dismissed, I believe, because some don't want to trust people to make decisions for themselves . . . or don't want to allow them their own assessment of which risks they believe are most worth considering, often wanting to label any decision not approved of as irresponsible.

I do find it very disturbing that the spay/neuter message is put out there, usually, without the proper information and with the assumption that people are too dumb to make correct decisions for their situation. I would disagree with this assertion but I can see why some think so. I just cannot justify a misinformation campaign no matter which way I look at it. I was quite offended when I found out it had been deliberately perpetrated by those groups claiming to be on the side of animals.

This draws from a philosophical chord for me. I'm older. I have a penchant for history and its lessons, and I know too well the consequences that happen when one sector of a society believes they can do better by keeping the rest ignorant and depriving them of information. It seems to be a common failing that I see more and more of in many situations, and I do put up my objections whenever I come across it.

SOB


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> It is true that risks really are minimal - for most breeds - either way. However, the prevention of unwanted animals can happen without neuter - through responsible ownership. That idea keeps getting the go around - skipped over or dismissed, I believe, because some don't want to trust people to make decisions for themselves . . . or don't want to allow them their own assessment of which risks they believe are most worth considering.


That's true, but responsible ownership takes tons and tons and tons of work. You have to not only contain your dogs, but you have to protect them from the neighbors loose dogs. Your fence may contain your dogs with no issues. Does it keep the neighbors dogs out though? That's a problem. You basically are stuck with taking your dogs out on leashes in your own backyard and/or hovering over them in your own backyard. You run into the same issue at dog parks. While you would never bring your bitch in heat to a dog park, some people will. I went to Petsmart once and ran into a very, very popular yellow lab. All the dogs there were extremely interested in this dog. When I commented about it to the dog's owner, he told me she was in heat. This guy brought a bitch in heat to a place where he knew there were other dogs wandering around who may be intact. What if that was an off-leash dog park? The issue is not you who is responsible, it's the other idiots who aren't. 



> I do find it very disturbing that the spay/neuter message is put out there, usually, without the proper information and with the assumption that people are too dumb to make correct decisions for their situation. I would disagree with this assertion but I know some here believe most people are too uncaring or dumb to decide for themselves. I just cannot justify a misinformation campaign no matter which way I look at it. I was quite offended when I found out it had been deliberately perpetrated by those groups claiming to be on the side of animals.


What misinformation is being put out? Can you give examples?



> This draws from a philosophical chord for me. I'm older. I have a penchant for history and its lessons, and I know too well the consequences that happen when one sector of a society believes they can do better by keeping the rest ignorant and depriving them of information. It seems to be a common failing that I see more and more of in many situations, and I do put up my objections whenever I come across it.
> 
> SOB


This is the Internet age. It's impossible to deprive people of information. What specific information is being suppressed?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I posted earlier that I have experience with intact animals. I do understand the difficulites.

However, in regards to a misinformation example, when I go to my vet with a young pup, and my vet (in a position of authority) tells me that she needs to be spayed by six months because it is better for her, then I have been deliberately deprived of proper information. That is an active misinformation campaign. It does not matter that I can look up different information. At the point where trustable information should be coming from - it is not.

When I google spay/neuter and come up with many, many, many sites telling me to spay-neuter, emphasizing the benefits without one mention of the risks - each and every one of those sites is embarking on a misinformation campaign.

In regards to this being the 'internet age' . . . well for many it is. For others it is not. 

Simply having the internet available in our lives does not excuse vets and others from not offering the correct information.

I know many that grew up and lived lives without the internet and many older people, and I'm talking people in their late 50s, use the internet simply as an email tool. I know numerous older people who have a ton of difficulty even with knowing how to google for information.

SOB


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> When I go to my vet with a young pup, and my vet (in a position of authority) tells me that she needs to be spayed by six months because it is better for her, then I have been deprived. That is an active misinformation campaign. It does not matter that I can look up different information. At the point where trustable information should be coming from - it is not.
> 
> SOb


If you're going to argue that pediatric s/n is bad, that's fine. I'll listen to that argument and there may be a lot to it. I don't see how you've been deprived of information though. If I walk into a Ford dealer and ask them what the most reliable car on the market is, I can guarantee you, they'll recommend a Ford model of some sort even though that may not factually be the case. The point is I don't think you get all the information from any one source. Expecting to get all the facts from one source nowadays is unreasonable.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

A vet is not a known retailer pedaling a product . . . or they shouldn't be. That is not professional and I believe is against their code of ethics. The comparison fails. The vet is supposed to be the source of the balanced information for your pet.

However, I did not say that someone should expect to get ALL the facts from one source. A smattering to get you started in the right direction, instead of complete misinformation, would be nice.

BTW, I was approached by two different vets offices at different points in my young girls life that were trying to pressure me into booking a date. I ASKED for information about risks/benefits and was only given information on benefits. I called them on it and it did not continue. That was just for me though. I'm sure lots of other clients booked that surgery.

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> A vet is not a known retailer pedaling a product . . . or they shouldn't be. That is not professional and I believe is against their code of ethics. The comparison fails. The vet is supposed to be the source of the best information for your pet.


A vet _is_, however, answering a question with their professional opinion.



> However, I did not say that someone should expect to get ALL the facts from one source. A smattering to get you started in the right direction, instead of complete misinformation, would be nice.


If someone asks when to spay or neuter a pet and the vet says, "I recommend X age" -- that is not complete misinformation. It's not a verbal contract, and it's not a royal decree. It is simply the vet's opinion, which they were asked for, and they very well may believe to be true. IME most people do go blindly along with the vet's recommendation, but also have no interest whatsoever in doing any further research of their own on the matter -- which is their perogative but also their responsibility ultimately.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

sassafras said:


> A vet _is_, however, answering a question with their professional opinion..


. . . an opinion that is supposed to be balanced . . . not skewed by a political motivation, as the vet is SUPPOSED to be acting in a professional capacity.



sassafras said:


> If someone asks when to spay or neuter a pet and the vet says, "I recommend X age" -- that is not complete misinformation. It's not a verbal contract, and it's not a royal decree. It is simply the vet's opinion, which they were asked for, and they very well may believe to be true. IME most people do go blindly along with the vet's recommendation, but also have no interest whatsoever in doing any further research of their own on the matter -- which is their perogative but also their responsibility ultimately.


That was not the conversation that was had at all. No-one asked about when to spay neuter - it was PUSHED, and it was PUSHED even after I mentioned that I was waiting for a bit because I believed there were both risks and benefits, and I'd like information on those. 

SOB


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> And what are the risks? They're extremely minimal. You seem to imply that the choice to neuter involves exposing your dog to extreme risks. Then you argue that if you're not responsible that that extreme risk may be acceptable to you. It's not as simple as that. The risk is extremely minimal. You're slightly increasing the chances of a disease that's extremely rare to begin with. It's like saying that if you eat XYZ food, you increase the chances of your pinky randomly falling off by .0005%. Well, your chances of your pinky falling off are extremely unlikely to begin with so increasing your risk means nothing.
> 
> The fact is there is very, very little additional health risks to neutering a dog. It's the same as the very, very little health risk you get from not neutering a dog. The risk is minimal either way. The benefits of neutering being the prevention of unwanted animals is gigantic though.


And the fact that almost all of the risks are heightened by the surgery does not bother you? They may be minimal, but you're deliberately putting your dog in a position to have an increased chance at aquireing these diseases? For what goal? Not all of the chances of your dogs aquiring illness are decimals of a percentage. Many are up to 10%. And many are greatly effected exponentially the younger you neuter. And I'm not just talking prematurely. 

It is not hard to keep your dog from mating with another dog. Yes, stupid pet owners that chain their dogs up out back wouldn't be able to stop it, but they shouldn't be owning dogs, either. There's no doubt that most of the people here could succesfully keep an intact dog with no issues. They just don't want to for some reason. 

I find it strange that so many working owners (whether they're breeding or not) feel the risks outweigh the pros and want to keep dogs intact, while so many "average" pet owners feel the other way around. I wish this was explainable.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> A vet is not a known retailer pedaling a product . . . or they shouldn't be. That is not professional and I believe is against their code of ethics. The comparison fails. The vet is supposed to be the source of the balanced information for your pet.


I don't know about that. Human doctors routinely recommend specific meds that are peddled to them by medical sales peoplee. If it's legal for human doctors I don't know why it would be unethical for animal docs. The vets I've had to deal with routinely sell certain brands of dog food. I'd bet money they're getting kick backs for it.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Hulk, we are not talking about a packaged product - we are talking about invasive surgery. They should NOT be pedaling invasive surgery as IF it is a product. Two completely different things here.

If you are not aware there are charges laid on doctors who are found to be pushing meds, BTW.

You asked for an example of a source for misinformation - you don't want to accept this one, and that is fine. However, it is an obvious one to me. I found it infuriating and left two vets because of this behaviour. I am amazed that others want to accept this as normal . . . tells me something about the direction our society is going in.

SOB


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> And the fact that almost all of the risks are heightened by the surgery does not bother you? They may be minimal, but you're deliberately putting your dog in a position to have an increased chance at aquireing these diseases? For what goal? Not all of the chances of your dogs aquiring illness are decimals of a percentage. Many are up to 10%. And many are greatly effected exponentially the younger you neuter. And I'm not just talking prematurely.
> 
> It is not hard to keep your dog from mating with another dog. Yes, stupid pet owners that chain their dogs up out back wouldn't be able to stop it, but they shouldn't be owning dogs, either. There's no doubt that most of the people here could succesfully keep an intact dog with no issues. They just don't want to for some reason.
> 
> I find it strange that so many working owners (whether they're breeding or not) feel the risks outweigh the pros and want to keep dogs intact, while so many "average" pet owners feel the other way around. I wish this was explainable.


One could argue that those keeping their dog intact are increasing the risk that their dogs will contact cancers of the reproductive organs, or pyometra, or an increased risk of mammary tumors. Risks are risks, and frankly, in this case, there are minimal risks on both sides.

There are too many irresponsible people who own dogs; if that wasn't the case, animal shelters around the country wouldn't be bursting at the seams. Whether or not these irresponsible people should own pets is irrelevant. They are going to own them anyway. Therefore, I think that for most people, spaying/neutering is a good thing.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> That was not the conversation that was had at all. No-one asked about when to spay neuter - it was PUSHED, and it was PUSHED even after I mentioned that I was waiting for a bit because I believed there were both risks and benefits, and I'd like information on those.
> 
> SOB


Ah, I apologize -- I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the general conversation between pet owners and veterinarians, not your personal experience. In that case I agree that your experience was pretty poor, and unacceptable IMO.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here's my thoughts... I think a lot of the debates on this are ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous to say spaying and neutering specifically risks a dog's health. I've done quite a bit of research and there's risks and benefits to both and MUCH of the research is contradicting. The risks are pretty minimal either way. As far as I'm concerned, it's not really proved either way. I DON'T like this thought process I've been hearing lately that if you spay or neuter you're subsequently lazy or choosing poorly for your pet. I am hearing this a TON on dog forums and it annoys me to be bluntly honest. 

There ARE vast benefits from spaying and neutering as far as population control goes. To ignore this is particularly irksome to me. The average owner in my opinion SHOULD spay and neuter their dogs. Most average owners I know are not capable of keeping their dogs from getting pregnant. Heck, things happen to people trying to be responsible. I hear people who have never dealt with having multiple intact dogs saying how it will be easy. It's not always easy (coming from experience). Silent heats and all that... things that can't really be foreseen or avoided. A lot of people don't know what to look for to see if a bitch is in season or if she's at the right stage to breed. 

Anyways, simple fact is do what works for you. Weigh the risk and benefit for each dog and each circumstance. It is different depending on the individual dog and owner and the plans the owner has for the dog. Ie- cryptos have a lot more issues that could come from being left intact. I will never blanket statement the choice to spay or neuter. Some of my dogs are neutered and some are not and that's the way it has been for me forever and will continue to be. Currently we only have one intact dog but I have had dogs that remained intact their whole lives. Most the time we've had multiple intact dogs (beau was only neutered this summer).


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Here's my thoughts... I think a lot of the debates on this are ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous to say spaying and neutering specifically risks a dog's health. I've done quite a bit of research and there's risks and benefits to both and MUCH of the research is contradicting. The risks are pretty minimal either way. As far as I'm concerned, it's not really proved either way. I DON'T like this thought process I've been hearing lately that if you spay or neuter you're subsequently lazy or choosing poorly for your pet. I am hearing this a TON on dog forums and it annoys me to be bluntly honest.
> 
> There ARE vast benefits from spaying and neutering as far as population control goes. To ignore this is particularly irksome to me. The average owner in my opinion SHOULD spay and neuter their dogs. Most average owners I know are not capable of keeping their dogs from getting pregnant. Heck, things happen to people trying to be responsible. I hear people who have never dealt with having multiple intact dogs saying how it will be easy. It's not always easy (coming from experience). Silent heats and all that... things that can't really be foreseen or avoided. A lot of people don't know what to look for to see if a bitch is in season or if she's at the right stage to breed.
> 
> Anyways, simple fact is do what works for you. Weigh the risk and benefit for each dog and each circumstance. It is different depending on the individual dog and owner and the plans the owner has for the dog. Ie- cryptos have a lot more issues that could come from being left intact. I will never blanket statement the choice to spay or neuter. Some of my dogs are neutered and some are not and that's the way it has been for me forever and will continue to be. Currently we only have one intact dog but I have had dogs that remained intact their whole lives. Most the time we've had multiple intact dogs (beau was only neutered this summer).


Beautifully said!


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> . . . an opinion that is supposed to be balanced . . . not skewed by a political motivation, as the vet is SUPPOSED to be acting in a professional capacity.


Honestly, I find that to be an unreasonable expectation. My doctor is supposed to be acting in a professional capacity and isn't supposed to be skewed by political or other motivations. The fact is he's probably influenced by all those things. There's a reason why people look for second opinions on medical matters all the time. Different doctors can look at the exact same problem and come up with completely different professional recommendations. You pay a vet for their professional opinion. 



> That was not the conversation that was had at all. No-one asked about when to spay neuter - it was PUSHED, and it was PUSHED even after I mentioned that I was waiting for a bit because I believed there were both risks and benefits, and I'd like information on those.
> 
> SOB


Then perhaps your vet is out for the $$$ and not for the health of your dog. Some no doubt are.



DJEtzel said:


> And the fact that almost all of the risks are heightened by the surgery does not bother you? They may be minimal, but you're deliberately putting your dog in a position to have an increased chance at aquireing these diseases? For what goal? Not all of the chances of your dogs aquiring illness are decimals of a percentage. Many are up to 10%. And many are greatly effected exponentially the younger you neuter. And I'm not just talking prematurely.


The article I was referring to about anesthesia is here. The overall risks to all dogs was 0.17%. For healthy dogs it was 0.05% and for sick dogs it was 1.33%

A lot of the hype is people not assessing risks properly. People point to the fact that neutered dogs have a 27% - 38% increased risk of an adverse reaction to vaccinations. On the surface, this sounds like a significant increase. Then you see that even with the increase, the chance of an adverse reaction goes all the way up to 0.32%. I'm sorry, but a risk of less than half a percent is not enough to sway my opinion and I'm a bit surprised why it would change anyone's opinion at all.

Again, if you're going to make an argument that pediatric s/n is harmful, I can go along with that. I think you can make a good argument that way. I won't argue with you there. 



> It is not hard to keep your dog from mating with another dog. Yes, stupid pet owners that chain their dogs up out back wouldn't be able to stop it, but they shouldn't be owning dogs, either. There's no doubt that most of the people here could succesfully keep an intact dog with no issues. They just don't want to for some reason.


I guess I'm in the minority then. My dogs are often home alone. I can't monitor them 24/7/365. I can't monitor them when they're at the kennel while I'm on vacation. All it would take would be for the workers at the kennel to put another intact dog in the kennel next to mine. I could take my dog to the dog park, start flirting with the hot chick sitting next to me and all of a sudden, I'm distracted and not watching my dog. I can't keep an intact dog. I guess I'm not a responsible owner.



> I find it strange that so many working owners (whether they're breeding or not) feel the risks outweigh the pros and want to keep dogs intact, while so many "average" pet owners feel the other way around. I wish this was explainable.


There are a million reasons why someone would want to keep a working dog intact. There are no compelling reasons IMO why someone would want to keep a pet dog intact. If you've got a mutt, what is your reason to keep the mutt intact once he/she is full grown? To avoid that 0.32% chance?

If I walk down the street, there is a chance that a car will throw up a rock or another piece of debris and it will hit me in the head and severely injure me. The chance of that happening is probably close to that 0.32%. If I told you I was going to stay home because I thought the risk of being hit by debris was too high though you'd tell me I was crazy to worry about such a small risk.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> And the fact that almost all of the risks are heightened by the surgery does not bother you? They may be minimal, but you're deliberately putting your dog in a position to have an increased chance at aquireing these diseases? For what goal? Not all of the chances of your dogs aquiring illness are decimals of a percentage. Many are up to 10%. And many are greatly effected exponentially the younger you neuter. And I'm not just talking prematurely.
> 
> It is not hard to keep your dog from mating with another dog. Yes, stupid pet owners that chain their dogs up out back wouldn't be able to stop it, but they shouldn't be owning dogs, either. There's no doubt that most of the people here could succesfully keep an intact dog with no issues. They just don't want to for some reason.
> 
> I find it strange that so many working owners (whether they're breeding or not) feel the risks outweigh the pros and want to keep dogs intact, while so many "average" pet owners feel the other way around. I wish this was explainable.


I think you're argument here is a bit flawed. You keep vaguely referencing some type of malicious intent or malice by ignorance for dog owners who get their pets neutered and keep emphasizing it as an uneccisary risk. However, when considering neutering i consider both the societal and personal aspects- the research you have alluded to does not make me believe that the risk is enormously greater then the risks associated with not neutering- healthwise and societal. I'm glad so many people here are perfect- however being human is far from perfect and human beings are prone to mistakes. Stupid pet owners are a fact of life- ignorance and stupitidty is universal to the human condition. Unless you legislate that idiots are not allowed to own pets then you will be at the mercy of your own dilligence- and a small slip up like leaving the door open while bringing in the groceries could mean an additional unwanted litter. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't wait until their dog's have sexually matured- but I think in general, especially with mutts- that neutering is part of responsible ownership.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just for example... I have one friend that has intact show dogs and one is going through a false pregnancy that caused quite a scare. Another friend has a bitch puppy that may or may not have gone through a silent heat recently. I also know a litter out of a rescue dog that resulted from a completely silent heat that went undetected. Even if you know what you're looking for there is a risk. Most people don't know what they're looking for other than a 'period' lol. 

We've been lucky. One of our bitches had a couple false pregnancies but that has been the only problem. But false pregnancies are no fun to have to deal with either. 

Personally if I'm not breeding a girl, she's going to get spayed once she's done growing. Heats are messy, they get hormonal, accidents can happen, the risk of pyo concerns me, etc. It's a PITA to have to deal with. I will not say that decision isn't partially convenience but that is not the only reason I chose to spay Mia. The risk of an accident living in a house with multiple male dogs was just not worth it.

ETA: One thing I underestimated with bitches is how determined some of them can be to breed. Nikki was intact for about 6 years and she was hellish for her heat cycles. She was normally a very reasonable dog but she would attempt to go through hell and back to get to Trey, our intact male. The rule is 2 doors between at all times throughout the entire cycle here. Even so she was so hormonal and unbearable to live with. The others haven't been so bad as she was.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> Here's my thoughts... I think a lot of the debates on this are ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous to say spaying and neutering specifically risks a dog's health. I've done quite a bit of research and there's risks and benefits to both and MUCH of the research is contradicting. The risks are pretty minimal either way. As far as I'm concerned, it's not really proved either way. I DON'T like this thought process I've been hearing lately that if you spay or neuter you're subsequently lazy or choosing poorly for your pet. I am hearing this a TON on dog forums and it annoys me to be bluntly honest.


Agree 100%


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Also another thought on the behavioral side... 

Bernard is 2 1/2 and intact. Trey was intact for years and Pete and Shack were intact for their entire lives. Beau was intact up until 6 years old... Bernard, Trey, Pete, and Shack all have/had no marking or humping problems at all. Beau on the other hand started marking indoors when he was 3 or so. Nothing we could do short of a belly band would curb this. He also humped all the time and everything no matter how often he was corrected. We got him neutered due to other reasons but I have to say the marking inside and humping have stopped 100% since he's been neutered. He's much easier to live with without having to worry about keeping a belly band on him. 

I have always heard that being intact doesn't affect behavior but I really think it can affect behavior in the odd dog. Perhaps Beau is just a strange personality but I really feel that neutering has curbed some of his behavior. With the others though, as I said, it wasn't an issue.


----------



## MonicaBH (Jul 5, 2008)

I've always s/n my pets and, I always will. I don't think there's any reason to have a companion/pet dog left intact. 

Like others, I consider myself to be a very responsible pet owner; however, I cannot be with my pets 100% of the time. They have a petsitter when I go away, and I trust her. She also has a life and cannot be with them 100% of the time. I don't want to be responsible for an oops litter. I don't want my bitch to have to undergo an emergency, risky pyometra surgery. I don't want my dog to have prostate problems. I've seen many pets that have those problems, and I don't want for my pets or myself to have to go through it. 

It's a better choice for me, my pets and my family to s/n. That does not make me an irresponsible owner. It makes me an owner who has weighed the pros and cons of both sides and made a choice that best suits my family & lifestyle.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

ok so i read as much as I could ( my eyes are bit allergenic today) And what I see is a lot of points that there are risks in getting the dog spayed ( ill just stick with spay since I have a girl ) But I don't see ( and again I couldn't read every post) any points about the higher risks of pregnancies. Some female dogs might not be able to carry the pups to term. what if the dog was too young/too old. The dog might not mentally be prepared for motherhood. Simply put some dogs just don't want to be bothered with their pups. Some dogs require c sections to deliver some dogs have still borns. 

So I looked some facts on spaying especially since I am getting my dog spayed within the month so the whole topic intrigued me. I personally couldn't find the negative aspects of it. And I really tried to find the BAD points of it but here are some good things I found that to me just really outweigh the minimal risks of the surgey .
http://www.peteducation.com/


> Testicular tumors are considered one of the most common tumors in older intact (unneutered) male dogs. The overall incidence in dogs is not very high because of the large number of dogs that are castrated. However, in intact male dogs these tumors are considered fairly common. The tumors are usually fairly easy to recognize and diagnose. Treatment consists of castration and is usually curative.





> I heard that neutered and spayed dogs get fat and lazy. Is this true?
> Spaying and neutering does change the metabolism of companion animals, so in most cases, they do not need as much food to maintain their weight as unspayed/unneutered dogs. The problem is not with the dog - it is us. We just tend to overfeed our dogs, and neutered/spayed dogs are more apt to put on weight because of that.
> 
> As for laziness, again, the amount of exercise our dogs receive and their activity levels are often dependent on us. If we do not give them opportunities for play and exercise, they can become couch potatoes just like some people. Many spayed/neutered dogs hunt, are entered in agility shows, become service dogs, and are trained in search and rescue. These dogs are anything but lazy.





> Mammary cancer: Estrogen is one of the primary causes of canine mammary cancer, the most common malignant tumor in dogs. Animals that are spayed prior to one year of age very rarely develop this malignancy. Spaying a dog before her first heat is the best way to significantly reduce the chance your dog will develop mammary cancer. The risk of malignant mammary tumors in dogs spayed prior to their first heat is 0.05%. It is 8% for dog spayed after one heat, and 26% in dogs spayed after their second heat.





> Uterine infections: Many female dogs have problems with a severe uterine disease called pyometra following their heat cycles. With this disorder, a normal three-ounce uterus can weigh ten to fifteen pounds and be filled solely with pus. Undetected, this condition is always fatal. Its treatment requires either the use of expensive hormonal and IV fluid therapy or an extremely difficult and expensive ovariohysterectomy. A normal spay costs between $100 and $200, while one done to correct a pyometra can easily cost $600 to over $1000, depending on complications. The strain on the kidneys or heart in some of these cases may be fatal or cause life long problems, even after the infected uterus has been removed.


These are just a few of the medical conditions you can prevent by spaying or neutering. The list really goes on and on . I mean just the heat cycle itself is very extremly stressful on the dog. Some dogs have run through glass doors and windows just trying to get out. Some dogs have destroyed households. There was one case in particular where a large breed dog assulted his female owner, thankfully the woman wasn't hurt but the dog was large enough to really do damage and she fortunatly was able to control the dog. There are numerous dangers in the dogs ability to act on instict when it comes to mating. And if you have no reason for the dog to be "intact' as people were putting it i think, then I don't see why you would want to put the dog through the extra stress and yourself through the extra stress of the dog being in heat. It may feel like your taking your dogs "manhood or womanhood" away, but dogs just don't think like that lol.


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

Many of my dogs are rescues so I didn't have a choice for them. For the dogs that I DO have a choice, though, I'm with Red - I feel best waiting until the dog has matured (2 -3 years), or at least until the growth plates have closed (1 - 2 years, I believe). I would not spay or neuter earlier than that unless there was a medical emergency. Because of the hard work my dogs perform while sledding, I want to be sure that they develop as naturally as possible to maximize their health and fitness.

My one exception would be wolfdogs of significant content. Because of the risk associated with Winter Wolf Syndrome, I would neuter male wolfdogs before they reach sexual maturity.

I am interested in breeding Alaskan Huskies in the far future (developing a line based on what I value in the "breed"), so if I bought a dog that would be a valuable addition to that endeavor, I obviously would not spay or neuter that dog. I have no problem with responsible breeding.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I am 1000000% for spaying unless the girl is going to show or be bred. We experienced one heat with Truffles because she came into heat before the spay appointment and just walking around in the park giant unneutered males just runs up to us and tries to hump her and when we block them, they hump us...... One black lab was humping my aunt's leg. Overall it's just miserable for the dog and for us because we can't do anything outside. I prefer to spay at 6-7 months old before the first heat for small dogs. 

For males I'm 90% for neutering for most situations. I don't believe most people have the capabilities to keep their male dogs secured and away from females at all times. However, since I've been on DF for a while, I'm beginning to come around because I have seen quite a few owners responsibly keep male intact dogs. If I had a male, I believe most likely I will still neuter. I don't want to take the chance of an accident. I will, however, choose to neuter a bit later such as 2 years old or at least 1.5 yrs old for sports dogs.

There are also a ton of BYBs around here. They always ask if my dog is intact and can be bred or not. If I had an unneutered dog, the situation would be even worse.

Edit: Also wanted to add I think it's really irresponsible if a breeder's dog accidently got bred. Breeders like to keep their lines and breed to improve their lines and the breeders I know would be outraged if you took your unneutered dog and bred it to another breed or a mix or even a dog of the same breed when the breeder does not feel the breeding is appropriate.

Edit2: One more thing. I love to have my dogs off leash in parks and tennis courts and just generally safe areas and I don't feel I would be able to do that with an intact dog because of the danger/chance of breeding.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> I personally couldn't find the negative aspects of it.


So here we go with the internet age and the ability of people to seek out balanced information, eh? (I get to say that. I'm Canadian). 

amavanna, I happen to be one that believes that for most people and their pets spay/neuter works out best . . . however I do believe you deserve to have the chance at reading through the information of the risks/benefits for yourself. I find it incredibly unfortunate that you have not been able to find pages which highlighted BOTH benefits and risks in a balanced fashion. 

This paper, by Laura Sanborn, goes through many of the risks/benefits. It also references the studies she used at the end of the paper and gives you the opportunity to read each and everyone if you so desire . - http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

This is another DVM written site that uses fairly straight-forward information to inform an owner on both the risks and benefits - http://www.2ndchance.info/spayneuter.htm

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> ok so i read as much as I could ( my eyes are bit allergenic today) And what I see is a lot of points that there are risks in getting the dog spayed ( ill just stick with spay since I have a girl ) But I don't see ( and again I couldn't read every post) any points about the higher risks of pregnancies. Some female dogs might not be able to carry the pups to term. what if the dog was too young/too old. The dog might not mentally be prepared for motherhood. Simply put some dogs just don't want to be bothered with their pups. Some dogs require c sections to deliver some dogs have still borns.


you dont allow them to breed. simple.





> These are just a few of the medical conditions you can prevent by spaying or neutering. The list really goes on and on . I mean just the heat cycle itself is very extremly stressful on the dog. Some dogs have run through glass doors and windows just trying to get out. Some dogs have destroyed households. There was one case in particular where a large breed dog assulted his female owner, thankfully the woman wasn't hurt but the dog was large enough to really do damage and she fortunatly was able to control the dog. There are numerous dangers in the dogs ability to act on instict when it comes to mating. And if you have no reason for the dog to be "intact' as people were putting it i think, then I don't see why you would want to put the dog through the extra stress and yourself through the extra stress of the dog being in heat. It may feel like your taking your dogs "manhood or womanhood" away, but dogs just don't think like that lol.



SOME DOGS HAVE DESTROYED HOUSEHOLDS!?!?

laughable. as it the rest of that over exxaggerated and chock full of propaganda part of your post.

Ive had.....over the past few years...probably out 58 intact animals in my care in various scenarios. and ive owned up to three intact bitches at one time personally. none of them acted any sort of crazy at all. easily managed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Keeping an intact male is not too hard at least for us. Our dogs aren't left outside alone ever. 

Keeping females is a bit more difficult imo.

Now, my family always has multiple dogs, many times multiples of both sexes. That is when things tend to get a little trickier and I tend to approach the notion of leaving dogs intact from that angle too. I don't think most pet owners are ready or willing to keep multiple intact dogs of opposite genders.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you dont allow them to breed. simple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most don't seem too bad but occasional ones do. I have heard from other people as well that have bitches that are really bad during heats. (I know a friend's malinois gets pretty bad for one) One of ours was just awful. She would have done anything in her power to get to our intact male in the house.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> as it the rest of that over exxaggerated and chock full of propaganda part of your pos


I dont know what your problem with me is but you attack me directly for no reason and all i did was say my opinion and what i have experienced personally with male dogs and i dont find it fairy you come at like that. So yea not sure what I did to piss you off, but if my opinion bothers you so much your more then welcome to ignore it.

for the record my lab.german shepard went into his first heat and when he get worked up at the female chows outside he would knock over lamps he tipped chairs broke cups and glasses on tables and chew and tore u p everything. We ended up getting him neautred shortly after several attempts to mount me and at the time I was like 9 so yea he was pretty big to try to jump all over me like that so it was a case that was safer for not just him but the child at the time which was me for him to not behave in that instinctual manor. 

And I am sorry I just didn't find the right websites with the rights risks but I am still not gonna say that to spay or neuter doesn't save lives and make lives less stressful

I also find that you are fast to judge people for their opinions but don't like it when people second guess yours and that isn't fair either. People can agree to disagree.



> So here we go with the internet age and freely available information, eh?


with this same statement I could say everything anyone on this forum says isnt creditable either. But I don't do that lol. I find that the best way to get information is from all sources. And I am sorry but I made a general search of pros and cons on several websites and the risks of it medically just didn't seem to come up as often as the risks of not getting them spayed. Im not a vet or a doctor I just own my dog. I feel I do some reasonable search and feel that for my dog at least I and my vet feels spaying is just fine...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Most don't seem too bad but occasional ones do. I have heard from other people as well that have bitches that are really bad during heats. (I know a friend's malinois gets pretty bad for one) One of ours was just awful. She would have done anything in her power to get to our intact male in the house.


you know..the only downside ive ever seen with a heat is the spotting. Maybe it's because im very active and used to handling strong drives in dogs....put that girl in a diaper and throw her on the treadmill, play tug and wrestle, swim in the bathtub if she's so inclined....amongst other things. Take the male for a good long run...work on training for both.

I might suspect..that people have problems with "canine sexual frustration"..because many just throw a dog in heat in a room for the whole month and maintain the current exercise and stimulus/training program they always have. 

Its never been a problem for me.



amavanna said:


> I dont know what your problem with me is but you attack me directly for no reason and all i did was say my opinion and what i have experienced personally with male dogs and i dont find it fairy you come at like that. So yea not sure what I did to piss you off, but if my opinion bothers you so much your more then welcome to ignore it.
> 
> for the record my lab.german shepard went into his first heat and when he get worked up at the female chows outside he would knock over lamps he tipped chairs broke cups and glasses on tables and chew and tore u p everything. We ended up getting him neautred shortly after several attempts to mount me and at the time I was like 9 so yea he was pretty big to try to jump all over me like that so it was a case that was safer for not just him but the child at the time which was me for him to not behave in that instinctual manor.
> 
> And I am sorry I just didn't find the right websites with the rights risks but I am still not gonna say that to spay or neuter doesn't save lives and make lives less stressful


never once have i attacked you.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> SOME DOGS HAVE DESTROYED HOUSEHOLDS!?!?
> 
> laughable. as it the rest of that over exxaggerated and chock full of propaganda part of your post.


Im sorry i must have took that as i respect your opinion and here is my expereience. -.-


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> So here we go with the internet age and the ability of people to seek out balanced information, eh? (I get to say that. I'm Canadian).
> 
> amavanna, I happen to be one that believes that for most people and their pets spay/neuter works out best . . . however I do believe you deserve to have the chance at reading through the information of the risks/benefits for yourself. I find it incredibly unfortunate that you have not been able to find pages which highlighted BOTH benefits and risks in a balanced fashion.
> 
> ...


IMO, the article written by Laura Sanborn shows a clear bias from the start towards leaving animals intact, and I'm not suprised by that considering the article is posted on NAIA's website, a group dedicated to allowing people to "use" animals as they see fit. 

I have read this article before and brought it up to all three vets that I have used to gage their opinion on it. They express the opinion that Laurelin expressed - many of the studies on risks associated with spaying/neutering contradict each other and, thus, they so no reason not to recommend spay/neuter for the average owner. One can be educated on the issue and still not come to the same conclusion as you.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Zim have you ever had both intact males and females? You stated this earlier:



> I only have girl dogs but i can tell you this.


Which I took to mean you hadn't had an intact male. I think having a male in the house changes things a lot, jmo.

No, she was not kept isolated in a room a month and she kept getting exercised, but she was a very challenging dog to keep happy during her heats. It was not so much drive, but rather drive to get to him. Ironically enough, he had no drive to get to her and never seemed to care about females in heat. It depends highly on the individual. Rose in heat was as meek and innocent as ever. Summer in heat was not driven but was basically the most antisocial dog on the planet. She would actively attack the other dogs if they got near her.

Just because one person never runs into a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Personally... before Beau I thought the whole neutering cuts down on marking thing was bogus propaganda and I think I could probably be quoted on here saying that somewhere. Now I am really not sure. I have sat and watched my own dog stop marking after being neutered.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Im sorry i must have took that as i respect your opinion and here is my expereience. -.-


no. the idea of a dog destroying a household because it cant get a little poontang is laughable to me. the rest of the comment refers to the fact that you heavily skewed your post by pumping it full of generalities that do not descibe the actual truth.

this is the truth..



> not necessarily. all dogs are not the same dogs...and the same way PMS affects different women differently as well as the same as a hornball male on the one hand and a more communicative and respectful male..different dogs respond differently to sex hormones.


@ Laurelin

I only OWN girls. Ive trained and fostered intact males.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

ok so instead of insulting my post, why didnt you just say that? and sometimes you have to speak in generailities you can't sit there and try to describe 100 situations . If you have 100 dogs and 75 dont react negativly to being spayed. Then generally 75% out of 100 dogs it was medically safe. * there are no FACTS to the numbers there was just an example so no one tries to say im claiming numbers*



> the idea of a dog destroying a household because it cant get a little poontang is laughable to me.


yea and the idea of big dog knocking me down and breaking the stuff in my room was not really laughable to me. Maybe you shouldn't generalize that all dogs are easy to deal with during their heat cycle.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Zim have you ever had both intact males and females? You stated this earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also had the experience of a male dog stopping marking after being neutered. After we got Moe from the shelter, he had a nasty skin infection and was on antibiotics and steroids and couldn't be neutered right away. He marked EVERYTHING! We always had to have a belly band on him. After we were able to neuter him, he stopped marking all together. He also stopped humping me and my other dogs, which I also appreciated! It may just be anecdotal, but that was my experience.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> ok so instead of insulting my post, why didnt you just say that?


i didnt insult your post.

you just took it that way.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no. the idea of a dog destroying a household because it cant get a little poontang is laughable to me. the rest of the comment refers to the fact that you heavily skewed your post by pumping it full of generalities that do not descibe the actual truth.
> 
> this is the truth..
> 
> ...


Okay gotcha, that confused me.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

It's been a while since I read the Sanborn article, but I seem to remember that it was focused more on pediatric S/N than S/N in general.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i didnt insult your post.
> 
> you just took it that way.


I see well I am glad it was worth it to get your point accross


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

amavanna said:


> ok so instead of insulting my post, why didnt you just say that?


She did.

You made a post - she thought the part she quoted was in one part laughable, and "the rest of your post" was something else.

If the part in the quotes was about a dog attacking his owner because he didn't get any "loving", and she quoted saying it was laughable in her view...she was saying a dog attack his owner due to lack of "loving" was laughable.

What people say in 20 words, Zim condenses to 5 and assumes you can make the connection to fill in the other 15. It's Zim-speak.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

brandiw said:


> IMO, the article written by Laura Sanborn shows a clear bias from the start towards leaving animals intact, and I'm not suprised by that considering the article is posted on NAIA's website, a group dedicated to allowing people to "use" animals as they see fit.
> 
> I have read this article before and brought it up to all three vets that I have used to gage their opinion on it. They express the opinion that Laurelin expressed - many of the studies on risks associated with spaying/neutering contradict each other and, thus, they so no reason not to recommend spay/neuter for the average owner. One can be educated on the issue and still not come to the same conclusion as you.


Its funny that you read this article and did not note that Laura Sanborn pointed this out her very self in her conclusion.

_"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*."_

Laura Sanborn is co-founder of Save Our Dogs, a coalition that advocates on behalf of working dogs in the legislative process. She is a protection dog trainer and is passionate about dogs and their welfare. The paper was written, partly, in response to the push for MSN in California if I remember (I was on a list with Laura when she was putting it together) and NOT for NAIA, but there is no reason to with-hold it as a resource for them as well. It is an important resource in that it has, all in one place, gathered references that each and every person can then read independently to work toward their own conclusion. Never before was there such a resource. I don't believe I have found any other since either.

Dr. Larry Katz forwarded and this is his take _"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."_

If you believe there is bias, fine. I'd love for you to point out how it is so - which sentences etc. I just now read the paper (again) and don't see it and I'll continue to recommend the article for the important resource that it is.

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> She did.
> 
> You made a post - she thought the part she quoted was in one part laughable, and "the rest of your post" was something else.
> 
> ...


you try making the majority of your posts from a cellphone while hanging on to a standing handle on a 30 minute long city bus ride..and similar scenarios. i get my basic thought down while i have it. and then come back and explain later when i have access to a computer.

still a bit baffled by the fact people get so offended...lol


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

well maybe it would be easier to get your point out all at once when you have time instead of talking in half thoughts. I mean you could have easily told me your experience without telling saying I am exaggerating or spreading propaganda which i dont feel quoting a few safe conditions that spaying can prevent and sharing my experience with my own male dog who was hard to deal with during his cycle should quailify as propaganda. Also maybe other members who have known you for a while understand your "zim-speak" but ive been here all of a week . I just think you could have came at me differently.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> well maybe it would be easier to get your point out all at once when you have time instead of talking in half thoughts. I mean you could have easily told me your experience without telling saying I am exaggerating or spreading propaganda which i dont feel quoting a few safe conditions that spaying can prevent and sharing my experience with my own male dog who was hard to deal with* during his cycle* should quailify as propaganda. Also maybe other members who have known you for a while understand your "zim-speak" but ive been here all of a week . I just think you could have came at me differently.



propaganda fits the situation and in a lot of cases you are exaggerating and no i couldnt or wouldnt have come at you differently.

and excuse me...did you actually just say that male dogs have cycles? O.O 

LMAO.

nuff said.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

sigh you kow what if that is how you want to treat people when they are clearly just trying to find a mutal understanding then fine i know when to just let people be themselves. So yea sorry continue with your topic. and don't worry I wont concern myself with your zim speak anymore

and also dont feel you embarrased me by quoting my mistake on cycle. I am not embarrased by my making a mistake it dosent intimidate me it just shows me you would rather show someone their mistakes and laugh then try to correct and help them


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> Its funny that you read this article and did not note that Laura Sanborn pointed this out her very self in her conclusion.
> 
> _"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*."_
> 
> ...


I see bias in some of her phrasing and word choice, however, I'm not going through line by line to point it out. I just don't have the want-to. Citing peer-reviewed studies doesn't make an article free of bias; the final product is essentially a piece of propaganda, IMO. It is fine if you don't feel that way, we are all entitled to our own opinion. I am going to go with the opinion of my vets, which is that there isn't clear evidence that spaying/neutering is actually detrimental to dogs (and having done my own research, I concur, for what it is worth).


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Can we all agree that at best the data is mixed and numerous studies conflict with each other? You can't definitively say that you should or shouldn't speuter based purely on medical reasons. Can we not agree on that?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> sigh you kow what if that is how you want to treat people when they are clearly just trying to find a mutal understanding then fine i know when to just let people be themselves. So yea sorry continue with your topic. and don't worry I wont concern myself with your zim speak anymore


let me ask you this

what made you automatically attribute this male's destructive behavior to being intact? the one who totally destroyed the household. Why is it the intactness being blamed? what supports that?

most of what you posted sounds a whole heck of a lot like the scare tactics most vets and rescue people use to try and bully me into altering when i dont want to. i.e. propaganda.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

there was two situations i posted, one was a story from a friend where she had a large breed dog ( i dont know the breed) and he mounted her rather violently. But she got him under control. The house in destruction was MY dog when i was 9 years old he was a lab german shepord mix. And when he went in heat he kept tryint to mount on me and everyone in the house he got very hard to control personally cause i was 9 and when the female chows next door would be roaming he would apecrap around the house knocking things over and breaking things. This is not exaggereed he litterly destroyed the living room that day. When we got him neutered all that stopped. And he was a LOT calmer he didn't try to mount us and didn't act like that around the females. I wish you would have asked this first but i am glad you asked now

also i do want people who especially rescue their dogs from shelters to spay or neuter because it does cut down on more poor babies being in shelters. But I never even discussed my points of view on breeding and or show dogs , i was just speaking about the basic idea of what i thought to be the pros of getting them spayed or neutered and the positive effects ive seen it have. I don't feel I pointed out any negative's to NOT getting them spayed either.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> there was two situations i posted, one was a story from a friend where she had a large breed dog ( i dont know the breed) and he mounted her rather violently. But she got him under control.


mounting is a social behavior that often has absolutely nothing to do with sex drive. this cant be blamed solely on being intact. it's not a valid example.



> The house in destruction was MY dog when i was 9 years old he was a lab german shepord mix. And when he went in heat he kept tryint to mount on me and everyone in the house he got very hard to control personally cause i was 9 and when the female chows next door would be roaming he would apecrap around the house knocking things over and breaking things. This is not exaggereed he litterly destroyed the living room that day. When we got him neutered all that stopped. And he was a LOT calmer he didn't try to mount us and didn't act like that around the females. I wish you would have asked this first but i am glad you asked now



Ok. last time. MALES DO NOT CYCLE. they are sexually fertile and viable 365 days a year. 

no. this isnt a valid example either. What else were you doing at the time? you're slighting the story towards neutering being some magic cure all for all behavior problems

it wasnt a valid question until you brought up this insane idea that male dogs cycle. which makes me even more convinced that you're just saying a bunch of stuff you heard somewhere.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

ok fine your right im wrong have a nice day im not arguing over it anymore


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just fyi, only females go through heat cycles. Males are fertile all days in the year. It is impossible for a male to be 'in heat'. Females are only fertile one or two times a year depending on breed (most go through a heat twice a year but some more primitive breeds are only once)

ETA: Too late.

ETA 2: I wrote 'days' instead of 'times' originally, sorry about that!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> ok fine your right im wrong have a nice day im not arguing over it anymore


i was giving you an opportunity to explain. I never claimed this was a wrong/right scenario or that you are totally wrong and im totally right. I dont believe in absolutism. i find gnostic stances on any subject to be extremely arrogant. and i never once considered this an argument. 

just some food for thought/



amavanna said:


> and also dont feel you embarrased me by quoting my mistake on cycle. I am not embarrased by my making a mistake it dosent intimidate me it just shows me you would rather show someone their mistakes and laugh then try to correct and help them


showing someone their mistakes IS trying to help them. i dont get your mindset at all.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

well being that dog was only over a year he prolly was just comming into being fertile, being that I was 9 and have only lela since my last dog at 12 and lela is a female i didn't know that males were fertile all year, and I appricate the time you took to just say that and clear it up for me instead of just stating its not a cycle for males and trying to use that as a leverage against me. What facts I do know is that my dog stopped mounting and stopping tearing up our living room trying to get to the damn dogs outside after we got him fixed. I also know that I am not gonna try to defend my own experiences anymore i know how the dog acted before and after and what was and wasnt different. I never said that after getting fixed the dog was suddenly trained I said he stopped mounting and try to get outside with the females. And the fact the someone would rather argue and point out all my mistakes and make fun of them instead of really trying to help someone understand a certain fact. Like saying 



> Ok. last time. MALES DO NOT CYCLE. they are sexually fertile and viable 365 days a year.


there was no last time you never said they are sexually fertile and viable 365 days a year the first time 



> and excuse me...did you actually just say that male dogs have cycles? O.O
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> nuff said.


that is pointing out what was incorrect and laughing not giving me helpful information. 

bottom line is even after i thought you were gonna back track and talk normal about it you still chose to just pick at me and try to make fun of something instead of giving me solid information and bashing what i have to say.

Your not arguing your point and reasons your just insulting mine, their is nothing productive about that.



> showing someone their mistakes IS trying to help them. i dont get your mindset at all.


laughing at someone is not helping them fyi directing them to useful information is.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> well being that dog was only over a year he prolly was just comming into being fertile,


Males have been shown to be fertile as young as 4 months with 6 months being more the norm.

Basically though, as soon as the testicles have dropped fully, they're producing sperm. So your dog was fertile long before that.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Here is a piece from wiki (yeah I know but it was quick and easy to find right away). This is what is meant by a female dog's cycles:



> Female cycle
> The average length of the reproductive cycle for females is 6 months. Bitches reach sexual maturity (puberty) between 4 and 18 months of age. There is a tremendous variability in the maturation age between breeds, and even within a breed of dog. The first stage of the reproductive cycle is proestrus, in which eggs in the ovaries begin to mature and estrogen levels begin to rise. During this stage males are attracted to non-receptive females. Initially, the vulvar lips will swell up and become pliable, there are small amounts of bloody vaginal discharge, and signs of frequent urination and restlessness. Proestrus generally lasts 9 days. Estrus is the next stage, in which estrogen levels are high, mature eggs are released from the ovaries, and the females mentally and physically become receptive to copulation. It is only during estrus that copulation will result in pregnancy. During proestrus and estrus, females may have a clear to bloody discharge. This stage is also known as "heat." The length of these cycles varies greatly between individuals. Proestrus and estrus can last anywhere from 5 days to 21 days. Diestrus is the period following mating. Diestrus lasts approximately 56 to 58 days in the pregnant females, and 60 to 100 days in the non-pregnant females. During both of these periods, progesterone levels are high. Because the hormonal profile of a pregnant female and a female in diestrus are the same, sometimes a non-pregnant female will go through a period of pseudo-pregnancy. At that time she may gain weight, have mammary gland development, produce milk, and exhibit nesting behaviours. Anestrus is the period of reproductive quiescence. The female has no attraction to or from the male. Anestrus generally lasts four to five months.


Males become fertile as soon as the testes drop. You should really just treat any male intact dog like they are fertile. They probably are.

ETA: darn it! You guys are too fast!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

We're on top of shiz here xD


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I don't mean to offend anyone, but is sex education in our country so bad that people don't know that males can reproduce 24/7/365 and that females are fertile only during certain times? This is pretty much a rule across just about every animal species I can think of.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Xeph and laurelin both great pieces of information I appricate the knowledge . We got Harley ( the said male in question) when he was about 4 months old. He started displaying the behavior at around 13 months . The female dogs didn't start comming around until he was about 8 months. He had even gotten outside with one of the females and showed no interest in the act. A few months later it became a huge issues its all he tried to do was get the females and mount on everyone. He would act horriably and tear up the house when the females got outside and bottom line once he was fixed that specific behavior did stop.

I really wish that discussion just could have progressed differently. Because I don't feel my post was significant enough to cause such a issue. It was just my person experience and few peices of information on one of my favorite dog sites that I visit on the subject.



> I don't mean to offend anyone, but is sex education in our country so bad that people don't know that males can reproduce 24/7/365 and that females are fertile only during certain times? This is pretty much a rule across just about every animal species I can think of


Offended no, honestly I just didn't know how to put "get excited" on behalf of the male so I used the phrase cycle and in heat in representation that dog was "wanting" some but was trying to be discrete and didn't think much of it, but apparently specifics are needed and I will be damned sure not to use in heat or cycle on behalf of referring to a males fertility desires. I was aware the dog can mount at any given time of the year I was not aware it was so young however. But I was pointing out that people were fast to laugh at a mistake rather then attempting to help someone.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I don't mean to offend anyone, but is sex education in our country so bad that people don't know that males can reproduce 24/7/365 and that females are fertile only during certain times?


The short answer, is yes


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> I don't mean to offend anyone, but is sex education in our country so bad that people don't know that males can reproduce 24/7/365 and that females are fertile only during certain times? This is pretty much a rule across just about every animal species I can think of.


Aren't they trying to ELIMINATE sex education? 

Or at least make it so you can "opt-out" because "oh it's just too sensitive and I don't want some teacher telling my kids about it"?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Xeph said:


> The short answer, is yes


Just damn. That's all I can say. Just damn.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Is it that way in say... reptiles and such? I honestly don't know.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Is it that way in say... reptiles and such? I honestly don't know.


They only breed in certain times of the year for the most part so I'm going to guess yes. In any case, it's that way pretty universally for mammals.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> well being that dog was only over a year he prolly was just comming into being fertile, being that I was 9 and have only lela since my last dog at 12 and lela is a female i didn't know that males were fertile all year, and I appricate the time you took to just say that and clear it up for me instead of just stating its not a cycle for males and trying to use that as a leverage against me. What facts I do know is that my dog stopped mounting and stopping tearing up our living room trying to get to the damn dogs outside after we got him fixed. I also know that I am not gonna try to defend my own experiences anymore i know how the dog acted before and after and what was and wasnt different. I never said that after getting fixed the dog was suddenly trained I said he stopped mounting and try to get outside with the females. And the fact the someone would rather argue and point out all my mistakes and make fun of them instead of really trying to help someone understand a certain fact. Like saying
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WOW you are throwing all kinds of unfounded and ridiculous accusations at me. for no reason. at all. grow up.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> I don't mean to offend anyone, but is sex education in our country so bad that people don't know that males can reproduce 24/7/365 and that females are fertile only during certain times? This is pretty much a rule across just about every animal species I can think of.


This should be less a statement about institutional education as it is about parental education. I say the same. Just damn.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> They only breed in certain times of the year for the most part so I'm going to guess yes. In any case, it's that way pretty universally for mammals.


I'm totally not a snake or reptile (or amphibian) type person admittedly. I do know some reptiles can reproduce asexually. It's a good thing dogs can't do that I suppose.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I'm totally not a snake or reptile (or amphibian) type person admittedly. I do know some reptiles can reproduce asexually. It's a good thing dogs can't do that I suppose.


True enough. But we are speaking of dogs who are definitely not reptiles.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Growing up is some good advice you should take yourself. Because I am not the one laughing at people and telling people their posts are propaganda . I just posted my opinion. You didn't tell me anything useful at all all you did was basically tell me all I had to say was crap. You never once posted anything informative. You also take out your quotes where you clearly laugh at my mistake and then have nothing else to say towards correcting or being helpful. their were several other people that were able to post their opinions and give information without insulting me or the information i was giving.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I'm totally not a snake or reptile (or amphibian) type person admittedly. I do know some reptiles can reproduce asexually. It's a good thing dogs can't do that I suppose.



Yeah, that would be rather...dicey.

Can you imagine seeing it. Suddenly your one dog is two. Then you watch them split and end up being 4. 

Just think of all the little Mia's you'd have running around!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> True enough. But we are speaking of dogs who are definitely not reptiles.


I know. Was just a curiosity that popped in my mind. 

ETA: Oh gawd if Mia could clone herself....


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Growing up is some good advice you should take yourself. Because I am not the one laughing at people and telling people their posts are propaganda . I just posted my opinion. You didn't tell me anything useful at all all you did was basically tell me all I had to say was crap. You never once posted anything informative. You also take out your quotes where you clearly laugh at my mistake and then have nothing else to say towards correcting or being helpful. their were several other people that were able to post their opinions and give information without insulting me or the information i was giving.


you posted your view, i posted mine.discussion ensues. there's no emotion needed.

you're the one taking things total strangers say out of context to turn it into a personal insult which gives you an opportunity to complain.
i


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I know. Was just a curiosity that popped in my mind.
> 
> ETA: Oh gawd if Mia could clone herself....


I have this vision of an army of Mias marching on the capital.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Any time some discusses points of opinions their are going to be emotions especially when you directly insult someone point of view in such a direct manor. I never once insulted your views or opinions about spaying or neutering so my questions is why I couldnt expect the same.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> I have this vision of an army of Mias marching on the capital.


I am pretty sure we'd all be slaves by now.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

now all the Mia army would need is an army of cloned bolos to operate as tanks. lmfao...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Any time some discusses points of opinions their are going to be emotions especially when you directly insult someone point of view in such a direct manor.


That's actually not true. There are a couple of members of this board that can actually debate passionately with little to no emotion (I am not one of them).

That said, if you'd like to continue to bicker, can you do it privately?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> That said, if you'd like to continue to bicker, can you do it privately?


lol nah im bicker free i just really didnt understand why it escalted based on my opinion i think its clear we just can't come to a term of understanding on it im fine with that.

On a side note, when I was looking stuff up i read somethng about doggie birth control pills, whats up with htat?!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Any time some discusses points of opinions their are going to be emotions especially when you directly insult someone point of view in such a direct manor. I never once insulted your views or opinions about spaying or neutering so my questions is why I couldnt expect the same.


you got the same. you're missing something important. things you consider insults may not be insulting to others. you're making assumptions about what i said.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

So as to not upset anyone Id like to end the discussion either way. I mean it was clear I was offended at how briskly you came at me, a simple I didn't mean it that way instead of well screw you if you feel that way could have prevented alot of back and forthness. But what do you think about those doggy birth control pills what gives on that?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> now all the Mia army would need is an army of cloned bolos to operate as tanks. lmfao...


Oh boy...

Human-kind is doomed! DOOMED! I tell you!

We better get used to crawling around with leashes on our necks...


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> We better get used to crawling around with leashes on our necks...


some people are into that the dog might find humans easier to train X_X


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> So as to not upset anyone Id like to end the discussion either way. I mean it was clear I was offended at how briskly you came at me, a simple I didn't mean it that way instead of well screw you if you feel that way could have prevented alot of back and forthness.


i never said "screw you"

in a sense, this whole time including in other threads..you post like you're a moderator..dictating how discussions should go to other people. THAT is offensive. that is also what i meant in the other thread when i said "check the rules". i havent explained this before because me explaining could be considered in some cases a breach of the rules. 

but i never called you out on it. i tried to stay away from calling you out on it. 

do you get it now? I was offended at your behavior 5 threads ago and i never said a word because i had no way to know if you were intending to be an offensive backseat moderating troll or not. so i let it be.

just because YOU think it's offensive doesnt mean it is and no one is required to explain or apologize because to their mind...its not.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

amavanna said:


> But what do you think about those doggy birth control pills what gives on that?


I know in Europe, progesterone shots are used to prevent pregnancy and heat cycles in cats. Very useful for breeders and those who can't afford a spay at the moment and need time to save up. Lasts about 3 months, I think. I don't know why it's not available in the States, although some vets will use things off-label, it's just harder to find.

For dogs, I don't think it's quite as necessary, since they have clearly defined and infrequent heat cycles (unlike cats, who cycle in and out of heat pretty much constantly until bred or spayed, and can get pregnant even when not in heat if the male forces himself on her. . .induced ovulation). Anyone who's going to go to the trouble of giving their dog birth control pills can probably manage to keep her away from males for 2 months a year with no trouble. Could be useful if you had multiple intact dogs, though. Probably has side effects, just like human birth control pills.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> in a sense, this whole time including in other threads..you post like you're a moderator..dictating how discussions should go to other people. THAT is offensive. that is also what i meant in the other thread when i said "check the rules". i havent explained this before because me explaining could be considered in some cases a breach of the rules.


Maybe because i have ran and moded forums I am used to trying to keep the peace with people keep posts on topic( of which all this has went completely off topic) But I in no way attempt to mod anyone by simply saying keep a thread on it main subject in a previous post, nor do I wish to discuss a previous post in this thread. If you want to discuss anything else feel free to pm me, but my sole purpose is NOT to highjack a thread with back and forth discussions about the same thing over and over.so I don't want to talk about it anymore .

yea so as i said how about those birth control pills for dogs what gives with that I read they were pretty dangerous so why have them as an option i wonder? Do people really use these as a alternitive to getting a female spayed.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

good. hopefully you get it now.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

-.- guess you never heard of the pills


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

I am late jumping in here, but I won't keep intact animals of the same species in the house because I have kids. Our male guinea pig is neutered (we also have 3 girl pigs that he now lives with), and 2 of our 3 dogs are altered. The intact one is co-owned, or he would probably be neutered... in fact I am almost certain I will neuter him once he is "retired". 

I understand that female dogs are only fertile twice a year for a few weeks, but still, I see an incredible amount of opportunity for accidents to happen in a household with 3 kids and a husband who isn't always aware of what is going on with the animals (even when he's told). We dogsat a female in heat a couple of months ago for a friend who was having surgery, and I was a paranoid freak the entire time she was here, and there was more than one instance where my intact male was accidentally let loose in the house with her (always caught quickly, so nothing happened), but I can't imagine going through that on _any_ kind of repeating basis... I would absolutely go crazy. To be honest I'd probably feel the same owning an intact female even without having any intact males... mostly becuase I live in the country and there are a LOT of free-roaming dogs out here. We have a fenced are for our dogs, but it wouldn't stop a very determined dog from climbing.

All that said, the last female I had intact (many years ago) ended up getting pyometra and nearly died from it... she showed ZERO symptoms until she basically went septic, and she went from her normal bouncy self to being on the verge of death. That was a life-threatening (and expensive, but money is secondary) situation that would have been entirely avoided if she had been spayed earlier. I had no plans of breeding her - honestly my only reason for not spaying her was that we did not have, nor did we plan to have any intact dogs at the time, so I didn't feel it was necessary, but it nearly cost her life. I do realize that it isn't something that ALWAYS happens though.. and usually there are symptoms such as discharge that usually clue an owner in sooner. My dog had no signs.

So no, honestly I don't think that spaying/neutered is absolutely necessary if you can guarantee that no unwanted offspring will result... but the truth is that I doubt MOST people who choose not to alter their pets can actually make that claim. Sure, most on this forum probably could, but I'm really referring to the general population here.... they're usually less than responsible.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> -.- guess you never heard of the pills


i have. they're just not really worth even mention imo. otherwise, i wouldve mentioned them. the things ive read and heard are so inconclusive to my mind that i dont feel right commenting on them so i didnt.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Back to the topic on hand, I don't give a damn one way or another. That is to say make your decisions for your dog. There is nothing inherently wrong with spaying or neutering, so if you do it you do it. I don't like when you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, especially when it comes to something like this. Alter your pet if it's the most responsible thing you can do for them. Don't if it's the most responsible thing you can do for them. 

I have no choice in the matter, anyway. I rescue. They come altered. I have had Smalls and Jonas altered by my own hand, but I had no choice with Jonas as he was on a contract with the rescue and the ONLY reason the rescue let me take him without him being altered first was because I signed that contract (They had to draw one up. Dogs are altered before going to a new home no question.) and begged to take him. Smalls I regret altering every day. Not because of any thing to do with these arguments (See! I make my own decisions for my dogs. Everyone together now!) but because of her intestines. They told me she would never be able to be fixed initially and then when they said they possibly could I did it. I don't know WHY and she suffered a serious blood infection as a result when I should have just left it alone.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Well i figured anything potentially advertised as an alternative to spaying was worth mentioning. I wondered how many people had heard of this and why someone might take this route.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Just randomly thinking. . .if people are going to blindly and misinformedly do something (and let's face it, they will), I'd rather they blindly spay/neuter than blindly NOT spay/neuter. There's a lot less death that way. I hate it when people read something somewhere and the only thing that stuck in their mind was spay/neuter = bad. So they don't speuter and their pet pops babies off all over the place and they just say "oh, well, I read somewhere that it's not healthy to speuter". Dandy.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Well i figured anything potentially advertised as an alternative to spaying was worth mentioning. I wondered how many people had heard of this and why someone might take this route.


tubal ligation is an alternative to a spay. Ive had one bitch with tied tubes. it was just like having an unspayed bitch(which is just like having any dog imo)...she just couldnt produce pups if tied.



Willowy said:


> Just randomly thinking. . .if people are going to blindly and misinformedly do something (and let's face it, they will), I'd rather they blindly spay/neuter than blindly NOT spay/neuter. There's a lot less death that way. I hate it when people read something somewhere and the only thing that stuck in their mind was spay/neuter = bad. So they don't speuter and their pet pops babies off all over the place and they just say "oh, well, I read somewhere that it's not healthy to speuter". Dandy.


Im not gonna offer total support for spay and neutering. i want to make it clear and ive tried to make it clear that keeping an intact dog is easy if you deal with it correctly. but if you cant do it, to consider speuter if the dog doesnt have any conditions that make speutering dangerous.


i have an intact female cat. she has a blood clotting disorder. I brought her into a new vet and was basically jumped on when they found out she was intact without ever asking me WHY she's intact. im not irresponsible for making the decision not to risk her like for an elective procedure. other people should be made to understand how complex these things can get

id rather bias people towards THE TRUTH.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

i read on that and there seemed to be more risks with certain cancers with with the tubal beings tied. I found that interesting since woman do it and wondered if there were connections to cancers in woman with their tubes tied? Any surgery comes with its own complications even the most simple of surgeries, one of the reason I am concerned to remove the dew claw when I get lela spayed cause i worry about the "extra" surgery to heal on top of already being spayed. 

Ill say this I still stand by that it is the right thing for our dog to be spayed, but I admit I learned alot of the procedure and potential risks. I stilll however want to understand more about someone would use a birth control pill for a dog...that seems unusual



> i have an intact female cat. she has a blood clotting disorder. I brought her into a new vet and was basically jumped on when they found out she was intact without ever asking me WHY she's intact. im not irresponsible for making the decision not to risk her like for an elective procedure. other people should be made to understand how complex these things can get


This is a situation where the vet should have thought more logically and ASKED why the cat wasn't spayed rather then jumping to conclusions. But I think so many vets and shelters just so many homeless pets they are so fast to want to get the animal fixed so don't find their babies in the office later. It dosen't mean it was a bad vet just I think people get tired of seeing so many puppys and kittens homeless. Generally I think most animals are given a good physical before getting spayed. I have to get blood work for done for heart worms with lela and i might with this new information ask to test for any suspicious conditions that might making spaying dangerous. But I think the majority its usually SAFE and it really boils down to preference.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

amavanna said:


> I stilll however want to understand more about someone would use a birth control pill for a dog...that seems unusual


*shrug* because they don't want their dog to go into heat, but they also don't want to spay her (for whatever reason). not much to understand.


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Back to the topic on hand, I don't give a damn one way or another. That is to say make your decisions for your dog. There is nothing inherently wrong with spaying or neutering, so if you do it you do it. I don't like when you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, especially when it comes to something like this. Alter your pet if it's the most responsible thing you can do for them. Don't if it's the most responsible thing you can do for them.


Amen TWAB! Loved this post.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

well with the complications i read on i just wondered why someone would choose those risks . Is this a new thing as well? cause i had never heard of it before today


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> tubal ligation is an alternative to a spay. Ive had one bitch with tied tubes. it was just like having an unspayed bitch(which is just like having any dog imo)...she just couldnt produce pups if tied.


Interestingly, Zim... they practice this at Wolf Park instead of spaying. They found that spayed wolves were frequently harassed by the rest of the pack, presumably because they smelled "different" to the others. The added benefit is that all the natural behaviors of the wolves are preserved with a tubal litigation, which makes their research of pack dynamics all the more valid, IMO.

I know, not really relevant to the thread but I couldn't help myself


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> This is a situation where the vet should have thought more logically and ASKED why the cat wasn't spayed rather then jumping to conclusions. But I think so many vets and shelters just so many homeless pets they are so fast to want to get the animal fixed so don't find their babies in the office later.* It dosen't mean it was a bad vet* just I think people get tired of seeing so many puppys and kittens homeless. Generally I think most animals are given a good physical before getting spayed. I have to get blood work for done for heart worms with lela and i might with this new information ask to test for any suspicious conditions that might making spaying dangerous. But I think the majority its usually SAFE and it really boils down to preference.


that means it was a terrible vet, the beeyotch deserved to be fired if you ask me. and shelters have killed dogs from spaying and neutering. Im not saying it happens all the time..but i wouldnt be so absolutist if i were you. Ive seen it happen.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> id rather bias people towards THE TRUTH.


The truth?!?! They can't handle the truth!!!

LOL

Really, so many people read one thing that maybe kinda sorta implied that speutering may have side effects, so now they feel fully justified in letting their pet reproduce uncontrolledly. Drives me crazy. I'm all for informed consent and educating oneself, but I also think that the most readily available information should be at least slightly slanted toward the path of least harm. That way casual readers (who don't really care to be informed or educated) don't get the wrong idea.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and shelters have killed dogs from spaying and neutering. Im not saying it happens all the time..but i wouldnt be so absolutist if i were you. Ive seen it happen.


They'd kill a lot more if they let animals out unspayed. I think any shelter or rescue that allows an unspayed animal out of their control is doing NO good at all, and is in fact part of the problem. Most shelters can't afford to do bloodwork before speutering. If a few die from that, I guess it comes down to whether it's better that a few die from surgery complications vs way more dying from being unwanted because they were born to the unspayed animals from that shelter.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

nekomi said:


> Interestingly, Zim... they practice this at Wolf Park instead of spaying. They found that spayed wolves were frequently harassed by the rest of the pack, presumably because they smelled "different" to the others. The added benefit is that all the natural behaviors of the wolves are preserved with a tubal litigation, which makes their research of pack dynamics all the more valid, IMO.
> 
> I know, not really relevant to the thread but I couldn't help myself


no no no...do talk. this is relevant because it provides context. Tubal didnt produce any appreciably significant changes from being intact. Spayed one of the females in the unspayed trio i had and the house erupted into violence. granted it was three females of varied age. the oldest being about 4 years older the the middle aged bitch and the youngest was a year younger than her. i stomped the aggression out pretty quickly but they never got back to the easy camradarie they once had.



Willowy said:


> The truth?!?! They can't handle the truth!!!
> 
> LOL
> 
> Really, so many people read one thing that maybe kinda sorta implied that speutering may have side effects, so now they feel fully justified in letting their pet reproduce uncontrolledly. Drives me crazy. I'm all for informed consent and educating oneself, but I also think that the most readily available information should be at least slightly slanted toward the path of least harm. That way casual readers (who don't really care to be informed or educated) don't get the wrong idea.


the more time goes by...the more i realize i cant change others behavior . but i am answerable to myself for lying and telling people they SHOULD spay when there is a possibility they shouldnt..thats a lie. telling them to look into it is the truth.
They'd kill a lot more if they let animals out unspayed. I think any shelter or rescue that allows an unspayed animal out of their control is doing NO good at all, and is in fact part of the problem.[/QUOTE]


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> that means it was a terrible vet, the beeyotch deserved to be fired if you ask me. and shelters have killed dogs from spaying and neutering. Im not saying it happens all the time..but i wouldnt be so absolutist if i were you. Ive seen it happen.


even when i agree with you i am apparently wrong  but I just think her intentions were good and she came at the situation wrong..i think that happens a lot in the world of animals.



> They'd kill a lot more if they let animals out unspayed. I think any shelter or rescue that allows an unspayed animal out of their control is doing NO good at all, and is in fact part of the problem.


Agree if i got lela from the shelter and they didn't already spay her or direct me to a place to get her spayed id be concerned. I also mentioned any surgery no matter how simple has its risk, I mean people and animals have all suffered tragic surgery "mistakes" or "complications" that could have been avoided. Surgery is complex and anything can go wrong.



> nterestingly, Zim... they practice this at Wolf Park instead of spaying. They found that spayed wolves were frequently harassed by the rest of the pack, presumably because they smelled "different" to the others


There was a thread recently on the vast differences between wolf in dogs, so would this "behavior" of harassment also occur in dogs?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> even when i agree with you i am apparently wrong  but I just think her intentions were good and she came at the situation wrong..i think that happens a lot in the world of animals.


i think her intentions were to make money. i do not think her intentions were noble. 

she tried to dispute the previous vet's diagnosis with only a brief examination after i explained myself.

that's bad practice. i didnt ask for a freakin second opinion.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

why did you switch vets? Could you not have taken her to the vet that diagnosed her in the first place? Did you make a note to express your distate in her practice? Seems if she were really that "foward" ith her opinion you should have for sure have said something, and something tells me that you don't have a problem speaking your mind  .


> she tried to dispute the previous vet's diagnosis with only a brief examination after i explained myself.


knowing that first would have also changed my orginal opinion so that could have been made known orginally


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> that means it was a terrible vet, the beeyotch deserved to be fired if you ask me. and shelters have killed dogs from spaying and neutering. Im not saying it happens all the time..but i wouldnt be so absolutist if i were you. Ive seen it happen.


Vaccinations have killed dogs. Heck, vaccinations have killed people before. Would you argue against vaccinations as well?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

amavanna said:


> Agree if i got lela from the shelter and they didn't already spay her or *direct me to a place to get her spayed* id be concerned.


See I don't think that "directing" adopters to a place to get the pet spayed is good enough. Plenty of people WON'T. Ask any shelter. . .the Humane Society here once said that they have "just over a half" compliance rate on their spay/neuter "requirement". And they can't enforce it at all once the animal is out of their care. All they can do is send sharply worded letters. Ooooh! Now there's a reason to spay that nice purebred dog you adopted from them when what you really want to do is make $100 each on her puppies. And cats get pregnant if a tomcat looks at them funny. . .all the cats I know who were adopted unspayed from the HS had at least one litter after being adopted. 

So, no, that's just not good enough. Any shelter that allows unspayed animals out of the building is being a CAUSE of the problem. They adopt one unspayed animal out, and they get her 5 kittens/puppies back 6 months later. They're basically being a matching service for irresponsible breeders. If a shelter can't afford to spay/neuter before adoption, they should drop the animal off at the vet of the adopter's choice to be altered. No matter how they do it, a shelter pet should never be in the possession of the adopter until she's spayed.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Is Zim arguing against spay/neuter - or is Zim arguing against uninformed spay/neuter. There is a huge difference. I as well argue against vaccinations given without information on side effects (having had a dog that experienced vaccination encephelitus).-sp?



> the more time goes by...the more i realize i cant change others behavior . but i am answerable to myself for lying and telling people they SHOULD spay when there is a possibility they shouldnt..thats a lie. telling them to look into it is the truth.


This is where I come from as well.

SOB


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

nekomi said:


> Interestingly, Zim... they practice this at Wolf Park instead of spaying. They found that spayed wolves were frequently harassed by the rest of the pack, presumably because they smelled "different" to the others. The added benefit is that all the natural behaviors of the wolves are preserved with a *tubal litigation*, which makes their research of pack dynamics all the more valid, IMO.
> 
> I know, not really relevant to the thread but I couldn't help myself


Sorry, this typo cracked me up. Do they have attorneys?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> See I don't think that "directing" adopters to a place to get the pet spayed is good enough


I agree most people that are directed prolly won't think twice and actually go do it, espically if it comes out their pocket. But I find it at least slightly more comforting then not mentioning spaying or neutering at all. At our local shelter, they won't spay or neuter until their is an actual home lined up, then you send you to their vet office ( which is just an office in town that they work with) and then make you provide the vet papers. They do same with vaccinations. 

With vaccinations I was slightly nervous because I don't know the dogs medical history. So i was very scared . What if she already had the shots would getting them again effect her? According the vet no, and I apparently can get a blood test done to check the lvls, but she claimed it was unnecessary and that it wouldn't cause harm. I am not a vet I didn't go to school for animals, I have to trust the vet has my dogs best interest at heart. 



> Is Zim arguing against spay/neuter - or is Zim arguing against uninformed spay/neuter.


I didn't think Zim was against it entirley, I think she/he stated they had fixed pets before, I am not clear however on what the main argument is either except that she/he wishes people would educate themselves more about the surgery before making the choice. And if you read about her cat a situation like that is a good example of when NOT to spay or neuter since it woudl put the animal at risk or worse.


----------



## WashingtonCowgirl (Mar 8, 2010)

*Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*

I plan on facing a lot of accusations of hypocrisy here really soon. The story:
My best friend got a pibble pup last year. She bought him from a definite byb, he was 12 weeks old and she was already talking about how she couldn't wait to find him a gf  Fast forward to when he turns 6 months old. She brought him over for some playtime with Maddie. She couldn't even control him.. she had on a thick choke chain and it was choking him half to death, but didn't phase him at all... he wanted to play! After she let him off leash, all he wanted to do was hump Maddie. She has spent no time training him, and he is horrible to be around. I finally convinced her to get him neutered.. And she did, thank doG... Now she just needs to train him lol..

Well, I don't plan on fixing Moose. I have ZERO intentions of breeding him EVER. But, I am a responsible owner. I don't think my dog needs to undergo a surgery to make my life easier. And he is a lab, so I want to make sure he never has issues with his growth plates... I worry about Maddie constantly as she is 100+ pounds and was fixed at like 4 months old. She loves pulling and agility, but I worry about what that's doing to her body :/ (I do have her on nupro, the silver kind with the joint stuff lol)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Is Zim arguing against spay/neuter - or is Zim arguing against uninformed spay/neuter. There is a huge difference.


Yes, a huge difference. . .but a lot of people don't want to be informed. Those people should be directed toward the path of least harm. Which in most cases (such as the above case ^^) would almost certainly be spay/neuter, unless YOU want to be the one to find homes for all their unwanted puppies/kittens (or kill them).


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Willowy said:


> They'd kill a lot more if they let animals out unspayed. I think any shelter or rescue that allows an unspayed animal out of their control is doing NO good at all, and is in fact part of the problem. Most shelters can't afford to do bloodwork before speutering. If a few die from that, I guess it comes down to whether it's better that a few die from surgery complications vs way more dying from being unwanted because they were born to the unspayed animals from that shelter.


This is very true. When you look at the number of animals being killed yearly in shelters pre-1980 (around 20 million!) and then compare it to the numbers after the big 'Spay and Neuter' campaigns that started in the 1980s really took off, the difference is staggering. The current number is around 4 million, a huge improvement (though we can still do better) and it's almost completely the result of owner education about S/N, in my view. The majority of people understand that S/N is the responsible thing to do for their pets, and that has literally saved millions of lives.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



> I plan on facing a lot of accusations of hypocrisy here really soon.


Actually I think its a good example of how two different situations merited two different decisions. It was clear your friend was ready for the puppy love but not totally prepared for DOGGY love lol. And if she was unable to train him properly or just was going slow then the ability to control a dog trying to mount can be rather frustrating and complicated. And it causes concern for owners of other dogs that he could have been trying to mount. It was easier on both dog and owner to handle him with less "stressful" urges getting in the way. 

Flip it around and you have a dog ( your dog) who is better trained and responds better to your commands making it easier to control and you have medical reasons that there could risks. 

I see both situations handled in responsible ways honestly



> Most shelters can't afford to do bloodwork before speutering


perhaps the way the shelter here does things, making the owner show proof of the vet visit and spay/neuatering after the option of running further blood work ( at the owners expence) could kind of help both opinions. I mean that way the shelter feels comfort knowing that 98% of the dogs will have proof of being spayed while the other 2% have a medical proof not to be. ( again no factual percentages just numbers for example) ( personally I feel shelter dogs are best not to be purposly bred but i suppose special leeway and requirments could be met if you wanted to prove you were going breed responsibility. Such as showing credentials of previous experience. I think personally it should be "tougher" to be allowed to breed dogs.


----------



## WashingtonCowgirl (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



amavanna said:


> I see both situations handled in responsible ways honestly


Too bad she wont see it like that


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



WashingtonCowgirl said:


> Too bad she wont see it like that


Tell her you DID have him neutered but had Neuticles implanted? Unless you breed him and put pictures of Moose offspring up on Facebook, she'll never know the difference .


----------



## WashingtonCowgirl (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*

Those things crack me up! 
Definitely marketed toward "Manly Man" dog owners


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



> Tell her you DID have him neutered but had Neuticles implanted?


I thought this was a joke but then had to look it up, when I saw it I spewed monster java on my monitor my desk is a mess. That is the most egotesticle thing i have ever seen LOL


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



WashingtonCowgirl said:


> Well, I don't plan on fixing Moose. I have ZERO intentions of breeding him EVER.* But, I am a responsible owner.* I don't think my dog needs to undergo a surgery to make my life easier. And he is a lab, so I want to make sure he never has issues with his growth plates... I worry about Maddie constantly as she is 100+ pounds and was fixed at like 4 months old. She loves pulling and agility, but I worry about what that's doing to her body :/ (I do have her on nupro, the silver kind with the joint stuff lol)


I'm sorry, but statements like that piss me off and I see them made over and over and over again in threads like this. The implication is that those who speuter their dogs are not as responsible. The other implication is that not speutering your dog is the responsible thing to do. Both of these implications are complete and total BS.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*

Well let's try thinking of it this way. I think alot of us on here don't just have our dogs as kids, but actual kids too lol. I have a daughter who is 7 I like to think I am responsible mom and her father as well. But it sure don't stop her for doing things and things happening. I can't count the times I have thanked God I turned my head in her direction just to stop a complete tragedy by the hair of my ass. So what I am getting at, we can be responsible but basically s$!* happens. You can't prepare for all things. Its impossible.

And this goes both way. You can't know if anything is 100% safe, in fact your almost guarantee for NOTHING to be 100% the right thing to do. But when you weigh the pros and cons and do everything in your ability tyo make the right choice. well hell that is about the best you can do with anything in life.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> Is Zim arguing against spay/neuter - or is Zim arguing against uninformed spay/neuter. There is a huge difference.





Willowy said:


> Yes, a huge difference. . .but a lot of people don't want to be informed. Those people should be directed toward the path of least harm. Which in most cases (such as the above case ^^) would almost certainly be spay/neuter, unless YOU want to be the one to find homes for all their unwanted puppies/kittens (or kill them).


They should at least be offered the option of the information instead of the insistance that there is only one right way, which is the point that I was making as well. IF they don't want to know, then of course spay/neuter is the best route to go. Most people, in my experience, ARE smart enough to figure that out and do understand their limitations, which is why most DO spay/neuter today and which is why there have been vast improvements in intake rates in many places. Admittedly I've had the privilege of living where the education route was tried, and has worked, so I do have trust in it.

SOB


----------



## WashingtonCowgirl (Mar 8, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



hulkamaniac said:


> I'm sorry, but statements like that piss me off and I see them made over and over and over again in threads like this. The implication is that those who speuter their dogs are not as responsible. The other implication is that not speutering your dog is the responsible thing to do. Both of these implications are complete and total BS.


I didn't mean it to sound like that. I meant that I was more responsible then SHE was... not anyone else... I should have clarified that the comparison wasn't to everyone, just her. She is not so bad of a dog owner, but she definitely shouldn't own bully breeds...


ETA: For a large number of people, the single most responsible thing they can do is speuter... It all depends on the situation. I'm sorry if what I said offended you in any way, as it wasn't meant to at all.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*

Holy crap, I'm gone 2 1/2 hours and come back to three more pages?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*



amavanna said:


> perhaps the way the shelter here does things, making the owner show proof of the vet visit and spay/neuatering after the option of running further blood work ( at the owners expence) could kind of help both opinions.


Here's the thing: it might seem like the shelter you adopted from is doing things right, but, IMO, they were terribly irresponsible and negligent in allowing you (not YOU, of course, since you will have her spayed, I mean in general) to take Lela home unspayed. If you chose not to spay her, there is almost nothing they could do about it. You could breed her twice a year and sell the pups to laboratories and dog fighters, and they couldn't stop you. Legalities concerning these things vary widely among states, but in most places, the most they could do is sue you for breach of contract. And it costs money to sue someone, and very few shelters have extra money lying around. They would have to choose between using that money for caring for the animals in the shelter, and using it to to sue you. Most of the time they ignore non-compliance, after a few threatening letters. Lawsuits just aren't in the budget. 

I stand by the statement: no animal should leave a shelter unaltered. Any shelter that allows this is adding to the problem. No wonder they're always full.



amavanna said:


> That is the most *egotesticle* thing i have ever seen LOL


Hahahahahahahaha!!! I am so totally stealing that!


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

*Re: Haven't read the whole thread yet, but heres my opinion*

I see your point and can say I agree, though I didn't get lela at the shelter she was found at a store, her owner was arrested and she got left there and when she followed me home a cop tried to scoop her up and take her the pound, and at that particular place they euthanize in three days with adult dogs, so i just could not let her go. I took a big risk with how I acquired her but its worked out fortunately well.



> Holy crap, I'm gone 2 1/2 hours and come back to three more pages?


true but the thread has moved on to a much more peaceful conversation ^_^


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> They should at least be offered the option of the information instead of the insistance that there is only one right way, which is the point that I was making as well. IF they don't want to know, then of course spay/neuter is the best route to go. Most people, in my experience, ARE smart enough to figure that out and do understand their limitations, which is why most DO spay/neuter today and which is why there have been vast improvements in intake rates in many places. Admittedly I've had the privilege of living where the education route was tried, and has worked, so I do have trust in it.
> 
> SOB


You must have a better sampling of humanity than I do! Most people here want a black and white clear cut, easy to understand and not thought about answer. IE: A is bad, B is good. In those cases... yeah definitely neuter your dog! 

Anyways, my plan in the future is to spay all bitches eventually. When depends on if I'm planning on breeding them or not (kind of like what Red said earlier). If they're just pets, then once they're mature, if they're breeding then it will be once they're done being bred. Males? We'll see. I doubt Bernard will ever be neutered but I might be wrong. It just depends on what happens and what we feel will be the best for him and us in the future. Another factor for me is the breeder of my dog's wishes... I signed that Mia would be spayed by a year and so I got her spayed as per agreement.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I haven't read all of the replies (Goodness there are a lot of replies in such a short time, lol!) but my opinion is this: It's 100% up to the owner. If someone can safely keep their dog intact, by all means, keep them intact. If someone doesn't feel confident in their ability to keep an intact dog, I have no problem with them altering their dog. I do think, though, that people should be responsible with their dogs and keep the safety of their dog as their first priority. I'm sure most of you know what I mean by that.

Also, I'm not even really concerned about people's reasoning for altering/not altering. I don't care if someone just never got around to it, or if someone feels it would be more convenient to have an altered dog. Just so long as they're being responsible with their dog.

And of course, I'm opposed to irresponsible breeding.

Now I shall go back and read the other posts.

ETA: Forgot to mention, the only reason that Basil is neutered is because he's a rescue. If I bought a puppy from a breeder, and the contract required that I get my dog altered, I would do so. If for any reason I had a dog in my possession that I wasn't required to alter, I probably wouldn't alter it, even if it wasn't a show/working dog, unless of course I had to to avoid a health problem.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Yes, a huge difference. . .but a lot of people don't want to be informed. Those people should be directed toward the path of least harm. Which in most cases (such as the above case ^^) would almost certainly be spay/neuter, unless YOU want to be the one to find homes for all their unwanted puppies/kittens (or kill them).


This is well said. IME most people don't want to think about it at all.



Laurelin said:


> You must have a better sampling of humanity than I do! Most people here want a black and white clear cut, easy to understand and not thought about answer. IE: A is bad, B is good. In those cases... yeah definitely neuter your dog!


Same here.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I haven't read all of the replies (Goodness there are a lot of replies in such a short time, lol!) but my opinion is this: It's 100% up to the owner. If someone can safely keep their dog intact, by all means, keep them intact. If someone doesn't feel confident in their ability to keep an intact dog, I have no problem with them altering their dog.
> 
> Also, I'm not even really concerned about people's reasoning for altering/not altering. I don't care if someone just never got around to it, or if someone feels it would be more convenient to have an altered dog. Just so long as they're being responsible with their dog.


this^^^^. this is exactly my position with the addition of one thing..


Im not going to lie to someone if they ask my opinion. Ive had a good track record getting people to neuter without having to say i think something that i dont think. i DONT think all companion animals have to or should be neutered. Some quite obviously SHOULDNT BE(and yeah i brought up my cat because she's a prime example. a teeny tiny scratch on her causes bleeding that can easily escalate to needing e vet care...surgery? no. not unless it's VITAL to her survival. she's almost 4 years old and she's never escaped nor gotten preggo..even when i had an unneutered male cat for a week after i picked him up off the side of the road. I went to a cat breeder to get containment and management advice. and she lives quite comfortably)

(this is nothing specifically directed at you Nargle, your post was just the best summation of what i think already written out.)


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Sorry, this typo cracked me up. Do they have attorneys?


OMG Red, you are so mean. How dare you insult me on a public forum!

OK, just kidding... in all seriousness...

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahaha Red, I am so glad you caught this! I have no idea where that came from! I think I'm scatterbrained from caring for pups 24/7.... 

LOL. I'm still cracking up.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't see it as lying... Honestly if I don't know much about someone and how they manage their pets and they ask me "Should I neuter my dog?" I would say yes because I would really feel that is probably the best thing for them. Unless I _really_ know the person well and know they'll be responsible...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> They should at least be offered the option of the information instead of the insistance that there is only one right way, which is the point that I was making as well. IF they don't want to know, then of course spay/neuter is the best route to go. Most people, in my experience, ARE smart enough to figure that out and do understand their limitations, which is why most DO spay/neuter today and which is why there have been vast improvements in intake rates in many places. Admittedly I've had the privilege of living where the education route was tried, and has worked, so I do have trust in it.
> 
> SOB


i kinda put myself in a position where i was the educator. My original goal was just to spend as much time with as many pit bulls as i could. then i got into helping people train and manage them.

I know several guys who i think most of the people here would look at them and their dogs and either shake their heads in disgust or gasp in horror. they're big dudes with prison tattoos and bad pasts with huge honkin bully dogs as well as more pit bull type with names like "Thug" and "Switchblade" who have really ugly spiked leather walking gear.(im working on this)

but every one of those dogs is neutered. there is NO WAY you're gonna just _tell_ guys like that "Fix Your Dog" and they're gonna listen to you. So i didnt even try. 

and their dogs are still neutered. Those guys just needed to be able to see and make the decision best for them. In many cases, speuter IS what's best for them. the cases where its not...well...those arent the people that need any help with their dogs lol.



Laurelin said:


> I don't see it as lying... Honestly if I don't know much about someone and how they manage their pets and they ask me "Should I neuter my dog?" I would say yes because I would really feel that is probably the best thing for them. Unless I _really_ know the person well and know they'll be responsible...


no no no...



> without having to say i think something that i dont think.


from that post should be the clarifier there. if i say something that i really dont think...then that's a lie. You do think it...so coming from you..it's not a lie.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> One could argue that those keeping their dog intact are increasing the risk that their dogs will contact cancers of the reproductive organs, or pyometra, or an increased risk of mammary tumors. Risks are risks, and frankly, in this case, there are minimal risks on both sides.


Except based on the informatin I read/find, the risks increase greater when you neuter than when you don't. Both have risks and benefits, but the benefits seem stronger towards neutering, and there are more. 



hulkamaniac said:


> The article I was referring to about anesthesia is here. The overall risks to all dogs was 0.17%. For healthy dogs it was 0.05% and for sick dogs it was 1.33%
> 
> A lot of the hype is people not assessing risks properly. People point to the fact that neutered dogs have a 27% - 38% increased risk of an adverse reaction to vaccinations. On the surface, this sounds like a significant increase. Then you see that even with the increase, the chance of an adverse reaction goes all the way up to 0.32%. I'm sorry, but a risk of less than half a percent is not enough to sway my opinion and I'm a bit surprised why it would change anyone's opinion at all.


See, this is where so much information can vary. I read an article (found it ) that stated back in the 90s (when is was less likely for dogs to be neutered than now) that the fatal rate as a result of anesthesia, was .45%. Over 10 years later, you can imagine this rate has increased. Okay, small risk. But for an elective surgery? Why take it at all?



> Again, if you're going to make an argument that pediatric s/n is harmful, I can go along with that. I think you can make a good argument that way. I won't argue with you there.


I think this is something that more people definitely agree with and is becoming the norm. Glad we can agree on this. 



> There are a million reasons why someone would want to keep a working dog intact. There are no compelling reasons IMO why someone would want to keep a pet dog intact. If you've got a mutt, what is your reason to keep the mutt intact once he/she is full grown? To avoid that 0.32% chance?


But I mean that working dog owners prefer to keep their mutts and strictly companion dogs intact as well. Why is this?



Bones said:


> I think you're argument here is a bit flawed. You keep vaguely referencing some type of malicious intent or malice by ignorance for dog owners who get their pets neutered and keep emphasizing it as an uneccisary risk. However, when considering neutering i consider both the societal and personal aspects- the research you have alluded to does not make me believe that the risk is enormously greater then the risks associated with not neutering- healthwise and societal.


I'm not saying any dog owner who gets their pets neutered are ignorant. I'm saying they should be correctly informed and be kept up to date on the information surrounding the surgery. You don't have to believe that the risk of neutering is greater than the risk of keeping intact. Perhaps we're just not reading the same information or the risks outweigh your lifestyle too much.



MonicaBH said:


> I've always s/n my pets and, I always will. I don't think there's any reason to have a companion/pet dog left intact.
> 
> Like others, I consider myself to be a very responsible pet owner; however, I cannot be with my pets 100% of the time. They have a petsitter when I go away, and I trust her. She also has a life and cannot be with them 100% of the time. I don't want to be responsible for an oops litter. I don't want my bitch to have to undergo an emergency, risky pyometra surgery. I don't want my dog to have prostate problems. I've seen many pets that have those problems, and I don't want for my pets or myself to have to go through it.


"On the negative side, neutering male dogs quadruples the small risk of prostate cancer"

This would have to go back to who's reading what and where everyone is getting their information, I suppose.


> It's a better choice for me, my pets and my family to s/n. That does not make me an irresponsible owner. It makes me an owner who has weighed the pros and cons of both sides and made a choice that best suits my family & lifestyle.


Absolutely agree. 



amavanna said:


> These are just a few of the medical conditions you can prevent by spaying or neutering. The list really goes on and on . I mean just the heat cycle itself is very extremly stressful on the dog. Some dogs have run through glass doors and windows just trying to get out. Some dogs have destroyed households. There was one case in particular where a large breed dog assulted his female owner, thankfully the woman wasn't hurt but the dog was large enough to really do damage and she fortunatly was able to control the dog. There are numerous dangers in the dogs ability to act on instict when it comes to mating. And if you have no reason for the dog to be "intact' as people were putting it i think, then I don't see why you would want to put the dog through the extra stress and yourself through the extra stress of the dog being in heat. It may feel like your taking your dogs "manhood or womanhood" away, but dogs just don't think like that lol.


I figured since you found so many apparent risks to NOT spaying your dog I would include a couple of the benefits to keeping her intact. Just so you have both sides of the information.



> 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
> ...





hulkamaniac said:


> Can we all agree that at best the data is mixed and numerous studies conflict with each other? You can't definitively say that you should or shouldn't speuter based purely on medical reasons. Can we not agree on that?


I think we can agree on that.

Jeez.. now that I caught up to all of the 3 new pages of information... 



Willowy said:


> See I don't think that "directing" adopters to a place to get the pet spayed is good enough. Plenty of people WON'T. Ask any shelter. . .the Humane Society here once said that they have "just over a half" compliance rate on their spay/neuter "requirement". And they can't enforce it at all once the animal is out of their care. All they can do is send sharply worded letters. Ooooh! Now there's a reason to spay that nice purebred dog you adopted from them when what you really want to do is make $100 each on her puppies. And cats get pregnant if a tomcat looks at them funny. . .all the cats I know who were adopted unspayed from the HS had at least one litter after being adopted.
> 
> So, no, that's just not good enough. Any shelter that allows unspayed animals out of the building is being a CAUSE of the problem. They adopt one unspayed animal out, and they get her 5 kittens/puppies back 6 months later. They're basically being a matching service for irresponsible breeders. If a shelter can't afford to spay/neuter before adoption, they should drop the animal off at the vet of the adopter's choice to be altered. No matter how they do it, a shelter pet should never be in the possession of the adopter until she's spayed.


I disagree with most of this. I think this is a simple issue of the way shelters conduct business, how many resources they have, and the area. The HS I used to work at rarely s/ned any animal before it left unless it was there a while. The rest were on spay/neuter contracts and recently they made potential adopters set up a neuter appointment (confirmed) before taking their animal home. 

I can honestly say the entire time I've volunteered and worked that that not one animal got pregnant, and we knew that because we checked up with vets and owners. They didn't take it to the vet on the day they said or cancelled the appointment? We repo'd the dog before anything happened, and it never did. 

If shelters are using the same kind of policies and so many animals are getting knocked up, they are doing something seriously WRONG and should change it or shut down. They aren't benefiting anybody. 



WashingtonCowgirl said:


> Too bad she wont see it like that


Haha, to be honest, I would tell her that I can be a hypocrite all I want because I don't plan on breeding my intact dog. And it would end there. 



hulkamaniac said:


> I'm sorry, but statements like that piss me off and I see them made over and over and over again in threads like this. The implication is that those who speuter their dogs are not as responsible. The other implication is that not speutering your dog is the responsible thing to do. Both of these implications are complete and total BS.


I know how is sounds, and I know she corrected herself already, but this is misunderstood all the time. I say the same thing and don't mean how it sounds, I just don't add on the "I'm a repsonsible pet owner _that wants to and has the means to take care of an intact animal"_. User error. 



Laurelin said:


> Holy crap, I'm gone 2 1/2 hours and come back to three more pages?


Right?



Willowy said:


> Here's the thing: it might seem like the shelter you adopted from is doing things right, but, IMO, they were terribly irresponsible and negligent in allowing you (not YOU, of course, since you will have her spayed, I mean in general) to take Lela home unspayed. If you chose not to spay her, there is almost nothing they could do about it. You could breed her twice a year and sell the pups to laboratories and dog fighters, and they couldn't stop you. Legalities concerning these things vary widely among states, but in most places, the most they could do is sue you for breach of contract. And it costs money to sue someone, and very few shelters have extra money lying around. They would have to choose between using that money for caring for the animals in the shelter, and using it to to sue you. Most of the time they ignore non-compliance, after a few threatening letters. Lawsuits just aren't in the budget.


What? Are the shelters I've worked at the only ones that will take a dog back without a lawsuit? This just doesn't make any sense. If she had violated the spay/neuter contract, the adoption agreement is null and void, and the shelter can take the animal back with no issues. This has never been a problem for us, anyway. If a shelter doesn't have such a contract or such options, then there is definitely no way they should be adopting out un-neutered animals.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I am not a fan of it personally. Folks on both sides will argue medical benefits/risks..... I have done so as well. 

It is pointless.... IMO..... Removing naturally occurring hormones from from a dogs system is not a thing.

Dealing with an intact dog and preventing unwanted pregnancies is no big deal. It is not hard to do.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Dealing with an intact dog and preventing unwanted pregnancies is no big deal. It is not hard to do.


But would you trust the majority of dog owners to keep their intact dogs properly contained? Do you think they'd be better off if they had left their dogs intact?

I dunno, I'm like Laurelin - some of you guys must have seen the better side of humanity or something. Because the majority of dog owners I've come across do not really seem to be interested in thinking so in depth and weighing the benefits and disadvantages of something like this. And IMO there is a big difference between a dog _owner_ and a dog _person_.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> I dunno, I'm like Laurelin - some of you guys must have seen the better side of humanity or something. Because the majority of dog owners I've come across do not really seem to be interested in thinking so in depth and weighing the benefits and disadvantages of something like this. And IMO there is a big difference between a dog _owner_ and a dog _person_.


It was the big macho thuggish dudes that did it for me. If guys like that can be reasoned with..well..i just explained what defines being responsible, mentioned the costs involved in each possible scenario and the cautions involved each as well as ways to make preferred costs lower(and by costs i dont just mean money). They made the judgement call

"i dont know enough about your situation to be able to make that judgement call..and im not gonna ask because asking for some of that information would be intrusive. but you're a grown man with a brain in your head and you're capable of doing things right on your own. the question is how far you're willing to go"

it works.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> I read an article (found it ) that stated back in the 90s (when is was less likely for dogs to be neutered than now) that the fatal rate as a result of anesthesia, was .45%. *Over 10 years later, you can imagine this rate has increased.*


Why would the risk have increased? Newer anesthetics are safer (I know this is just a side point and is unimportant, I'm just confused as to why I should imagine that anesthetic is less safe now than in the 90s).



> What? Are the shelters I've worked at the only ones that will take a dog back without a lawsuit? This just doesn't make any sense. If she had violated the spay/neuter contract, the adoption agreement is null and void, and the shelter can take the animal back with no issues. This has never been a problem for us, anyway. If a shelter doesn't have such a contract or such options, then there is definitely no way they should be adopting out un-neutered animals.


Of course they have a contract. . .but a contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless you can back it up with a lawsuit. Possession is 9/10 of the law, and are YOU going to go repo a dog from a rugged individualist with a shotgun? Who lives 50 miles from the shelter and has barbed wire strung across his driveway, with "no trespassing" signs hung all over the wire? Sounds like fun. First of all, the shelter doesn't have the kinds of resources to pay for gas to locations out of town (they can't even afford to spay before adoption!), and a lot of their adoptions are out of town, and secondly, they can hardly ask an unpaid volunteer or a teenager paid minimum wage to risk his life/safety like that. Sure, they try to repo when they can (by which time a cat will already be hugely pregnant or have given birth. . .you know how cats are. At least dogs only go into heat twice a year), but I doubt they succeed even half the time. The people in this state don't take kindly to people coming to take the pet "they paid good money for"!



JohnnyBandit said:


> Dealing with an intact dog and preventing unwanted pregnancies is no big deal. It is not hard to do.


Ah. That must be why there are never any unplanned/unwanted litters.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Ah. That must be why there are never any unplanned/unwanted litters.


Didn't say it was practiced by all dog owners.... I said it is not difficult. And it is not. I have had multiple dogs for most of my 43 years. All but a very few have been intact. No dog I have owned has been responsible for an unplanned or unwanted litter.



MissMutt said:


> But would you trust the majority of dog owners to keep their intact dogs properly contained? Do you think they'd be better off if they had left their dogs intact?
> 
> .


I don't trust the majority of dog owners to do a lot of the right things with dogs.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

nekomi said:


> Amen TWAB! Loved this post.


I understand all the debate, but to me, in the end you're not a bad dog owner if you alter, and you're not a bad dog owner if you don't. There are risks either way and it's a large enough gray area with studies supporting both sides. Lots of dogs have lead long, normal lives after being altered. Lots of dogs have lead long, normal lives not being altered. Scrutiny for either camp makes little sense to me. I recall when I had Jonas before he got altered and when I took him into work people would make disparaging comments like "Oh, you DON'T have him neutered?" and "Ugh, you have to get those things cut off." and coworkers talked badly behind my back about how I wasn't taking care of him because I hadn't even gotten him neutered yet. I'm glad I'm of a strong mind, but they were making it seem like I was doing something wrong and harming my dog when that is the last thing I think anyone of us would do. 

At the end of the day, I'm not going to feel wrong when I made the best, informed decision for my dogs and I don't think anyone should. I wish I had not altered Smalls, but at the time I felt it was for the best. Altered or not, my dogs would be dead without question if I didn't have them, and that is a bit more important in the grand scheme of things for me.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Except based on the informatin I read/find, the risks increase greater when you neuter than when you don't. Both have risks and benefits, but the benefits seem stronger towards neutering, and there are more.


Except much of the information that I (and apparently my vets) have read conflicts with each other and there is not clear consensus that spaying/neutering actually does carry increased risks over keeping the dog intact. The research is less than crystal clear. Until there is concrete, non-conflicting data, I will not be leaving my animals intact. You can do as you see fit with your animals, but I am not going to risk any accidents happening. Too many dogs (and cats) lose their lives in shelters every day because owners aren't responsible, I'm NOT going to be one of them. 

As for education being the key, I have to side with those who certainly don't see that good side of people. I live in a very rural, backwards area; education might help eventually, but first they have to start seeing dogs as something more than a lawn ornament that they can get rid of when it becomes too much trouble.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I don't trust the majority of dog owners to do a lot of the right things with dogs.


Nor do I. So if it were my choice, I'd say they're better off not doing the right things with one dog as opposed to a whole brood of 'em. That's jus' me.


----------



## CandJHarris (Apr 29, 2010)

Taco is just over 5 years old and is intact. Admittedly, he's a pain in the @$$ when a neighborhood dog goes into heat - constantly whining and pacing at the door trying to get outside. Otherwise, he doesn't have any other issues. No marking, aggression, etc. As of now though, I have no plans to neuter him. I can deal with him being a brat a couple of times a year.

Izzy was spayed shortly after her first heat cycle. This was partly out of convenience and for the safety of all my dogs because 99% of the male dogs in our neighborhood are intact and no one here has fences, so her first heat was a nightmare trying to keep them all out of the yard. Otherwise, I feel like the health risks are higher for an intact female than a spayed one, so all the girls I've ever owned have been spayed.

Tyson is almost 9 months old and is still intact. He will be neutered, but not until he's at least a year old. I'd really like to wait until he's 18 - 24 months to ensure he's finished growing and his development isn't stunted in any way.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I have told this story on here before...... I was standing in line at Petsmart checkout with Merlin.... A woman behind me, says Sir Sir... Your dog has his testicles. (It was quite crowded and a rescue was set up near checkout. I assume she was trying to call me out or embarrass me in the crowd) My response was to look her right in the face and say... "why yes he does, they are quite lovely, would you like to touch them?


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Why would the risk have increased? Newer anesthetics are safer (I know this is just a side point and is unimportant, I'm just confused as to why I should imagine that anesthetic is less safe now than in the 90s).


Because there are more vets (not all using the same practices, many "bad" vets now), the rate of s/ns has increased dramatically, and the genetics of dogs has all-around suffered, causing more propensity for such reactions or deaths.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> Nor do I. So if it were my choice, I'd say they're better off not doing the right things with one dog as opposed to a whole brood of 'em. That's jus' me.


The difference.... I feel that there are risks to my dogs health by neutering. I am not anti nueter. Far from it. It is not right for me or my dogs. Thus I am not willing to stand by idle while efforts to legally mandate the altering are pushed. 

I am however more than willing to participate in educational programs as long as that education includes responsibly managing an intact dog as part of the program.

As for vets peddling spay neuter as a product.... Yea... They do it.... It is a profitable service for them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL, it just occurred to me that we probably have a relevant battle going on right now locally. The HS has been sending certified letters to a guy who lives outside of town (I work at the Post Office). I think I can guess what the letters are about. The guy never picks up the letters and they get sent back unclaimed. . .they've spent over $20 sending the letters already. I don't know how much it costs for a shelter to neuter a dog, but I'm sure neutering the animals would be a better use of their money than sending letters that go unclaimed. I've never seen this guy's property, but from what I've seen of him I suspect he's one with a shotgun and barbed wire.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> As for vets peddling spay neuter as a product.... Yea... They do it.... *It is a profitable service for them.*


No, it is not. Most vets either break even or lose money on spays and neuters. It would not be affordable for the vast majority of people if they were priced according to their true value.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have told this story on here before...... I was standing in line at Petsmart checkout with Merlin.... A woman behind me, says Sir Sir... Your dog has his testicles. (It was quite crowded and a rescue was set up near checkout. I assume she was trying to call me out or embarrass me in the crowd) My response was to look her right in the face and say... "why yes he does, they are quite lovely, would you like to touch them?


This was the attitude I was touching on in my last post. I can't say I've ever gotten flack from people for having altered dogs, but I heard about it all the time when Jonas was still intact- like somehow I could not see his enormous swinging testicles and needed to have it pointed out to me in a shameful manner every day.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The difference.... I feel that there are risks to my dogs health by neutering. I am not anti nueter. Far from it. It is not right for me or my dogs. Thus I am not willing to stand by idle while efforts to legally mandate the altering are pushed.
> 
> I am however more than willing to participate in educational programs as long as that education includes responsibly managing an intact dog as part of the program.
> 
> As for vets peddling spay neuter as a product.... Yea... They do it.... It is a profitable service for them.


WOAH! I never said anything about legally mandating! I'm totally against mandatory spay/neuter. I'm ALL for education.

But I think by encouraging general dog owners to think critically about the S/N debate encourages them to see an easy opportunity to avoid S/N for the wrong reasons (money, inconvenience of vet visit, etc.). Which, in turn, would make overpopulation problems worse, which, in turn, would have animal rightists going even more wild than they are now about mandatory s/n. I guess it just goes back to me having a bleaker idea about the amount of mental effort people want to actually put in to their dogs, and perhaps being slightly less worried about the health risks of s/n (this is not including pediatric/immature s/n). Just a difference in opinion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> Because there are more vets (not all using the same practices, many "bad" vets now), the rate of s/ns has increased dramatically, and the genetics of dogs has all-around suffered, causing more propensity for such reactions or deaths.


The number of speuters shouldn't change the percentage---.45% is .45%, regardless of what number it's a percentage of. 

I don't know that there are worse vets now. . .really? I only had dealings with military vets until 1994 (and nobody expects the base vet to be great with pets; he's mostly there for the working dogs. If he deigns to see pets at all it's as a favor), but Willow's first vet was great. The second one was a very good vet but had no people skills, the third one (that town cannot keep a vet!) was OK at first but has gotten a bit crazy with age (he's very close to retirement now). Anyway, I don't know what vets were like before but I find it hard to believe they were all better before 1990. I mean, my vet was a vet before I was born, and he's pretty good, but so is the exotics vet I go to, and he's not much older than I am.

And I won't go into the genetics thing because I really have no idea on the subject. I just think it's a little far-fetched to say that a particular surgery has gotten more dangerous the more often it's done. Seems the opposite would be true.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> No, it is not. Most vets either break even or lose money on spays and neuters. It would not be affordable for the vast majority of people if they were priced according to their true value.


You have something to back this up? 

Your statement makes absolutely no sense. If low cost spay and neuter clinics can do neuters for 45 bucks and spays for less than a hundred, the average vet charging 175-250 for a neuter and up to 350 for a spay is making money. 

A good personal friend of mine is a vet, whom happens to "specialize" in low cost spay and neuters. He is a full service vets office but advertises his low cost spay and neuter services HEAVILY. He does the spays and neuters for rescues and shelters in several counties plus anyone that comes. His prices are so low that people commonly drive well over 100 miles to have their dogs done by him. He is in a small town and advertises in newspapers and other media in large cities that are at least 100 miles away. Is he losing money on his services?



MissMutt said:


> WOAH! I never said anything about legally mandating! I'm totally against mandatory spay/neuter. I'm ALL for education.
> 
> But I think by encouraging general dog owners to think critically about the S/N debate encourages them to see an easy opportunity to avoid S/N for the wrong reasons (money, inconvenience of vet visit, etc.). Which, in turn, would make overpopulation problems worse, which, in turn, would have animal rightists going even more wild than they are now about mandatory s/n. I guess it just goes back to me having a bleaker idea about the amount of mental effort people want to actually put in to their dogs, and perhaps being slightly less worried about the health risks of s/n (this is not including pediatric/immature s/n). Just a difference in opinion.


Then we are virtually in agreement.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> Except much of the information that I (and apparently my vets) have read conflicts with each other and there is not clear consensus that spaying/neutering actually does carry increased risks over keeping the dog intact. The research is less than crystal clear. Until there is concrete, non-conflicting data, I will not be leaving my animals intact. You can do as you see fit with your animals, but I am not going to risk any accidents happening. Too many dogs (and cats) lose their lives in shelters every day because owners aren't responsible, I'm NOT going to be one of them.


I'm fairly certain that (just like with everything else) here will never be concrete, non-conflicting data on the subject. Everyone will have their opinions, but how can you completely disregard studies, in one favor or the other?

I have a question for those of you who neuter/spay because you don't watch your dogs 24/7, and think the possibility that a burgler may break in and leave your door open for your dog to go out and mate is a real concern. Or just that your dog may get out on accident. 

How often do your dogs actually get out? I've never had a dog get loose on me. I don't see how it can be sooo common.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> How often do your dogs actually get out? I've never had a dog get loose on me. I don't see how it can be sooo common.


It only takes once.

And I do think most pet dogs get loose fairly regularly. My mom's dogs bolt whenever a door is opened and someone isn't paying attention. They just run around like twits for a couple minutes and come back, but if they weren't spayed (maybe having a silent heat so nobody knew to take extra precautions) who knows what would happen. 

My grandpa's dogs (intact males) got loose all the time. We know the Lab fathered at least one litter (well, that's what her owners said), who knows how many more. Nobody ever slapped the Schnauzer with a paternity suit, but he probably got around. 

My parents' neighbor once had a box of puppies deposited on her doorstep--the female's owner said "I raised them to 8 weeks, now it's your turn". She never even knew her dog had been near the mother until then. There was no doubt the pups were his, though  . They all looked just like him, none looked like Momdog.

An acquaintance (who just recently had their dog spayed--yay!) claimed their dog NEVER got loose, she's too well-trained for that. . . but she somehow managed to have 2 unplanned litters. They never saw the fathers, and never knew she was pregnant until she started showing. Mysterious!

I don't think it's rare.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> It only takes once.


Absolutely, but has it ever happened? It only takes once for a bus to hit you before you're dead, too. *shrugs*

I guess, my dogs have never escaped, so I have no need to think they may now.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

DJEtzel said:


> How often do your dogs actually get out? I've never had a dog get loose on me. I don't see how it can be sooo common.


It's never happened to me (and Wally's neutered anyway which is why all this talk of health risks to neutered dogs keeps making me anxious because I wonder what ELSE has been stacked against him), but I see loose dogs around here relatively frequently. Just the other night, Wally and I encountered one, and he has his gear, so to speak. 

A couple months ago, two dogs encountered us. Thankfully, they were harmless (just rough, one cut me down while walking like a linebacker tackling a running back) but both had their gear.

A little before that, an animal control officer had caught an intact male. He was just sniffing around the garbage, not really bothering anything, but he was loose. 

Another loose dog, also intact, was roaming around. He was friendly and all and Wally was fascinated by the scent of his pee (while he peed even, was surprised Wally didn't get peed on).

So, at least around here, it's not this super infrequent once a year type occurrence.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You have something to back this up?


I'm curious what you are basing your statements on as well. I'm basing mine on the lamentations of my boss, co-workers, colleagues, and professional associations as well as sitting down and calculating the actual costs of supplies and staff time and comparing them to what we charge for spays (and what people are willing to pay). Spays and neuters are very well known as a loss-leader in veterinary medicine, and this will probably only get worse as standards of care change.





> Your statement makes absolutely no sense. If low cost spay and neuter clinics can do neuters for 45 bucks and spays for less than a hundred, the average vet charging 175-250 for a neuter and up to 350 for a spay is making money.


A lot of low cost clinics are doing their surgeries _very_ differently from a general practice, especially the high volume spay and neuter clinics. 




> A good personal friend of mine is a vet, whom happens to "specialize" in low cost spay and neuters. He is a full service vets office but advertises his low cost spay and neuter services HEAVILY. He does the spays and neuters for rescues and shelters in several counties plus anyone that comes. His prices are so low that people commonly drive well over 100 miles to have their dogs done by him. He is in a small town and advertises in newspapers and other media in large cities that are at least 100 miles away. Is he losing money on his services?


Possibly. I don't know your friend. If he's doing a very high volume and scheduling in a particular way, or if he isn't providing the same services with his spays and neuters that more expensive clinics do, he may be making a profit.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

DJEtzel said:


> I'm fairly certain that (just like with everything else) here will never be concrete, non-conflicting data on the subject. Everyone will have their opinions, but how can you completely disregard studies, in one favor or the other?
> 
> I have a question for those of you who neuter/spay because you don't watch your dogs 24/7, and think the possibility that a burgler may break in and leave your door open for your dog to go out and mate is a real concern. Or just that your dog may get out on accident.
> 
> How often do your dogs actually get out? I've never had a dog get loose on me. I don't see how it can be sooo common.


It could happen but.... a bunch of dogs and I have never had one get loose. If a burgler comes in he is getting eaten.... Merlin bites the crotch area on a decoy about 20 percent of the time, so there is a chance the burgler will get neutered. 

Betty the bitch I am working with in conformation, was here during full blown heat a while back. She was entered in a show and pulling her would have broken the major. So she stayed here, we traveled to the show, etc. No big deal. I did crate her in a bedroom behind a closed door. But no big deal. Merlin whined once in a while but that was it.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> It's never happened to me (and Wally's neutered anyway which is why all this talk of health risks to neutered dogs keeps making me anxious because I wonder what ELSE has been stacked against him)


My dog was a pediatric spay. I'm not sure if the documents are correct but if they are, the rescue in Georgia spayed her at something like 10 WEEKS OLD. Would not be my first choice, obviously. But she is not dead, or dying. She eats a good food, takes a joint/soft tissue supplement, exercises regularly, and gets monthly massages and is happy as a clam. We may add chiro or PT later on as she gets more comfortable with being manipulated by people other than me.

I promise you, Wally will be OK. Do you see all of the s/n dogs on this forum suddenly sick and infirm? I'm not saying one shouldn't think about health risks regarding speuter status, but either way - intact or speutered - is not the end of the world, even if you are a person very concerned. Just chill out. Everything will be fine.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> I'm curious what you are basing your statements on as well. I'm basing mine on the lamentations of my boss, co-workers, colleagues, and professional associations as well as sitting down and calculating the actual costs of supplies and staff time and comparing them to what we charge for spays (and what people are willing to pay). Spays and neuters are very well known as a loss-leader in veterinary medicine, and this will probably only get worse as standards of care change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If your boss is whining about it, maybe he adjust his rates. 

I am basing my statements on a few things.... My friend..... If he was not profitable on his low cost spay and neuters, why would he market and pay newspaper ad rates to draw business from a distance that they are not likely to ever use his services again. A loss leader is to attract people to your business in hopes of selling them other goods and services. But advertising a low cost spay to a market that is likely to only buy that service..... Well would be be a very poor business decision. 

I do business with and compete with and against a fair number of vets. I know several well. I cannot say that I have ever heard one bitch about not making money on spay and neuter. 

Heard them whine about everything else it seems..... The online meds companies, the discount food stores, the vet practices in petsmart, the mobile vets that do cheap vaccinations in front of feed stores, grocery stores, drug stores, etc. The junior vet where I go, whined about my rate for helping his mother work through a behavioral issue recently. ( I told him I would discount my rates to his mom if he talked to the boss and got all the rates for my dogs care discounted. He shut up and wrote me a check.) But I have never heard a vet whine about spay and neuter rates. And they ain't cheap around here. 

Could be a different market thing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm pretty sure my vet makes at least a decent profit on speuters. I really doubt he'd do them if they weren't reasonably profitable. He prefers to treat livestock anyway. . .he only does pets for a favor (because he's the only vet in town) and because small animal practice is way more profitable than large animal practice. He doesn't charge a lot, but then his overhead is probably low (old clinic--probably paid off, minimal staffing, etc.). A vet with a fancy new clinic probably has such high overhead that charging to cover that would result in non-competitive pricing. But I don't think it's the speuter that costs so much--it's the rent, staff, etc. I mean, how much does it cost to do a spay? You need a scalpel and a spayhook (about $5 each for disposables in the vet supply catalogs I get), sutures ($5), and anesthetic (no idea on cost, but since they use the same stuff to sedate for x-rays, and x-rays are only about $50, I suspect it's not terribly pricey). I'm sure there are more things involved but I don't think the actual cost is very high.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

> I am basing my statements on a few things.... My friend..... If he was not profitable on his low cost spay and neuters, why would he market and pay newspaper ad rates to draw business from a distance that they are not likely to ever use his services again. A loss leader is to attract people to your business in hopes of selling them other goods and services. But advertising a low cost spay to a market that is likely to only buy that service..... Well would be be a very poor business decision.


For most clinic it is a loss leader. But again, some very high volume spay/neuter clinics can cut their costs on surgeries enough to make a profit, especially if their procedures are not exactly like clinics that do not do high volume. And with a very small profit on a high volume of procedures, it can work. 

The most common way I've seen high volume clinics differ in their approach is to have an assembly-line approach where they are anesthetizing and recovering multiple patients at the same time, getting the next one down before the current one is done, rather than the surgeon and technician follow one patient from starting anesthesia to recovery before starting the next patient. With enough surgical packs and the former technique, a fast surgeon can probably easily do 5-10x the number of spays in a day that someone using the latter technique could do.

This gets into a whole separate issue of... a spay is not a spay is not a spay. Anesthetic and surgical techniques, surgical monitoring, nursing care, pain control, fluids, even how surgical instruments are sterilized and maintained vary enormously from clinic to clinic. It does make things frustrating and confusing when comparing prices between clinics.



> I do business with and compete with and against a fair number of vets. I know several well. I cannot say that I have ever heard one bitch about not making money on spay and neuter.
> 
> Heard them whine about everything else it seems..... The online meds companies, the discount food stores, the vet practices in petsmart, the mobile vets that do cheap vaccinations in front of feed stores, grocery stores, drug stores, etc. The junior vet where I go, whined about my rate for helping his mother work through a behavioral issue recently. ( I told him I would discount my rates to his mom if he talked to the boss and got all the rates for my dogs care discounted. He shut up and wrote me a check.) But I have never heard a vet whine about spay and neuter rates. And they ain't cheap around here.
> 
> Could be a different market thing.


Well it's not like we sit around moaning about it all day long, especially since it's pretty old business, it's just pretty much accepted. Internet pharmacies and mobile vets are all shiny and new to bitch about. Shelters getting into the spay/neuter business is a pretty shiny topic, too.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

After 11 pages I thought I would have a headache going back and forth!lol.

I will more than likely always have my dog and cats spayed and neutered. I do care for my animals health and want whats best for them. I have yet to find an unbiased, factual(facts that are real), educated article that shows the effects of spaying/ and neutering.

Why will I spay my dogs? For one I don't want to have to deal with heat cycles. I HATE it when my friend complains about her BYB untrained, unvaccinated(she doesn't have the minimal vaccines) untrained mutts having heat cycles. Know what she does? She keeps her dogs in the back behind a garage where she can hardly see them, one of them has nearly bit 3 people. She complains that it costs to much for both vaccines and spaying, I have given her the prices for vaccines(they are quite cheap compared to others) and told her about my shelter's low cost spay/neuter and financial assistance program to help pay for the surgery. My girl Molly is from a oops/BYB litter and we didn't want the heat cycles, oops litters, cancer etc. We got her spayed and she is one the healthiest, most athletic, agile, energetic dogs I have ever had. I love her personality all she has to offer. Her personality has NOT changed, she is the same dog as she was before the surgery, she is very healthy. She has amazing recall, well trained(some stuff we never taught her) won't run off(never taught her to do that.) She is very sweet, loyal, protective, and an all around great dog. I never plan on breeding or showing. I am a responsible pet owner and do whats best for MY dog. I offered advice to my friend, but she doesn't want to listen, she is someone who I call irresponsible. I know people who can keep an intacted bitch and are responsible and care for their girls.

Why will I neuter my dogs? I have had my leg humped before and it is NOT fun, its gross and disgusting. I have another friend who has 2 male dogs(I don't care if someone has more than 1 dog of the same sex)1 dog is neutered and severely overweight, has a terrible coat, is untrained, smells. Know why he is like this? Not because he is neutered, but because they give him a poor diet(they over feed him) and have given him beer & chocolate(I have confronted her about this, but I bet they still do it.) he NEVER goes for walks(and my friend complains he is horrible on walks. DUH! HE ISN'T TRAINED) They hardly ever bathe him, he is kept outside all day and night in pretty much dirt. He is a very sweet, but I think if someone else had him he would be alot better off.The other male, is a stray, a mutt, has a aggression issues, is not bathed(they claim both dogs are bathed, but I HIGHLY DOUBT it), marks in the house, humps things and people, smells,is unvaccinated(no minimal vaccines) has a disgusting black lump right near his man parts(I never want to hold him) he runs out, he is untrained and intact. I have confronted her about this, know what she says? We can't afford it. They are failing the dogs health wise, training wise and depriving them of being clean. She is an irresponsible owner of both and intacted and neutered dog. Both behaviors and physical attributes can happen for both altered and intact dogs.

Tanner is neutered, doesn't mark, isn't aggressive, gentle, healthy, trained, and an all around great dog. He came from a shelter, he was brought in as a stray. We are glad he is neutered because we don't want him go crazy over in heat females, we don't want cancer, or marking in the house. We don't want oops litters either. I love everything about Tanner and want what is best for him. I have offered my friend advice for her dogs, but she too also fails to listen. I don't push it on them either.Both get defensive also.Yet these people afford expensive cars, shoes, phones,expensive hair treatments, clothing, and afford to get their house remodeled, but yet fail at owning dogs and they also complain that they don't qualify for financial aid for college because their parents make too much.I have a friend who doesn't come from a rich family, never had the best of stuff, she was able to do it fabulously too, but they are able to afford basic health, training, and making sure their dogs are clean and come to me for advice on pet care. I have another VERY good friend who comes to me for any dog advice she needs.I also volunteer at an animal shelter where the dogs are spayed/neutered before they are adopted out no ifs ands or buts. We have tons of Chihuahuas and recently had 8-9 GSDs brought in. We are thinking a BYB is in the area. My vet is not out to get our money, he is very supportive and nice. He asked us when we wanted Molly spayed, he didn't push early spay or anything. He said which ever is comfortable with us. I do not like seeing all the dogs and cats in shelters and them being euthanized.

I do agree until waiting until a dog is fully matured(male & female) to spay/neuter. There are idiots owners of both intact and altered animals, if you fail at one or both you should NOT own a dog. If you fail at being an irresponsible owner of any animal you should not own any animal.

I will continue to spay and neuter my pets because I feel more comfortable, its better for me and my dogs, I care for my dogs and their well being.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

JuneBud said:


> No emotions - possibly (not so sure of that - I believe dogs have emotions), but the drive is there. Sex is a basic drive in all lifeforms and certainly the dog is no exception. Every species on earth is genetically programmed to reproduce at all cost. If they weren't, their species would go extinct. You can be 100% certain that an intact animal has the drive. Many handle abstinence well without obvious problems due to domestication - others not so much. I still empathize with the intact animal not allowed to breed.


Dogs are not human, and sex for dogs is biological for the reasons you stated above. Not getting any is NOT a problem for an intact male unless there's a bitch in season around. Bitches only mate at a specific time during the heat cycle, which is every 6 months or so. And, NEUTERED males will mate with a bitch who's ready, so neutered or intact, makes no difference.



> =JessieLove09;923955]Why will I neuter my dogs? I have had my leg humped before and it is NOT fun, its gross and disgusting.


I have news for you - neutered males hump, and for that matter, some females, intact or spayed, hump, too. Humping isn't always about sex.




> Tanner is neutered, doesn't mark, isn't aggressive, gentle, healthy, trained, and an all around great dog. He came from a shelter, he was brought in as a stray. We are glad he is neutered because we don't want him go crazy over in heat females, we don't want cancer, or marking in the house.


FYI, marking is a training issue, and both intact and neutered males may mark. Neutering won't change an aggressive dog, but training may help. I have a neutered male who is 9 yrs. old. He still gets very excited around an intact bitch who is in season. If he was given the opportunity, he would mate with the bitch.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I'm fairly certain that (just like with everything else) here will never be concrete, non-conflicting data on the subject. Everyone will have their opinions, but how can you completely disregard studies, in one favor or the other?
> 
> I have a question for those of you who neuter/spay because you don't watch your dogs 24/7, and think the possibility that a burgler may break in and leave your door open for your dog to go out and mate is a real concern. Or just that your dog may get out on accident.
> 
> How often do your dogs actually get out? I've never had a dog get loose on me. I don't see how it can be sooo common.


I am ALWAYS with my dogs when they are outside of the house. They are either supervised in a fenced in yard, or on a lead. One time, Sasha saw a cat outside the fence and she leaped over the fence and was on her way. She had never done that before, but she has a very high prey drive. Of course she was so focused on the cat that she had absolutely no recall. I finally got a hold of her after she had treed the cat. After that, she got put out on a lead, because even when I was right there, she managed to get over the fence so I didn't want to take chances. So, I think it happens, even under close supervision. And, I think it happens even more under lax supervision (i.e. the intact lab and maltese that frequently wander around my neighborhood).


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

I agree with Poodle. Jessie, you really didn't give any reason for wanting to neuter... except rambling off some claims about behavior that aren't true. 

You said that's what's best for your pets and family.. but why?



brandiw said:


> I am ALWAYS with my dogs when they are outside of the house. They are either supervised in a fenced in yard, or on a lead. One time, Sasha saw a cat outside the fence and she leaped over the fence and was on her way. She had never done that before, but she has a very high prey drive. Of course she was so focused on the cat that she had absolutely no recall. I finally got a hold of her after she had treed the cat. After that, she got put out on a lead, because even when I was right there, she managed to get over the fence so I didn't want to take chances. So, I think it happens, even under close supervision. And, I think it happens even more under lax supervision (i.e. the intact lab and maltese that frequently wander around my neighborhood).


I guess I've never had to deal with this. If my dog didn't have a perfect recall he wouldn't be off leash anywhere he could escape from (Ie; 6 ft fences), but as it stands, I much prefer taking my dog out on leash and will probably do that for some time anyway.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I agree with Poodle. Jessie, you really didn't give any reason for wanting to neuter... except rambling off some claims about behavior that aren't true.
> 
> You said that's what's best for your pets and family.. but why?
> 
> ...


Well, she did have "perfect" recall until she saw a fleeing cat, plus she was inside a 5ft chain link fence that she had never tried to get out of before. That is why I said that accidents happen, even to responsible people. It only takes once. Now, we know what Sasha can do, we have a 6ft privacy fence that is buried and we are still outside with them 24/7. People who think it can never happen to them are naive at best. Things happen.



DJEtzel said:


> I'm fairly certain that (just like with everything else) here will never be concrete, non-conflicting data on the subject. Everyone will have their opinions, but how can you completely disregard studies, in one favor or the other?


Oh, and as for this, where did I ever say that I completely disregard studies in favor of keeping dogs intact? I have done the research, I have spoken with my vets, I have balanced the risks, and I still feel that spaying/neutering is the best option (most of my animals are from the shelter anyway, so I had to do it, but I would have done it even if I didn't have to). You clearly have a bias towards keeping animals intact, and I'm not accusing you of not taking pro-spay/neuter studies into account. In the end, we all do what we feel is best for our pets. As long as they are managed responsibly, I have no issue with intact pets. The problem is that I don't think the people on dog forums are the average owners, and for average owners, at least where I live, you are unlikely to find people who will manage intact pets responsibly.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Just FYI.....

Humping legs, Humping other dogs, marking, etc. Are all territorial, dominance, claiming behaviors. They have nothing to do with sexuality. 

The most neurotic marker I have ever owned is my Lab Buc. He came out of a shelter originally as a puppy and was neutered at 12 weeks of age. Prior to my wife moving in with me in 2005, she tells me he was a leg humper as well. 

He doesn't hump now. I don't put up with it, neither do my ACDs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Some people can't have fences or can't have fences that actually can contain their dogs... We are not allowed anything but a 5 foot iron fence in my neighborhood (Damn HOA). That is not keeping any dog in if they don't want to stay, and it's certainly not keeping my dogs in the fence. My dogs are never out alone here because of it, but I catch neighborhood dogs in my yard almost once a month. I usually know who's it is so I can return them, but what I'm saying is it happens here often enough. 

I can't say none of my dogs have ever gotten away. Beau has once, slipped back out the back door as the rest were coming inside. I locked him out in the yard on accident for all of 5 minutes till I realized one was missing. By that time he'd left the yard and decided to go exploring the neighborhood. After about 30 minutes of frantic looking he came back home. I still have no idea where he was those 30 minutes though.

We found out Shack could climb out of a 6 foot privacy fence one day. He didn't go anywhere (I think), but it's always fun when you open the front door and the dog that is supposed to be in the yard is sitting on your front porch instead. We ended up having to install dig guards and electric wires on the fence to keep him in.

Nikki was in the yard once for a short potty break. At that house we had a 6 foot privacy fence and a huge sliding glass door so we could see the dogs outside. we never thought twice about just letting the dogs out to potty for a few minutes. Well, there was a house that shared a fence with us. Nikki managed once to remove an old board on the fence and squeeze her way through, into the yard that was behind ours and turns out they had left their gate open. She was gone... found her about 20 minutes later playing in a families yard with some kids. The kids were really sad they couldn't keep her. 

Trey also escaped the vet's office once. Pulled out of his lead on a potty break while being boarded and fled. He was loose a while before they could catch him.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Just FYI.....
> 
> Humping legs, Humping other dogs, marking, etc. Are all territorial, dominance, claiming behaviors. They have nothing to do with sexuality.
> 
> ...


I just don't know that I buy that neutering doesn't help those behaviors at ALL or in all cases. All I can say is that Beau was a horrible marker and once he was neutered it stopped. We had tried everything to stop him before and it didn't help. Neutered and the behavior is completely gone.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> He doesn't hump now. I don't put up with it, neither do my ACDs.


I am not sure if you have been put in the situation of being a 9 year old and / or see a 9 year old struggle with a dog twice the kid's size trying to mount them. But it is very confusing and kinda scary experience. As a kid when it first happened I just assumed he was playing but when he would stop I got very scared and couldn't do anything but cry until my mom came and tried to stop it then he just started on her. It took my step dad to come in and take him outside in the back yard, but then the females would come around and he would have to go right back inside. It was horriable and we were not equipped to deal with it quickly, and bottom line you can't just have a dog running around humping children -.-. After the dog was fixed this all stopped. I understand you find it simple and other people find it a breeze to control your dogs while they are in that state of mind but it dosen't mean everyone is. And people shouldn't be judged for making the choice to make their and their dogs life less stressful when it is not a danger or risk to the dog, I think it's been established the main argument is education of the procedure and not that the whole concept is bad. I can't see anything supporting an argument to spay or neuter a dog is 100% bad in any or all cases.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

FYI:I know that, never said it was just a unaltered dogs thing, maybe if you read later in my post that it can come from both dogs unaltered or not. And I know its not about sex. Never said that either. And I still thinks its gross and disgusting, no matter if the dogs is altered or not.

Never said it wasn't a training issue, once again later in my post I said those behaviors and characteristics can be found in both dogs.

Never said it did and I know it doesn't. I even said it can happen in both altered and unaltered animals.

Also I said that the dog was UNTRAINED. Meaning if they would have trained him he more than likely wouldn't exhibit such behaviors.
So in other words, the dog wasn't trained and they weren't really taking care of it either, they just put him outside.Want to know what they thought was the reason he was marking?They said he was saying thank you. I told her that a was a load of BS and said she needed to train her dog, of course she didn't listen.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

After reading all 11 pages (I have no life) it seems the anti speuter crowd has the same two basic arguments that I'll try to break down:

1. Speutering has serious health risks. You are risking the life of your dog by speutering.
2. If you're a responsible owner, speutering is not necessary.

Now, I have serious issues with both of these arguments. Let's lay aside pediatric speutering for a second. If you want to argue that pediatric speutering is medically bad, I think you can make a decent case. So let's lay that aside for a second. 

Are there serious health risks of speutering? No. There's virtually no risk of the dog dieing under anesthesia. Has it happened before? Sure. Is it common? Not at all. The highest risk I saw was .05%. But let's go with the highest risk that's been cited on this thread - 0.5% That's it. *At worst*, your dog has a 99.5% chance of surviving the operation. I'm sorry, but that is an extremely negligible risk. 

What about long term risks? Again, the risks are extremely minimal. People will cite things like the risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine goes up 40%. That sound shocking at first until you realize that the increased risk puts your dogs risk at 0.32%. So the increased risk is still under 1%. The same can be said for all the other risks that are increased.

In fact, you can make this exact argument against keeping your dog intact. Keeping the dog intact puts the dog at risk for several cancers. Is the risk significant? No, it's not, but it's still there. I don't think anyone would advocate neutering a healthy dog for health reasons (or at least I hope not), yet people will advocate not neutering a healthy dog for health reasons. I find that completely baffling. The argument doesn't stand because there are just as many facts to back it up as there are that oppose it. It's a weak and flimsy argument.

The second argument I find to be ridiculous. It's not really an argument at all, it's a straight out appeal to vanity. It's a classic pathos fallacy. It's basically the same argument that advertisers use when they say, "If you're cool, you'll use XYZ product." Everyone considers themselves to be cool so why would you not want to buy XYZ product?

Everyone considers themselves to be a responsible owner. The fact is that many people who do either aren't as responsible as they think they are or have no idea what "responsible" means. Yes, you would never bring your bitch in heat to an off leash dog park. That doesn't mean some idiot won't though. What happens when your intact male is at the off leash park and some idiot brings their bitch in heat?

You would never let your intact male wander freely. Can you say the same about your neighbors? What if your bitch is in heat and you put her in the securely fenced yard and some idiot has let their intact male wander around? My dad never wears his seat belt because he argues that he's a safe driver and he is. I always argue that it's not him I'm worried about, it's the other idiots on the road. The seat belt isn't protection against me, it's protection against them.

Now, all that being said, I realize there are cases where a dog does have health issues or is working or showing or possibly breeding down the road, etc..... Not talking about any of those things. I'm talking about people who have healthy, mature, pets that they have no plans to ever breed. Why would you not speuter under those circumstances? The health risks are just as minimal either way and you protect yourself from any number of unforeseen circumstances.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

I think I did. I also stated later on that both behviors my friend's unaltered, UNTRAINED dog can be found in both altered and unaltered pet. And since I also stated, my friend failed to train either of her dogs, the exhibit those behaviors.

And I said that I fail to find any unbiased, factual(real facts) from an educational source for not to neuter. I do NOT intend to breed or show, the dog will be a companion/pet, I feel safer if he was for me, and I would go to a dog beach, and would probably go to off leash areas. But I would wait until the dog is fully matured to have him neutered. My last male dog was neutered, and lived to the full age of his breed. Never had an issue with an altered male. Never had an issue either with intact dogs. I have also met altered males who lived a long healthy life. I also live near some irresponsible people who own both altered and intact dogs.

Also, I said there can be idiot owners of both. If you are going to own an intact dog or altered dog, you need to do it responsibly.

Also I am not for mandatory s/n. If you are going to own a dog, do it responsibly intact or altered.


----------



## Moxie (Sep 9, 2010)

The fact is that it doesn't matter how easy you think it is to keep intact dogs responsibly, shelter numbers prove that people aren't being responsible. I am not interested in giving people who demonstrate a complete inability to responsibly care for a dog another reason to not do the right thing.

Anyone who has lived in a densely urban or suburban poverty-stricken area knows that the number of intact dogs wandering loose is staggering at times. I'm not in any way for mandatory s/n, but I'm also vehemently against any sort of information campaign that promotes keeping pet dogs intact. For the majority of pet owners, s/n is the right thing to do. Expecting people to perform any amount of research on this issue is naive at best, and saying that people who are not responsible enough to keep intact dogs shouldn't be dog owners is also not realistic. Shelter numbers prove that irresponsibility is rampant, and for as long as that is the case altering will be the right thing for most people to do. As they say: "Call on God, but row away from the rocks."


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> After reading all 11 pages (I have no life) it seems the anti speuter crowd has the same two basic arguments that I'll try to break down:
> 
> 1. Speutering has serious health risks. You are risking the life of your dog by speutering.
> 2. If you're a responsible owner, speutering is not necessary.
> ...



Spot on hulk. Summed up nicley and i feel you on the no life part -.- I think most people would agree that the basic prospects of speautering? ( is that right lol) is safe and preventive procedure for the most basic cocern which is to prevent and unplanned litter. I think that is 98% of the reasons most people consider it. Personally my dog is not outside EVER without me and leashed. But dog forbid I am walking her and the leash suddenly snaps or gives way or the collar comes off or whatever, and say my neighbor a block away who is walking his retriever mix who is male and say for argument isn't neutered then well that will be all she wrote he sees her he drags the owner enough to get lose and we got fireworks and waterfalls in the middle of the street. This scenerio is not a far fetched example of how being a responcible owner of an un speautered dog means nothing, you could have a perfectly trained dog that stops on command but try to stop instict to mate against you saying stop or sit or whayever ur cue is and I don't think your command will win at least with vast majority. So lets take the situation and say I got her fixed, but said retriever was not and fireworks and water falls still happened, guess what I got a lot less to worry about now! Now I just got to tell the owner about the importance of spaying and neutering ^_^

side note


> If pit bulls are outlawed, only outlaws will have pit bulls.


I LOVE that I saw a vid on you tube you would prolly love, i will try to find it. It is about a police dog in training full pitbull that used to be a fighting dog in circle ring. Now the dog has a slogan " yea I am fighting dog, a crime fighting dog!" Just had to get that out there while i thought of it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

amavanna said:


> I am not sure if you have been put in the situation of being a 9 year old and / or see a 9 year old struggle with a dog twice the kid's size trying to mount them. But it is very confusing and kinda scary experience. As a kid when it first happened I just assumed he was playing but when he would stop I got very scared and couldn't do anything but cry until my mom came and tried to stop it then he just started on her. It took my step dad to come in and take him outside in the back yard, but then the females would come around and he would have to go right back inside. It was horriable and we were not equipped to deal with it quickly, and bottom line you can't just have a dog running around humping children -.-. After the dog was fixed this all stopped. I understand you find it simple and other people find it a breeze to control your dogs while they are in that state of mind but it dosen't mean everyone is. And people shouldn't be judged for making the choice to make their and their dogs life less stressful when it is not a danger or risk to the dog, I think it's been established the main argument is education of the procedure and not that the whole concept is bad. I can't see anything supporting an argument to spay or neuter a dog is 100% bad in any or all cases.


No I have not personally been in a situation where I was at a young age and got humped by a dog. But then again, things were never "normal" for me as a child when it came to dogs. The environment in which I grew up in, I was with many dogs every day. 

I have pulled dog humping off of children and other folks. I am sure it could be scary. 


And again I am not anti spay and neuter.



Laurelin said:


> I just don't know that I buy that neutering doesn't help those behaviors at ALL or in all cases. All I can say is that Beau was a horrible marker and once he was neutered it stopped. We had tried everything to stop him before and it didn't help. Neutered and the behavior is completely gone.


My point is.... It is often pushed as a cure alll for these behaviors. It is not.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I don't think that speautering ( i like that word ) is a push to cure behaviors as it is just ANOTHER reason for it. It just adds to the list of bennifits but it is not the sole basis of the entire argument. All of us I know are in agreement that their is a difference between general behavior issues and then a dog reacting to primal instincts . I think most people when refering to behavioral issues such as I was referring to situations where in fact getting the male neutered did fix or help the problem significantly.

I have experienced mounting and restless behavior with lela and I don't believe she has even gone in her first real cycle yet ( female now I used the right word ) but I am not as concerned with her behavior or about any mess she may make during it ( this is not issue being the whole house girls I can tolerate a mess -.-) BUT the thought of me or someone else making on mistake and dealing with a litter, it out right terrifies me! I would not want to take that kind of responsibility on AT ALL. So i side in the way of saftey because I know what I can and can not deal with. And 10 pups running around my house living in a small country town with no one to adopt them is one of those things I am not prepared to deal with. That makes it my job to prevent all possiabilties to the best of my ability. And i that means getting her spayed after undergoing a physical and making sure is safe for surgery ( which is a perfectly health 11-13 month old girl she is in the prime of her life) then yea I am gonna get her spayed and we will both never have to worry about 10 more sets of feet pattering around and tugging on tails and sweatshirt sleeves lol.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't have a problem with people keeping dogs intact (If I did I'd be a hypocrite, yeah?) But I DO have a problem with this notion I see popping up lately that if you neuter you're taking the easy way out or you are irresponsible. I also do have the issue that Hulk does that everyone thinks they're responsible... no one thinks they're irresponsible. I worry that some people are not doing the appropriate research or taking the appropriate measures to keep intact dogs. Especially when they have both intact male and females. I see people going into it wanting to do the right thing but they are just not prepared. These are not irresponsible owners either, but I've seen a lot of scares as far as pregnancy goes with people that are imo riding on this 'neutering is bad!' band wagon I'm seeing. I am not saying it's impossible or even hard to keep both (I have for a long time and never had a pregnancy panned or otherwise) but it's just not something most average pet owners will want or be willing to do.

I also just can't agree at all with encouraging people you don't know much about not to spay or neuter. I think giving most people a reason not to neuter is really dangerous. Really the people I know would hear "Neutering is bad, don't do it." if you start telling them reasons NOT to neuter. I feel a person who is going to do the research needed to responsibly keep an intact animal will be likely the type to want to research and inform themselves anyways. They don't need me to research for them. 

I have been asked repeatedly by the vet about why a dog of mine is still intact. It's annoying and I wish they'd just have marked 'show dog' or something on his file to keep from asking every time he was in when we wanted to neuter him. It wasn't like they FORCED it on us but would ask again if we wanted to get it done. But in the end, I think this is far less a problem than encouraging people to go the other way.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I don't have a problem with people keeping their dogs intact either depending on the reasons behind it. If your dog is intact because it's still growing and you want to wait until 1.5 or 2 yrs old that's one thing. If your 3 yr old dog is intact because of the "health risks" and your dog is completely and totally healthy otherwise I have issues with it. If your dog is intact because you plan on responsibly breeding down the road and are working on titling/showing your dog, I've got no issues. If your dog is intact because "you're a responsible owner" I have issues with that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Those that feel you cannot train an intact dog to obey commands in the presence of a bitch in heat, it can be and is done. People that compete in dog sports are faced with their dogs competing in the presence of bitches all the time. It is not against the rules to exhibit a bitch in heat in conformation. You may be standing at ringside, go in right after, be in the breed ring with a bitch in standing heat. 

I have shown Betty in heat. Merlin was with her, on the way there, at ringside, etc. He did fine. I was in group a couple months back behind a Bel Mal in heat. No issue. (And in group you are standing there a long time) IF anything I thought it gave me an edge. Merlin had some great expression as the judge went down the line. 

Some other sports have rules against bitches in heat competing. But you should never count on one not being around. 

I am going to take heat (no pun intended for this) But dogs lose focus in the presence of a bitch in heat just like any other distraction. Granted it is a strong one. But it can also be trained away from. 

Again.... I am not anti speuter. And it is easier and safer for many people. But it is not the only way. 

Some of the sport dog, protection training guys, will regularly train in the presence of a in heat bitch. We do. 

They even had a thing on Mythbusters about luring a guard dog off its task. They used a towel that had been rubbed all over the backside of a bitch in heat. Didn't work. 

I will say this..... I personally think it is more difficult to work a bitch in heat than a dog around a bitch in heat.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

JessieLove09 said:


> FYI:I know that, never said it was just a unaltered dogs thing, maybe if you read later in my post that it can come from both dogs unaltered or not. And I know its not about sex. Never said that either. And I still thinks its gross and disgusting, no matter if the dogs is altered or not.
> 
> Never said it wasn't a training issue, once again later in my post I said those behaviors and characteristics can be found in both dogs.
> 
> ...


Then what was the point? To talk about how untrained your friend's dogs were? I'm confused... if you weren't stressing these points, what were you?



hulkamaniac said:


> After reading all 11 pages (I have no life) it seems the anti speuter crowd has the same two basic arguments that I'll try to break down:
> 
> 1. Speutering has serious health risks. You are risking the life of your dog by speutering.
> 2. If you're a responsible owner, speutering is not necessary.
> ...


These aren't the only reasons we're stating (and I'm not anti-speuter either, ftr) but the point is that I'm responsible enough to watch my dog, so why put him through an elective procedure that has ANY risks if it's not necessary? Just to make my life easier? I don't know how it would. I don't treat him any differently than I treat any of my other dogs. 



> In fact, you can make this exact argument against keeping your dog intact. Keeping the dog intact puts the dog at risk for several cancers. Is the risk significant? No, it's not, but it's still there. I don't think anyone would advocate neutering a healthy dog for health reasons (or at least I hope not), yet people will advocate not neutering a healthy dog for health reasons. I find that completely baffling. The argument doesn't stand because there are just as many facts to back it up as there are that oppose it. It's a weak and flimsy argument.


Once again, this all depends on what studies you believe. I've yet to be pointed in the direction of any STUDIES (backed up with research, not anecdotal evidence) that show more risks for intact dogs health-wise than otherwise. Everything I've read (and I have looked for unbiased articles and research for cons to intact) lists several more risks (cancers, diseases, conditions) for neutering/spayed animals than intact animals. 



> The second argument I find to be ridiculous. It's not really an argument at all, it's a straight out appeal to vanity. It's a classic pathos fallacy. It's basically the same argument that advertisers use when they say, "If you're cool, you'll use XYZ product." Everyone considers themselves to be cool so why would you not want to buy XYZ product?
> 
> Everyone considers themselves to be a responsible owner. The fact is that many people who do either aren't as responsible as they think they are or have no idea what "responsible" means. Yes, you would never bring your bitch in heat to an off leash dog park. That doesn't mean some idiot won't though. What happens when your intact male is at the off leash park and some idiot brings their bitch in heat?


But only some really are. Those who keep intact animals and don't have litters are apparently doing a good job of being responsible, so I think I have the right to call myself that. As per the dog park, while I know anything can happen, whenever a new dog enters the park, I call Frag and put him in a down stay next to me until I can see how the dog interacts with everyone else. If every male in the park went flying over and starting in on her, I'd know something was up and would leave. I have also tried the leave it command on an area of petsmart's floor where an in heat bitch had been that Frag was sniffing quite interestedly. Two calls and he left. I'm sure this would be different if he was actually mounting a bitch, but there's no chance of him getting near one on my watch, anyway.



> You would never let your intact male wander freely. Can you say the same about your neighbors? What if your bitch is in heat and you put her in the securely fenced yard and some idiot has let their intact male wander around? My dad never wears his seat belt because he argues that he's a safe driver and he is. I always argue that it's not him I'm worried about, it's the other idiots on the road. The seat belt isn't protection against me, it's protection against them.


Well, if I ever had a fenced in yard, I wouldn't put my dogs in it and leave them, I would stand outside watching them or watch through the window. If I had a bitch in heat, I wouldn't let her off leash. That is just dumb. I like to think that virtually nothing is secure during heat. I take all of my dogs out ON leash. These are just general parts of being a responsible pet owner, I don't understand why it's so different for those with neutered animals that think they need to be. I can understand the kid clause to some extent, but that's one of the few. 



> Now, all that being said, I realize there are cases where a dog does have health issues or is working or showing or possibly breeding down the road, etc..... Not talking about any of those things. I'm talking about people who have healthy, mature, pets that they have no plans to ever breed. Why would you not speuter under those circumstances? The health risks are just as minimal either way and you protect yourself from any number of unforeseen circumstances.


Unforseen circumstances don't happen as often as so many people think if you're pro-active. And I don't think I do anymore more pro-active than the rest of you, I think many neuter-pushes are just more paranoid about it and worrisome. 

Let's say that the dogs is a mutt and has no plans to be bred, and is kept by a member of the forums or someone with an equal amount of experience/knowledge. Let's assume health risks for each side are equal. Why neuter? It's an elective surgery that is a waste of money. What's the point, to stop something from happening that has never had the option to happen in your entire life? You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This can obviously be argued both ways.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

hence why i said vast majority but not all dogs . I still think that ratio leans more towards people not being to stop a quick mistake in basic circumstances. Ill be honest and say I never thought the speautering was such a teeter totter subject. I always assumed in today's society with all the problems with abused and neglected dogs, that speautering was seen as a fantastic preventive method of adding to the "oops litters" in the country. I also can't imagine why people would just want to take those risks when they don't have to. I assume however that all the people the are wanting to keep their dogs intact are prepared for liability of the puppies that could occur.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> I don't have a problem with people keeping their dogs intact either depending on the reasons behind it. If your dog is intact because it's still growing and you want to wait until 1.5 or 2 yrs old that's one thing. If your 3 yr old dog is intact because of the "health risks" and your dog is completely and totally healthy otherwise I have issues with it. If your dog is intact because you plan on responsibly breeding down the road and are working on titling/showing your dog, I've got no issues. If your dog is intact because "you're a responsible owner" I have issues with that.


I don't have a problem with people not neutering just because they dont' want to neuter. Take my dogs for example, most have either been altered late in life or not altered. I have never bred a litter intentionally or unintentionally. One of the dogs that remained intact was a mutt... As long as people really aren't adding to the overpopulation problem, I'm fine with it. But when people fail to research and plan appropriately, then I have a problem. I don't think there needs to be a reason to keep a dog intact or a reason to neuter a dog. I find telling people their reasons for neutering are 'bad' is ridiculous. Anyways, IF you keep an intact animal, you need to have backup plans if something happened. You need to be WELL versed in canine reproduction and heat cycles especially with a girl. You need to know what pyo is, mastisis, silent heat, etc. You need to know how long heat cycles last (it's longer than the bleeding part which many people don't know). Etc, etc.

I may be overly sensitive because there are 3 or 4 people I know that were going through their first heat with having both male and female in the house and had a pregnancy scare of some sort. And these are responsible people too, into sports and/or showing. If they're having scares then I am sure most 'just pet' people will be too. 

Now, I was debating breeding Beau a while so that was part of the reason he stayed intact for so long. But he was the only one I ever actually considered breeding at all. Bernard is intact and won't be bred.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

hulkamaniac said:


> I don't have a problem with people keeping their dogs intact either depending on the reasons behind it. If your dog is intact because it's still growing and you want to wait until 1.5 or 2 yrs old that's one thing. If your 3 yr old dog is intact because of the "health risks" and your dog is completely and totally healthy otherwise I have issues with it. If your dog is intact because you plan on responsibly breeding down the road and are working on titling/showing your dog, I've got no issues. If your dog is intact because "you're a responsible owner" I have issues with that.


So you have an issue with me, because my dog is intact? 

That's pretty judgemental for no reason. If I were blatantly irresponsible, was talking about breeding him, etc. I could see cause for alarm, but come on. 

I don't judge you or have an issue with you because you prefer to neuter. I don't even disagree with your preference. It's just not for me.



Laurelin said:


> I don't have a problem with people not neutering just because they dont' want to neuter. Take my dogs for example, most have either been altered late in life or not altered. I have never bred a litter intentionally or unintentionally. One of the dogs that remained intact was a mutt... As long as people really aren't adding to the overpopulation problem, I'm fine with it. But when people fail to research and plan appropriately, then I have a problem. I don't think there needs to be a reason to keep a dog intact or a reason to neuter a dog. I find telling people their reasons for neutering are 'bad' is ridiculous. Anyways, IF you keep an intact animal, you need to have backup plans if something happened. You need to be WELL versed in canine reproduction and heat cycles especially with a girl. You need to know what pyo is, mastisis, silent heat, etc. You need to know how long heat cycles last (it's longer than the bleeding part which many people don't know). Etc, etc.
> 
> I may be overly sensitive because there are 3 or 4 people I know that were going through their first heat with having both male and female in the house and had a pregnancy scare of some sort. And these are responsible people too, into sports and/or showing. If they're having scares then I am sure most 'just pet' people will be too.
> 
> Now, I was debating breeding Beau a while so that was part of the reason he stayed intact for so long. But he was the only one I ever actually considered breeding at all. Bernard is intact and won't be bred.


Very nice post, Laurelin.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You're going to get judged if you have an intact dog period. It's just one of those things... 

I wouldn't say you were irresponsible, but I do get concerned by the sheer amount of people on forums that say they aren't neutering their dogs or are planning on keeping multiple intact dogs. People read a little bit and think they're an expert without ever really having much experience handling dogs in heat or dogs around dogs in heat, etc. Many of these same 'responsible' people I see a few months down the line with a post of 'I think X may be pregnant!' Or even worse a post with an oops litter.

All I'm saying is if you're on your first intact dog especially is to be careful. Having a dog that is intact for a year isn't long at all. (you = general)

Also, just on the behavior note about marking and humping, I've polled some people on my other forum and substantial number of them have seen reduced marking in dogs once they are neutered. These are mostly sports people as well- flyball, schutzhund, conformation, and agility people. I think it is interesting that people say neutering doesn't help with marking behaviors yet I know so many people who have cured indoor marking by neutering their dog.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

so let me ask this. If you saw someone in the dog park or petsmart or whereever and you saw that their dog was not speautered and they were increasingly difficult for the owner to deal with and lets say for the sake of argument your dog is there unspeautered and they are of the oppisite sex and the other persons dog makes a shot at mounting your dog or being mounted and your dog dosent react or your able to control him and the owner of the said dog apologizes and mentions i can't wait till i get him/her speautered so I don't have to worry as much about this mounting. Would you try to encourage this person who clearly dosen't have the ability to control the dog yet to NOT get the speautered. It is clear that in the case of your dog you may have been in control but what if it was the lady's dog down the asile who didn't have that control either. Would you lead someone to believe they shouldn't speauter their dog or lead them to believe it is more dangerous then really is or make them feel it is a waste of money? Say you do, then lets say several months later person sees you again at the same location and exclaims I wish I would have got her speautered cause we had a litter of pups and we had shelter them i feel terriable!" Because of what was supposed to be helpful direction into researching the dangers, now they made the mistake of having pups! So I can't see how the "average" person would benefit from any kind of don't speauter advice as much as make sure the dog as a good candidate for surgery advice.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> So you have an issue with me, because my dog is intact?
> 
> That's pretty judgemental for no reason. If I were blatantly irresponsible, was talking about breeding him, etc. I could see cause for alarm, but come on.
> 
> I don't judge you or have an issue with you because you prefer to neuter. I don't even disagree with your preference. It's just not for me.


I just don't understand why. It's minimal cost. It has virtually no health risks. I guess I don't understand why people don't neuter if they have no intention of ever breeding and the dog is completely healthy. It makes no sense to me at all and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Why take extra risks when you don't have to?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

DJEtzel said:


> Let's say that the dogs is a mutt and has no plans to be bred, and is kept by a member of the forums or someone with an equal amount of experience/knowledge. Let's assume health risks for each side are equal.


If everyone had that level of skill (or at least greater than mine because I don't have the experience knowledge of a lot of people on this forum), then a lot of issues that are issues wouldn't be. Including basic stuff like dogs who can't walk calmly on leashes or dogs with weaker recall.

Thing is, the on average dog owner probably does NOT have the experience/knowledge of the upper tier of experience/knowledge on this forum. And not everyone on the forum probably does either for that matter.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> but there's no chance of him getting near one on my watch, anyway.


But can you imagine circumstances where he might not be on your "watch" - maybe you end up in a serious car accident, or have to have surgery, and he has to be watched by someone else. IMO that's still a fairly big risk to take... 

I didn't spay and neuter 2 of my dogs becuase I'm irresponsible, I did it because of all the situations where I can imagine something happening beyond my control. I don't live alone, and I do live where there are lots of roaming dogs. No matter how careful *I* am, I can't account for the other 4 people who live here.. it's just not realistic.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> I just don't understand why. It's minimal cost. It has virtually no health risks. I guess I don't understand why people don't neuter if they have no intention of ever breeding and the dog is completely healthy. It makes no sense to me at all and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Why take extra risks when you don't have to?


For me, I grew up in a family where neutering was just not common. Both my parents were country folk and had farmdogs and their families bred them intentionally or just kept them apart. Now when my parents moved out and got their own dogs, they did not want to deal with puppies so dogs were kept strictly apart. That was just the way things were done. Neutering didn't even enter the conversation until we got a dog from a show breeder who recommended it on her contract. I'm guessing it's a cultural thing because if you had dogs, you just dealt with their heats. Don't want puppies? Better be darn sure to keep them separated. Neutering is a lot, lot more common in suburbia than where my family is from. 

The dogs I have now have been show dogs and must be intact to be shown. The ones that are fixed now are either done showing and won't be bred or they were failed show dogs. Mia was bought on a spay contract so she's spayed. If I hadn't she would have remained intact until about 2 probably. 

For me it does come down to balancing risks. I don't want to deal with girls in heat plus pyo and mastisis and all that means I don't want intact girls if I don't have to (ie: not breeding dogs). For males, I don't see much a reason to neuter and we weren't planning on neutering Beau or Bernard at all. Beau we decided to because of the marking and the fact that he was not going to be bred. Did we know for sure that neutering would help? No, but it was worth a try and in the end it did. But intact males are in general pretty easy imo. The risk of Nard getting a girl is minute and imo much smaller than the risk of anesthesia problems. Summer had a bad reaction to anesthesia last year and I am doing all I can to avoid putting them under more than I must (though I will to spay a girl, I'm not as keen on doing it to neuter a male).



KBLover said:


> If everyone had that level of skill (or at least greater than mine because I don't have the experience knowledge of a lot of people on this forum), then a lot of issues that are issues wouldn't be. Including basic stuff like dogs who can't walk calmly on leashes or dogs with weaker recall.
> 
> Thing is, the on average dog owner probably does NOT have the experience/knowledge of the upper tier of experience/knowledge on this forum.* And not everyone on the forum probably does either for that matter*.


That. I've seen some pretty darn responsible people otherwise have issues dealing with intact bitches especially. Luckily a couple of them have realized they don't want to or can't handle it and have since spayed their girls. 

I won't assume that just because you have a dog and are on the forum that you're capable of handling multiple intact dogs. (you is general)


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> For me, I grew up in a family where neutering was just not common. Both my parents were country folk and had farmdogs and their families bred them intentionally or just kept them apart. Now when my parents moved out and got their own dogs, they did not want to deal with puppies so dogs were kept strictly apart. That was just the way things were done. Neutering didn't even enter the conversation until we got a dog from a show breeder who recommended it on her contract. I'm guessing it's a cultural thing because if you had dogs, you just dealt with their heats. Don't want puppies? Better be darn sure to keep them separated. Neutering is a lot, lot more common in suburbia than where my family is from.
> 
> The dogs I have now have been show dogs and must be intact to be shown. The ones that are fixed now are either done showing and won't be bred or they were failed show dogs. Mia was bought on a spay contract so she's spayed. If I hadn't she would have remained intact until about 2 probably.
> 
> For me it does come down to balancing risks. I don't want to deal with girls in heat plus pyo and mastisis and all that means I don't want intact girls if I don't have to (ie: not breeding dogs). For males, I don't see much a reason to neuter and we weren't planning on neutering Beau or Bernard at all. Beau we decided to because of the marking and the fact that he was not going to be bred. Did we know for sure that neutering would help? No, but it was worth a try and in the end it did. But intact males are in general pretty easy imo. The risk of Nard getting a girl is minute and imo much smaller than the risk of anesthesia problems. Summer had a bad reaction to anesthesia last year and I am doing all I can to avoid putting them under more than I must (though I will to spay a girl, I'm not as keen on doing it to neuter a male).


See, I have no issues with your reasons. You're showing dogs, you keep them intact. You plan to possibly breed a dog down the road, but want to see how he/she shows, performs, etc... you keep them intact. No issues there for me. The risk of anesthesia as stated earlier is minor. Your dog having a reaction puts her in the half a percent that do. Obviously that's bad if you end up in that half a percent, but you have better odds at a craps table in Vegas. But then you keep a toy breed which is kind of a different animal because of the size. Can you imagine what trouble Mia would cause if she were the size of a GSD? Horrors.

Anyway, keeping intact males wouldn't be such an issue if there weren't idiots who kept intact females responsibly. I mentioned the guy who brought his female to Petsmart when she was in heat. I'm sure there are idiots who bring their dogs to dog parks in the same situation. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's stupidity, maybe it's a silent heat and the owner honestly doesn't realize it. I guess my point is that crap happens and we should take reasonable steps to minimize it if we can.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> See, I have no issues with your reasons. You're showing dogs, you keep them intact. You plan to possibly breed a dog down the road, but want to see how he/she shows, performs, etc... you keep them intact. No issues there for me. The risk of anesthesia as stated earlier is minor. Your dog having a reaction puts her in the half a percent that do. Obviously that's bad if you end up in that half a percent, but you have better odds at a craps table in Vegas. But then you keep a toy breed which is kind of a different animal because of the size. Can you imagine what trouble Mia would cause if she were the size of a GSD? Horrors.
> 
> Anyway, keeping intact males wouldn't be such an issue if there weren't idiots who kept intact females responsibly. I mentioned the guy who brought his female to Petsmart when she was in heat. I'm sure there are idiots who bring their dogs to dog parks in the same situation. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's stupidity, maybe it's a silent heat and the owner honestly doesn't realize it. I guess my point is that crap happens and we should take reasonable steps to minimize it if we can.


I do think it's easier keeping intact toy dogs too, just because of size. My other intact dogs were herding breeds and a bit more of a challenge to keep contained. Also, toy breeds are more at risk than other dogs for being put under than other breeds due to low body weight. We always make sure to do full blood workups on them first and even though mine aren't tiny toys, it concerns me more than it did with my bigger dogs. 

I agree, crap happens and people need to realize that. That's why I really don't recommend that pet people keep intact girls especially. 

One day I may find a dog that I will actually breed. So far though, no luck! *sigh*


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Again.... I am not anti speuter. And it is easier and safer for many people. But it is not the only way.


^^^^^^^^^^



> I just don't understand why. It's minimal cost. It has virtually no health risks. I guess I don't understand why people don't neuter if they have no intention of ever breeding and the dog is completely healthy. It makes no sense to me at all and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Why take extra risks when you don't have to?


Hulk, when did minimal health risk either way suddenly become 'virtually no health risks'? Please explain. How was that leap made?

I lost an older girl three years ago to anesthesia. I understand she was the exception but to her and me, that was a huge health risk. I don't appreciate seeing it dismissed down to none at all.

So, when you say 'why take extra risks', what it tells me is that you believe the risks you personally deem to be the most important through your experiences should supercede the ones that I do through my experiences.

I don't like that, and I do find that stance judgemental as well. (I really don't mind judgemental as most of us are about tons of things, but it should be admitted and recognized that we are coming from that place if we are).

I'm also going to jump in here and say that having managed intact animals without issue, I just can't agree that the risk of 'crap happening' is one that I put a lot of stock into if someone is keen on it not happening. I have had dogs 30+ years without an escape. I don't kennel mine (don't vacation without 'em) and they are supervised all but a couple of 3 hour periods in a week, in which case they are locked in my home . . . so there are people that ARE able to watch their dogs very carefully all the time.



> The fact is that it doesn't matter how easy you think it is to keep intact dogs responsibly, shelter numbers prove that people aren't being responsible. I am not interested in giving people who demonstrate a complete inability to responsibly care for a dog another reason to not do the right thing.


That doesn't prove anything except for that there are lots of people who still don't care. Accidents are not happening as much as careless accidents are. If the prevailing attitude in any area is not caring about the lives of animals, then THAT is what has to be changed. IF that is not changed, spay/neuter isn't even going to begin to touch the problem.

You don't change attitudes by continuing to treat people like they are ignorant uncaring idiots - they will always rise or fall to your expectations.

SOB


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> I just don't understand why. It's minimal cost. It has virtually no health risks. I guess I don't understand why people don't neuter if they have no intention of ever breeding and the dog is completely healthy. It makes no sense to me at all and I just can't wrap my brain around it. Why take extra risks when you don't have to?


If someone can keep their intact dogs responsibly and doesn't want to put their dog under the knife unnecessarily, that's 100% their choice. What's so hard to understand?

I could put blind spot mirrors on my car, and it would be a minimal cost, and it may help make driving easier for me. Some people may even need blind spot mirrors to drive. But if I can be a responsible driver without blind spot mirrors, why should I be judged and criticized for driving without them?

The health problems of altering vs. not altering aren't even worth arguing over since there is so much conflicting info out there. It all boils down to what's best for the individual pet owner. And what's best for you isn't what's best for everybody.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> Hulk, when did minimal health risk either way suddenly become 'virtually no health risks'? Please explain. How was that leap made?


It's not a leap. Look at the worst case scenarios cited here. The worst stats that have been cited were 0.5%. Personally, I think a health risk of half a percent is virtually non-existent. 



> I lost an older girl three years ago to anesthesia. I understand she was the exception but to her and me, that was a huge health risk. I don't appreciate seeing it dismissed down to none at all.


No question about it. You don't want to be in that half a percent and lose your dog. The chances of having your child kidnapped out of your home by a stranger is statistically extremely improbable. However, if you're that parent who's had that happen to your child, it's a gigantic risk and I can certainly see your point of view there.



> So, when you say 'why take extra risks', what it tells me is that you believe the risks you personally deem to be the most important through your experiences should supercede the ones that I do through my experiences.
> 
> I don't like that, and I do find that stance judgemental as well. (I really don't mind judgemental as most of us are about tons of things, but it should be admitted and recognized that we are coming from that place if we are).
> 
> SOB


I'm not basing my judgements on this topic on experiments. I'm basing them on facts. The fact is the risk is minimal. Even on unhealthy dogs the risk is about 1.5%. Again, if your dog happens to be in that 1.5% I can certainly see where you might find that risk intolerable, but it doesn't change the fact that the risk is extremely minimal.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think the risk of an accident really depends on the person and the situation of the dog in question... do they have other intact dogs? Most accidents I've seen come from the owner's other intact dogs. Are their dogs boarded? Do they rely on other people to watch their dogs often? Many oops I see happen under the care of someone who is not the owner. Do they take their dogs to off leash parks often? Do supervise their dogs while they're out in the yard? It just really depends... We have never had anything _close_ to a scare with our dogs either. HOWEVER, I realize this is not true for a lot of people who keep dogs intact. They don't even need to be grossly negligent to get into a somewhat sticky situation. That's what I mean by 'crap happens'. That's why people need to really think this through before deciding to just jump into it.

The risk of Nard getting a girl pregnant is much smaller than 0.5% imo. He is a house dog and is easily contained. There are no intact females in the household. He doesn't go to the dog park, he is never boarded except for at his breeder's house (and she is more than knowledgeable about keeping dogs from breeding), he is never left outside alone, etc.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> It's not a leap. Look at the worst case scenarios cited here. The worst stats that have been cited were 0.5%. Personally, I think a health risk of half a percent is virtually non-existent.


I understand how you made the leap now but don't fool yourself into believing 0.5% means not virtually non-existent - it is one dog in 2000. That dog still deserves acknowledgement.

Keep in mind that is a risk of morbidity. Risk of complications due to anesthesia (such as epilepsy) raise that percentage.

I'm also wondering, Hulk, if you have read the study from Canada, that showed the risk of anesthetic death to be 1 in 900 dogs? (Scary thought. Are Canadian vets that much worse?) 

Anesthetic risk is NOT my largest concern re this argument BTW, but it should be acknowledged. I did spay another girl following the loss of my older girl to anesthesia. It was a nerve-racking day.



> That's why people need to really think this through before deciding to just jump into it.


Absolutely. I still believe most are not in the position to be able to keep a dog intact. This does not reflect on their ability to be responsible, but often reflects where they currently are in life in regards to time limitations, and what they have the ability to provide. The some that are, though, should be allowed to do so without the labelling and judgements that are often forced upon them by 'one-right-way' thinkers.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> I understand how you made the leap now but don't fool yourself into believing 0.5% means not virtually non-existent - it is one dog in 2000. That dog still deserves acknowledgement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree completely. But I do see more and more people arguing that neutering is just plain bad to do and if you do then you are lazy. I have also seen people be convinced that they should keep their dog intact when they are really not in a position to do so. Then the dog ends up pregnant before they realize they got in over their heads. This is what makes me concerned about telling people that neutering is bad. There is much more to take into account than just 'neutering is bad for your dog's health'. 

I would never judge or berate someone for having an intact dog (that would be hypocritical). But I do hope to make them think and hopefully realize just how much more responsible they'll have to be. And I certainly don't want to make people feel bad or like a lesser owner because they chose to neuter their dog.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

I was showing that there can be people who are irresponsible owners of both intact an altered dogs, and I showed that there can be responsible owners of both altered and intact dogs.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

amavanna said:


> so let me ask this. If you saw someone in the dog park or petsmart or whereever and you saw that their dog was not speautered and they were increasingly difficult for the owner to deal with and lets say for the sake of argument your dog is there unspeautered and they are of the oppisite sex and the other persons dog makes a shot at mounting your dog or being mounted and your dog dosent react or your able to control him and the owner of the said dog apologizes and mentions i can't wait till i get him/her speautered so I don't have to worry as much about this mounting. Would you try to encourage this person who clearly dosen't have the ability to control the dog yet to NOT get the speautered. It is clear that in the case of your dog you may have been in control but what if it was the lady's dog down the asile who didn't have that control either. Would you lead someone to believe they shouldn't speauter their dog or lead them to believe it is more dangerous then really is or make them feel it is a waste of money? Say you do, then lets say several months later person sees you again at the same location and exclaims I wish I would have got her speautered cause we had a litter of pups and we had shelter them i feel terriable!" Because of what was supposed to be helpful direction into researching the dangers, now they made the mistake of having pups! So I can't see how the "average" person would benefit from any kind of don't speauter advice as much as make sure the dog as a good candidate for surgery advice.


I don't give information that's not asked for. No person in any store would get away with letting their dog mount mine, period. I'd kick the dog AND the owner, and run away before it was even close to possible. If they made that comment I'd let them think whatever they wanted because they didn't ask my opinion and I'd be on my way. If someone comes and asks me whether or not they should neuter their dog, I'll ask about their situation, and if they have a firm grasp on retaining a dog I'll give them the useful information to make an educated decision and I'll tell them the pros and cons to having intact animals. 



hulkamaniac said:


> I just don't understand why. It's minimal cost. It has virtually no health risks. I guess I don't understand why people don't neuter if they have no intention of ever breeding and the dog is completely healthy. It makes no sense to me at all and I just can't wrap my brain around it. *Why take extra risks when you don't have to?*


Exactly. I'm not. Well, I may be, but I don't want to. That's not the point. I'm not risking anything by keeping Frag intact. I would be risking SOMETHING (even if you think it's SOOO minimal it's virtually non-existant) to get him neutered. And minimal cost? I don't know where you live, but it will cost us almost $400 to get him neutered when we decide to. That's not minimal, especially for a college student. 



> Anyway, keeping intact males wouldn't be such an issue if there weren't idiots who kept intact females responsibly. I mentioned the guy who brought his female to Petsmart when she was in heat. I'm sure there are idiots who bring their dogs to dog parks in the same situation. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's stupidity, maybe it's a silent heat and the owner honestly doesn't realize it. I guess my point is that crap happens and we should take reasonable steps to minimize it if we can.


I don't see the big issue with brining an in heat female to petsmart personally. They still need exercise, socialization, etc. You shouldn't lock them up and deprive them of things they're used to for a month. But anyway, I know there are tons of these people out there, and they're dumb. I'm certainly not advocating _they_ keep their dogs intact, but my dog is not at risk for anything because of them. 

I was reading something quite interesting on this topic (sort of) on another forum that I didn't think of that also made sense. Say there's soooome freak accident like Ama was talking about earlier, and OMG my intact dog's leash breaks on me and he goes running towards the other intact bitch that just happened to be in heat and walking on the same street as us and just MAYBE her leash breaks too so they're both free. How many breeders are here or people who have watched a tie? How fast does it happen? Because from everything I'm hearing, it's not "Wham bam, thank you ma'am", it takes more than 2 seconds for it to happen (if at all) and that would be MORE than enough time for myself or the other owner to beat our dogs off each other in such a freak accident, would it not?


----------



## shellbeme (Sep 9, 2010)

:jaw: Guys I am kinda shocked by some of the responses in this thread! First let me say that I feel everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I choose to spay/neuter because I don't want to contribute to the overpopulation of pets already out there. I don't care how responsible someone is, life happens-stuff happens, dogs get loose, and if they aren't fixed they can make babies-I don't care how careful you are you can't be 100% sure it's not going to happen.

As for being judged, come on guys , it's a public forum, you don't post these and not expect to get judged. Also judging is a part of human nature, we do it so many times a day we can't even keep track-from the moment you wake up and decide what you are going to wear-you're juding. We judge our friends and family constantly it's the only way you can come up to any conclusions of your own-you judge the information presented and make up your mind.

No, it's not nice for someone to look down their nose at you because of your choices-but it happens. Sorta like it happens when people post about having pregnant dogs and everyone jumps all over-I kinda wonder how many of those people doing the jumping on in those cases have dogs that haven't been spayed or neutered and aren't in the business of better a breed? Just curious is all, I'm sure if they are part of it, they have their reasons, I just find it a tad bit ironic.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I agree completely. But I do see more and more people arguing that neutering is just plain bad to do and if you do then you are lazy. I have also seen people be convinced that they should keep their dog intact when they are really not in a position to do so. Then the dog ends up pregnant before they realize they got in over their heads. This is what makes me concerned about telling people that neutering is bad. There is much more to take into account than just 'neutering is bad for your dog's health'.
> 
> I would never judge or berate someone for having an intact dog (that would be hypocritical). But I do hope to make them think and hopefully realize just how much more responsible they'll have to be. And I certainly don't want to make people feel bad or like a lesser owner because they chose to neuter their dog.


I agree 100%.



Laurelin said:


> I don't have a problem with people keeping dogs intact (If I did I'd be a hypocrite, yeah?) But I DO have a problem with this notion I see popping up lately that if you neuter you're taking the easy way out or you are irresponsible. I also do have the issue that Hulk does that everyone thinks they're responsible... no one thinks they're irresponsible. I worry that some people are not doing the appropriate research or taking the appropriate measures to keep intact dogs. Especially when they have both intact male and females. I see people going into it wanting to do the right thing but they are just not prepared. These are not irresponsible owners either, but I've seen a lot of scares as far as pregnancy goes with people that are imo riding on this 'neutering is bad!' band wagon I'm seeing. I am not saying it's impossible or even hard to keep both (I have for a long time and never had a pregnancy panned or otherwise) but it's just not something most average pet owners will want or be willing to do.
> 
> I also just can't agree at all with encouraging people you don't know much about not to spay or neuter. I think giving most people a reason not to neuter is really dangerous. Really the people I know would hear "Neutering is bad, don't do it." if you start telling them reasons NOT to neuter. I feel a person who is going to do the research needed to responsibly keep an intact animal will be likely the type to want to research and inform themselves anyways. They don't need me to research for them.
> 
> I have been asked repeatedly by the vet about why a dog of mine is still intact. It's annoying and I wish they'd just have marked 'show dog' or something on his file to keep from asking every time he was in when we wanted to neuter him. It wasn't like they FORCED it on us but would ask again if we wanted to get it done. But in the end, I think this is far less a problem than encouraging people to go the other way.



I agree 100%.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

SOB, I saw an article from 1999 last night that stated in a case study 2 in 400 dogs died from the surgery of speutering. Even worse than Canada. Yikes.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> I understand how you made the leap now but don't fool yourself into believing 0.5% means not virtually non-existent - it is one dog in 2000. That dog still deserves acknowledgement.
> 
> Keep in mind that is a risk of morbidity. Risk of complications due to anesthesia (such as epilepsy) raise that percentage.
> 
> I'm also wondering, Hulk, if you have read the study from Canada, that showed the risk of anesthetic death to be 1 in 900 dogs? (Scary thought. Are Canadian vets that much worse?)


I looked online and couldn't find any good numbers on the risk of complications due to anesthesia. While I'm sure they raise that percentage, the question is how much? If the percentage is .5% (which is much higher than I've seen elsewhere) and it doubles and goes up to 1% that's still very low. Again, I can't find any stats that say what that percentage is so I'm guessing just as much as you are.

I saw the 1 in 900 dog fact cited a few times. Again, this is statistically insignificant. We're talking about what? .1%? I'm too lazy to get out my calculator, but I don't think I'm far off. Again, a statistically insignificant risk.



> Anesthetic risk is NOT my largest concern re this argument BTW, but it should be acknowledged. I did spay another girl following the loss of my older girl to anesthesia. It was a nerve-racking day.


What is your largest concern?



DJEtzel said:


> SOB, I saw an article from 1999 last night that stated in a case study 2 in 400 dogs died from the surgery of speutering. Even worse than Canada. Yikes.


2 out of 400 = .005. Hardly scary numbers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't know that there's ever been a study about how many dogs die from neutering. Also 1999 was 10 years ago. Medicine changes a lot in that amount of time.

Personally, I am picky about my dogs being put under at all. I always use the same vet and he does full diagnostics beforehand. I would not put a dog under without all that although I know people that do. It does run up the bills some. I wonder how many of the deaths were at low cost type places? Just curious because I've never used them but I imagine they don't do all the pre-op blood work and monitoring. 

There is always a risk any time an animal or human is put under. I definitely consider if that risk is necessary. I felt terrible when Summer almost died while she was under. It wasn't a cosmetic procedure or anything, but it wasn't life or death either. It was a very scary experience.


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

Wow! These 12 pages have kept me busy while my students were writing their test!

I found this thread very educational. It did not make me re-think my decision to have my boys neutered though. My girl was spayed when I got her, and I would have had her spayed if she hadn't allready been.

I keep my dogs active by hiking with a group of dog owners and dogs, sometimes going down to the dog park, walking in town, running in the woods at our hunting shack (outside of hunting season of course) and other activities where we frequently encounter other dogs. I consider myself a responsible dog owner, but my male dogs have been in contact with females in heat more than once; Jame has even tied with a Rottweiler bitch a few summers ago (the owner camein the dog park with his bitch in heat and I realized my dog's 4 paws run a lot faster than my own 2 legs). My dogs have never ran off, but my house is surrounded by un-speutered dogs who seem to make their way into our front ward too often for comfort; even if my dogs are never in the unfenced front ward, they could easily slip out at a run when I open the door to bring the intruder back to his home. We go hiking un-leashed every week, and we have met other dogs with their owners. At least 2 of these were bitches in heat.

My dogs are speutered because I enjoy doing these activities with them and I don't want to have to worry about the probability of them ignoring their excellent recall once when they smell a bitch in heat. They are pets, not meant to be bred ever, healthy and pretty well trained. If they had not been 100% healthy, I probably would not have had them put under anesthesia, but to me the small risk was worth it for my own peace of mind. I did research the pros and cons of the procedure beforehand, and I am lucky to have a great vet who took the time to discuss it honestly with me when I asked her to. I also am aware that the risks of testicular cancer for my male dogs is now nil, even though the risk for other illnesses might have increased from 0.0x to 0.0x+2. I am quite comfortable with these risks.

My neighbours have an un-neutered male American Bulldog. They are low on money and say they cannot afford to get him neutered (I will not go into their financial situation, I take their word for it). Even though they fit the stereotypical profile of irresponsible dog owners in many ways, their dog is always under control; either leashed, tethered or with a long leash for more freedom. He is not trained whatsoever, but is put in his crate every time someone in the house opens a door. Is it the best situation for the dog? I don't know, but he hasn't gotten to the unaltered female Dane who gets out every few days because she supposedly can open the front door on her own, nor to the tiny unaltered Poodle bitch who her owners throw out the door in the morning to "do her business" and let wander the neighborhood all day long.

I have to side with the "I don't trust other people" side on this issue. It is often a lot easier to tell smeone spaying or neutering is best than to tell them they should not have a dog at all. Anyways, owning a dog is so easy that everyone seems to have one around here; I'd rather they were all speutered since I cannot forbid irresponsible owners from having them. I get asked regularly how much I would charge to have Jame or Léon mate with someone's female GSD/Lab/Dane/Beagle/whatever, even though they are un-registered dogs from the local SPCA. I had an acquaintance lose her purebred unaltered Bernese to thiefs who broke her car windows while she was dropping by the post office for a few minutes.

I really think there are about 20 irresponsible owners for every truly responsible one, so I prefer to guarantee that my dogs will never be the source of more puppies to be passed around un-speutered and reproducing willy-nilly before being euthanized by any of the local overpopulated and understaffed kennels. 

I also understand why breeders and people who show their dogs want to keep them unaltered. I have no problem at all with that and I respect them the more for dealing with everything that comes when owning unaltered dogs, be it containment and management, or judgement.



DJEtzel said:


> SOB, I saw an article from 1999 last night that stated in a case study 2 in 400 dogs died from the surgery of speutering. Even worse than Canada. Yikes.


I don't understand your text: what do you mean 2 in 400 is even worse than Canada? Do you mean worse than IN Canada? If not, I swear my country does not cause a higher death rate in dogs than surgery  We tend to be very polite and considerate people, and I'm sure Canada and Canadians have not been the source of more than 1 in 1,000,000 death in dogs


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> What is your largest concern?


One-right-way thinkers.

As well, people, in a position of influence (vets in particular) who would deliberately with-hold important information from a pet owner because they believe they were doing so for the greater good. I talked about this and my historical perspective on it earlier in this thread. I had two grandfathers that fought in wars (one and two) for our freedoms. I had a FIL that was hidden in a shed alone for a week at the age of three, from Nazis. I don't like it that some people believe they might know better than the masses and want to push their way on others without full disclosure of the information they should be getting. I don't care how ignorant they believe those masses are . . . and if that is the belief, then they best be looking at ways to help the masses get less ignorant, not more. 

The greatest freedom is the right to knowledge.

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> Are there serious health risks of speutering? No. There's virtually no risk of the dog dieing under anesthesia. Has it happened before? Sure. Is it common? Not at all. The highest risk I saw was .05%. But let's go with the highest risk that's been cited on this thread - 0.5% That's it. *At worst*, your dog has a 99.5% chance of surviving the operation. I'm sorry, but that is an extremely negligible risk.


the problem with your argument here is the word "serious". what's inconsequential to you may be a big deal to me. the idea of "serious risk" is subjective and therefore it's not even a matter of argument. 



> What about long term risks? Again, the risks are extremely minimal. People will cite things like the risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine goes up 40%. That sound shocking at first until you realize that the increased risk puts your dogs risk at 0.32%. So the increased risk is still under 1%. The same can be said for all the other risks that are increased.


stuff like this Hulk...you cant make a convincing argument based on studies either way. None of the available studies have sufficient repeatability to be deemed reliable. soo...scratch that argument point.



> In fact, you can make this exact argument against keeping your dog intact. Keeping the dog intact puts the dog at risk for several cancers. Is the risk significant? No, it's not, but it's still there. I don't think anyone would advocate neutering a healthy dog for health reasons (or at least I hope not), yet people will advocate not neutering a healthy dog for health reasons. I find that completely baffling. The argument doesn't stand because there are just as many facts to back it up as there are that oppose it. It's a weak and flimsy argument.


no. it's not weak and flimsy...it's based in a subjective idea. see above.



> The second argument I find to be ridiculous. It's not really an argument at all, it's a straight out appeal to vanity. It's a classic pathos fallacy. It's basically the same argument that advertisers use when they say, "If you're cool, you'll use XYZ product." Everyone considers themselves to be cool so why would you not want to buy XYZ product?


bullshit. utter complete and idiotic crap. no one here is arguing AGAINST speutering. youre strawmanning in the extreme. we're arguing for people being allowed to make informed choices. which is a totally different monster.




> Everyone considers themselves to be a responsible owner. The fact is that many people who do either aren't as responsible as they think they are or have no idea what "responsible" means. Yes, you would never bring your bitch in heat to an off leash dog park. That doesn't mean some idiot won't though. What happens when your intact male is at the off leash park and some idiot brings their bitch in heat?


i dont go to off leash parks. this is gonna sound offensive to some people but quite honestly i question the responsibility factor of ANY dog in an off leash dog park because from what ive seen, they're disasters waiting to happen. 


> You would never let your intact male wander freely. Can you say the same about your neighbors?


My neighbors arent my business. my current neighbors are really great and we dont have any problems. but even when i lived in a neighborhood with a lot of escapees...i just catch'm, take'm to the shelter and inform the owners(which coincedentally, unfixed animals are not allowed to leave the shelter. under any circumstances)...the problem stopped. if my neighbors act like assess with their dogs, i take steps. Im not worried about it because within a week of new neighbors..they know if they dont solve the dog issues..i will.



> What if your bitch is in heat and you put her in the securely fenced yard and some idiot has let their intact male wander around?


last two intact bitches would have ripped him to quivering bloody globules of flesh...but....my bitches in heat would never EVER be left alone in a yard. 



> My dad never wears his seat belt because he argues that he's a safe driver and he is. I always argue that it's not him I'm worried about, it's the other idiots on the road. The seat belt isn't protection against me, it's protection against them.


i dont need outside "protection against them" when it comes to dogs. i protect myself and my dogs.



> Why would you not speuter under those circumstances? The health risks are just as minimal either way and you protect yourself from any number of unforeseen circumstances.


because it's time consuming, money consuming, in the case of males..the little neuter sack looks absolutely disgusting to me, i have no need to unless there is an imminent health problem or concern, there is literally zero what i would consider creditable studies either way so what it boils down to is preference and reasonable circumstances..

reasonable circumstances...Ive kept an intact female CAT from getting pregnant for the past four years. handling intact dogs responsibly is squat compared to that. 

preference..i find it speutering annoying and in the case of males, i think it's gross looking.


you're trying to argue objectively about a subjective argument. doesnt work.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I don't know that there's ever been a study about how many dogs die from neutering. Also 1999 was 10 years ago. Medicine changes a lot in that amount of time.
> 
> Personally, I am picky about my dogs being put under at all. I always use the same vet and he does full diagnostics beforehand. I would not put a dog under without all that although I know people that do. It does run up the bills some. I wonder how many of the deaths were at low cost type places? Just curious because I've never used them but I imagine they don't do all the pre-op blood work and monitoring.
> 
> There is always a risk any time an animal or human is put under. I definitely consider if that risk is necessary. I felt terrible when Summer almost died while she was under. It wasn't a cosmetic procedure or anything, but it wasn't life or death either. It was a very scary experience.


Again, to be fair, your dogs are toy dogs. The euthanasia risk is much higher in toy breeds than other breeds.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

hulkamaniac said:


> Again, to be fair, your dogs are toy dogs. The euthanasia risk is much higher in toy breeds than other breeds.


I hope you mean anesthesia and not euthanasia! 

Sight hounds are another group that can have more issues with anesthesia.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I guess I am in the minority on one portion of this... I don't worry about putting my dog under. Merlin was put under last Monday for a teeth cleaning and really thorough nail job. 

Merlin is three and a half. He has been put under twice for his teeth, once for his hip, elbows, and patellas, and heavily sedated for BAER testing. 

That is the least of my worries.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> One-right-way thinkers.
> 
> As well, people, in a position of influence (vets in particular) who would deliberately with-hold important information from a pet owner because they believe they were doing so for the greater good. I talked about this and my historical perspective on it earlier in this thread. I had two grandfathers that fought in wars (one and two) for our freedoms. I had a FIL that was hidden in a shed alone for a week at the age of three, from Nazis. I don't like it that some people believe they might know better than the masses and want to push their way on others without full disclosure of the information they should be getting. I don't care how ignorant they believe those masses are . . . and if that is the belief, then they best be looking at ways to help the masses get less ignorant, not more.
> 
> ...



I don't see any laws anywhere forbidding people from seeking and acquiring knowledge on their own. Heck, what I know about training dogs I found by seeking knowledge on my own - not from any professional unless I happened to have talked to some on here or stumbled on the writing of one. I didn't have to go to a professional to get the knowledge because it wasn't available elsewhere like a medieval guild system.

So, you're right, the right to knowledge is the greatest freedom - there's a reason why dictatorships try to prevent this from happening. It's probably the driving force around the 1st Amendment here in the USA.

However, I don't see that happening in the case of "to snip or not to snip?" 

Websites aren't being shut down. No one is being jailed for having an opinion or sharing studies/knowledge/research. No one is trying to round up everyone who has an intact dog and persecute (or prosecute) them or anything of that nature. Scientists that discover the factual data aren't being silenced, etc. No one is stopping people from having debates like this one or discussing risks in a meaningful and balanced manner.

One-Right-Way thinkers shouldn't force their views on others - BUT - people shouldn't just seek one viewpoint on any issue or method either. Responsibility lies on both ends of the scale. Don't force ideas, but don't just accept the first few things you hear as truth either - otherwise, you're giving up your own right to seek knowledge willingly.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I hope you mean anesthesia and not euthanasia!
> 
> Sight hounds are another group that can have more issues with anesthesia.


Doh!! (too short)


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

As a general rule I choose to spay/neuter any dogs in my care because of the breed(s) I choose to keep...Pyrs & other LGD breeds have been known to fight to the death while intact...It is hard enough to keep them at an even keel being speutered...There is a better chance of a dog fight to the death here than there is losing one during the procedure.
Also, I have dogs that actually work guarding goats & chickens...I want them to concentrate on guarding & not escaping to breed or taking the chance of a dog or coyote getting into my barnyard to breed/breed with one of my dogs.
With that said I will be getting another working guardian in a month or so...I will be keeping him intact until at least 1 & 1/2 because I do believe that waiting is better for them.:wave:


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Here are some statistics i found based on facts and not opinions as well as my response to them


> At least 30 states have passed legislation requiring sterilization of cats and dogs adopted from community shelters


This mean regardless of your opinion if you plan on rescuing a dog from a shelter ( which is what most of us TRY to get people to do instead of breeding) then in 30 states of the country you have no choice but to get them speautured.



> Many community shelters provide reduced rate spaying/neutering services as an incentive for low income guardians who otherwise might not be able to afford the operation. This may be done at the shelter or in a mobile spay/neuter unit that travels to different locations, making transportation easier and more convenient for guardians. Some humane organizations also organize spay/neuter programs of their own. The Doris Day Animal Foundation, for instance, holds an annual Spay Day USA every February with the goal of sterilizing 155,000 cats and dogs across the country.


Anyone who says that speautering is just to make money please tell me why there are 100s of organizations that survive on the DONATIONS to provide low cost and/or free speautering. There are two vets locally ( within 20 miles) that offer spaying and neutering once a month for free for so many pets ( for one i think they offer up to 50 and the other only like 25) this is an expensive sacrfice for the vet not to make money. And these vets are high quailty offices with excellent veterinarians that do not cut costs on equipment to "save a buck" If you know vets that are like that you are just simply seeing the WRONG vet. The main cost of the surgery and the reason is may be more expensive for some then others is because of the anesthesia , a bigger dog requires more to stay asleep unless you want her waking up in the middle of surgery. Not to mention its SURGERY. Any kind of surgery is going to pinch the pocket in most any situation . I find it funny people get so upset at the cost of things for their pet. People go to school for years to work on animals and the creditable veterinarians work very hard and charge what is required to keep the hospital open and in its best operating condition. The more money the vet makes the better equipment and more extensive care he can offer people. There are so many vets in my town that couldn't perform a heart surgery or remove a tumor or any major surgery because they aren't equipped for it and have to send you to another office that is. 

On a pet medical site I like going to their is a list of questions to start out with to ask any vet that is to speauter you dog



> * Does the clinic use a reversible gas anesthesia? It's more expensive, but it's safer.
> * Are the instruments sterilized after every use? It's more expensive and time-consuming, but it's safer.
> * Does the veterinarian scrub between surgeries? It takes longer, but it's safer.
> * Is the dog hooked to a heart monitor? It costs more, but it's safer.
> ...


This a basic list of things you could concern yourself to ask before the surgery.



> 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 dogs1. 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
> ...


The death rate isn't even a full 1% the risk of death is so minuscule and generally a direct result of another issue in combonation with the stress of the surgery. These types of things can be avoided with blood tests and xrays if you really want to have peace of mind before surgery.



> 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.


Think that says it all right there.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I guess I am in the minority on one portion of this... I don't worry about putting my dog under. Merlin was put under last Monday for a teeth cleaning and really thorough nail job.
> 
> Merlin is three and a half. He has been put under twice for his teeth, once for his hip, elbows, and patellas, and heavily sedated for BAER testing.
> 
> That is the least of my worries.


I do understand being leery of anesthesia. Sasha was put under for a dental last year when she was three. She is very healthy and had no problems under anesthesia when spayed, however, they used a different anesthetic (a barbituate of some sort) for the dental and she had a reaction and stopped breathing. They almost lost her. That being said, that would not stop me from spaying/neutering my next pet. As scared as I was (am), I know it is just something that happens occasionally and that really the risk isn't all that great.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Here are some statistics i found based on facts and not opinions as well as my response to them
> 
> This mean regardless of your opinion if you plan on rescuing a dog from a shelter ( which is what most of us TRY to get people to do instead of breeding) then in 30 states of the country you have no choice but to get them speautured.
> 
> ...


none of that qualifies as fact. not by my standards. sorry. it doesnt say much at all.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> However, I don't see that happening in the case of "to snip or not to snip?"


Then I would suggest an eye exam. Nothing personal, I just don't see how you can miss something that is so blatantly obvious. There are a couple of us that have cited examples on this thread already where vets deliberately dismissed our concerns or requests for information on risks.



> No one is trying to round up everyone who has an intact dog and persecute (or prosecute) them or anything of that nature.


But they are puttng themselves in a legal position to take their dogs if they are not speutered. Do you not follow the MSN battles? There are full communities that have adopted mandated spay/neuter for dogs without any regard to the owner's abilities to care for an intact animal and freedom of choice in that area. 

Some reading here might be enlightening - http://saveourdogs.net/category/legislation/track-record/

_"Not content to wait for the state (which did not pass the measure), Boks convinced the City of Los Angeles to pass its own version. He also demanded more officers to enforce it. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, *LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred.* For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased—dog deaths increased 24%, while cat deaths increased 35%."_

http://saveourdogs.net/2009/04/01/los-angeles-a-mandatory-spayneuter-disaster/

I know that this is about MSN, which no-one on this thread is pushing - but it goes to the point of the dangers of one-right-way thinkers and how obviously they do abound and are a threat to freedoms.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

brandiw said:


> I do understand being leery of anesthesia. Sasha was put under for a dental last year when she was three. She is very healthy and had no problems under anesthesia when spayed, however, they used a different anesthetic (a barbituate of some sort) for the dental and she had a reaction and stopped breathing. They almost lost her. That being said, that would not stop me from spaying/neutering my next pet. As scared as I was (am), I know it is just something that happens occasionally and that really the risk isn't all that great.


Alone it's not one to make me not spay or neuter but it is a risk that goes into the calculations for me. Like I said, I would spay the girls without hesitation, it's the boys that make me stop and think if it is really necessary for me to do.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Here are some statistics i found based on facts and not opinions as well as my response to them
> 
> This mean regardless of your opinion if you plan on rescuing a dog from a shelter ( which is what most of us TRY to get people to do instead of breeding) then in 30 states of the country you have no choice but to get them speautured.
> 
> ...


I am still waiting on the facts.... But this post was written on pure opinion.

The fact that 30 states require sheltered animals to be sterilized before being sold, does not mean anything other than 30 states are restricting or at least placing conditions on property owners rights.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I hope you mean anesthesia and not euthanasia!
> 
> Sight hounds are another group that can have more issues with anesthesia.


The Collie family/herders are prone to having issues with anesthesia, too, correct?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

The thing that sets me off and at times causes me to lean towards the anti speuter crowd are when the pro speuter crowd uses less than straight forward information to push their agenda. 

Spaying and neutering works for many folks and that is fine. Each dog owner should decide what is right for them based on reality not scare tactics.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Alone it's not one to make me not spay or neuter but it is a risk that goes into the calculations for me. Like I said, I would spay the girls without hesitation, it's the boys that make me stop and think if it is really necessary for me to do.


And in your case it may not be necessary. You have a toy breed. Your girls are all fixed. All of your dogs are house dogs. You don't let a toy breed wander around in the yard alone anyway. You don't let a toy breed run free on an off leash dog park 99% of the time. If the girls are all spayed, then in your case, the boys are probably fine.

If you changed the situation just a tad bit though and you kept pit bulls instead of paps, the whole scenario might change.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> And in your case it may not be necessary. You have a toy breed. Your girls are all fixed. All of your dogs are house dogs. You don't let a toy breed wander around in the yard alone anyway. You don't let a toy breed run free on an off leash dog park 99% of the time. If the girls are all spayed, then in your case, the boys are probably fine.
> 
> If you changed the situation just a tad bit though and you kept pit bulls instead of paps, the whole scenario might change.


no..it doesnt change. i keep intact pit bulls and have kept intact pit bulls for years with zero issues and zero litters. that's kind of a breedbigot thing to say.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Fine. Substitute pit with beagle/greyhound/GSD/lab/etc.... I still stand by what I said.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> Fine. Substitute pit with beagle/greyhound/GSD/lab/etc.... I still stand by what I said.


it has very little to do with what kinds of dogs you have. it has EVERYTHING to do with the owners and how they handle the situation. and that's going to vary extremely from owner to owner.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

Ok how is it that it is LAW in 30 states to get the dog speautered before leaving a shelter not a fact?

How is it not a fact there are 100s of organizations that help with the costs to speauter?

How is it not a fact statistics researched from 100s of veterinarians that their are risks but are generally not life threatening and related to other causes that were not directly related to the surgery but possibly could have escalated or worsened the condition

Its like you read my opinions ( which i stated I was going to respond the quoted statements) and totally ignored what were facts. And regardless if you like it or not and feel your "rights" as an owner are being taken away, if you rescue a shelter dog the shelter has the right to its own requirements and the shelter does not want your( general) dogs puppies back in there in a few months. 


I guess this thread has kinda met its peaking point i mean no one apparently anyone says is "right" anymore. Your gonna tell me its not simple facts such as state law, researched veterinarian stastics, and a basic observation of the fact each dog is different? Please also tell me why a vet would have you ask the questions I posted as nonfactual questions to ask before surgery?

I don't think anything I add to the discussion are you going to try to take with more then a grain of salt weather I am right or wrong, you just decided for whatever reason to always call me out for no reason and that is your choice but it leads to a boring discussion that is pointless. You say I see no facts , Zim, but the first thing I posted was a LAW not an opinion. Boggle.



> am still waiting on the facts.... But this post was written on pure opinion.


And again I stated my opinions were the unquoted text the facts are quoted and some of them don't even ARGUE against NOT speautering. The last FACT was each dog is different and you have to account for that. NOT opinion FACT.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Ok how is it that it is LAW in 30 states to get the dog speautered before leaving a shelter not a fact?


how is that a RELEVANT fact? i dont get dogs from shelters. neither do many people. my dogs have either all been strays, dogs rehomed with me through their previous owners or came from breeders.


> How is it not a fact there are 100s of organizations that help with the costs to speauter?


this only helps with cost if you fall under their income requirements..which i dont and neither do many others. so again..irrelevant.



> How is it not a fact statistics researched from 100s of veterinarians that their are risks but are generally not life threatening and related to other causes that were not directly related to the surgery but possibly could have escalated or worsened the condition


its not a fact until i see the studies myself and evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology as well as any cross comparative studies out there..and if there are no cross comparative studies..then no..its not a fact..correlation does not automatically imply causation.



> Its like you read my opinions ( which i stated I was going to respond the quoted statements) and totally ignored what were facts. And regardless if you like it or not and feel your "rights" as an owner are being taken away, if you rescue a shelter dog the shelter has the right to its own requirements and the shelter does not want your( general) dogs puppies back in there in a few months.


i dont rescue dogs from shelters. i rescue them off the streets and from their owners. so shelters have zilch to do with whether or not i speuter.




> I guess this thread has kinda met its peaking point i mean no one apparently anyone says is "right" anymore. Your gonna tell me simple facts such as state law, researched veterinarian stastics, and a basic observation of the fact each dog is different. Please also tell me why a vet would have you ask the questions I posted as nonfactual questions to ask before surgery?


if its secondhand research rephrased..its not applicable. the FACTS are... speutering is an elective surgery more often than not. and i dont do elective surgery. there is no conclusive data out there to determine whether or not being intact or not causes significant harm. the questions dont matter because im not even going to get to the point of asking them unless i deem it necessary to speuter. and most of the time with dogs..i dont.



> I don't think anything I add to the discussion are you going to try to take with more then a grain of salt weather I am right or wrong, you just decided for whatever reason to always call me out for no reason and that is your choice but it leads to a boring discussion that is pointless. You say I see no facts , Zim, but the first thing I posted was a LAW not an opinion. Boggle.


no. i read everything you say. but im an empirically minded skeptic. i NEVER accept ANYTHING ANYONE says at face value. ever. 

and as for it being a law..it's irrelevant to whether or not someone SHOULD speuter.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I currently have two male dogs. One intact and one neutered. I have a bitch that lives here often (its complicated)) that is intact.

I have to ask myself how would Buc's (the neutered dog) life be any different if he was intact? 

The answer is none. Betty is kept separate from him when she is in heat because of her more than him. He is curious and will "worry" her a bit. But she is also flag him make a nuisance of herself. 

He is neutered because he came that way. Not because it was needed.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> Ok how is it that it is LAW in 30 states to get the dog speautered before leaving a shelter not a fact?
> 
> how is that a RELEVANT fact? i dont get dogs from shelters. neither do many people. my dogs have either all been strays, dogs rehomed with me through their previous owners or came from breeders.


So just because it isn't relevant to you , that makes it untrue or peice of information that isn't something that should be known? Alot of people could be sitting here debating their views and not realize if they get a shelter dog, they might not have the CHOICE. That to me is relevant.



> this only helps with cost if you fall under their income requirements..which i dont and neither do many others. so again..irrelevant.


So based on this again because your financally better off then some people and it dosen't concern you this is also pointless to mention? I also stated in my OPINION not fact that anyone who would consider going to a vet that cuts down on quailty to provide these services is not the type of place to go and that there were a number of vets that perform safe surgery at aforadable prices and are willing to work with the owners to get the dog speautered . Again just because this information dosen't concern you dosen't mean other people don't bennifit from knowing there ARE places that are concerned with saftey AND making it afordable.




> there is no conclusive data out there to determine whether or not being intact or not causes significant harm. the questions dont matter because im not even going to get to the point of asking them unless i deem it necessary to speuter. and most of the time with dogs..i dont.


We all agree the all the research on the subject are mostly inconclusive but it is the result of years of date by experienced people , the fact that it is inconclusive should negate any argument that getting them speautered is unsafe medically but safer as far preventive care against the MAIN issue which is an unplanned litter.



> no. i read everything you say. but im an empirically minded skeptic. i NEVER accept ANYTHING ANYONE says at face value. ever.


How do you enter a debate on the subject with mind site to not change or alter your opinion at all ( ive actually seen several cases where I could see the point NOT to spay/neauter) but its like you have no desire to really make a point of your opinions but just to judge other's


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> it has very little to do with what kinds of dogs you have. it has EVERYTHING to do with the owners and how they handle the situation. and that's going to vary extremely from owner to owner.


I may get some flack for saying this but I would consider breed as a factor when deciding whether or not to neuter a dog. It doesn't mean EVERYONE would feel the same way, and I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping an intact dog of such a breed either (we had an intact GSD mix for 12 years after all), it's just one concern I'd have.

For me, the fact that if my dog had an oops (I would be shocked if it happened), then the puppies would be few and easy to place is comforting. Around here, hounds, pits, shepherds, labs are really really hard to find homes for. On the other hand, small dogs are very sought after plus with my links in the papillon world, I'm positive I could find a GOOD home for 1-5 papillons. Also, if nard had gotten to Mia before I spayed her, the pups would have been from two show quality papillons with pretty well known lineages. For me, that is a factor into it too. 

That's just worse case scenario of course and I just like that peace of mind. If someone were to have pit bulls and kept them the same way we keep our intact dogs, they wouldn't have any problems either.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Ok how is it that it is LAW in 30 states to get the dog speautered before leaving a shelter not a fact?
> 
> How is it not a fact there are 100s of organizations that help with the costs to speauter?
> 
> ...


Okay let me rephrase.... I am still waiting on a relevant fact. Because your post had none.

The FACT that 30 states require it before purchasing a dog from a shelter does not mean it must be done or is even a good idea. There are tons of laws on the books that are a bad idea. 

I will see your statistics from 100's of vets that neutering does not cause significant health risks and will raise you 100's of animal medical professionals that will say its a bad idea. There are arguments on both sides. From the personal reading I have done, I feel like the risks of neutering (especially in the skeletal area) are significant. I never brought it up because it goes both ways. IF your 100's are FACT my 100's have to be accepted as fact as well and they cancel each other out. 

Yes there are many organizations that help with low and no cost speuter. But exactly how is that relevent to whether or not it should be done at all? 


What you attempted to do is post minimal information and basic documentation into an argument that speutering was a good and beneficial thing. 

All your FACTS do is verify the existence of state laws, organizations and the opinions of some medical professionals. 

All of which have nothing to do with whether it should or should not be done.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> So just because it isn't relevant to you , that makes it untrue or peice of information that isn't something that should be known? Alot of people could be sitting here debating their views and not realize if they get a shelter dog, they might not have the CHOICE. That to me is relevant.


so what? the second they start asking questions about getting a dog from a shelter, they're gonna find out. why be redundant?





> So based on this again because your financally better off then some people and it dosen't concern you this is also pointless to mention? I also stated in my OPINION not fact that anyone who would consider going to a vet that cuts down on quailty to provide these services is not the type of place to go and that there were a number of vets that perform safe surgery at aforadable prices and are willing to work with the owners to get the dog speautered . Again just because this information dosen't concern you dosen't mean other people don't bennifit from knowing there ARE places that are concerned with saftey AND making it afordable.


and when people make the decision that they DO want to speuter...then ill hand them the list of orgs i have to help if they need it. but that's not the issue here. the issue that keeps getting batted around is whether you support "speuter first...all other considerations by the wayside" or "consider the options, consider what you're willing and capable of handling and then make the decision for yourself"



> We all agree the all the research on the subject are mostly inconclusive but it is the result of years of date by experienced people , the fact that it is inconclusive should negate any argument that getting them speautered is unsafe medically but safer as far preventive care against the MAIN issue which is an unplanned litter.


which an unplanned litter is not an issue for many. regardless of "chances"...people need to make the decision about what chances and probabilities are acceptable to them. and nothing you can say to them will change what's best for their lives. that's their call.





> How do you enter a debate on the subject with mind site to not change or alter your opinion at all ( ive actually seen several cases where I could see the point NOT to spay/neauter) but its like you have no desire to really make of your opinions but just to judge other's


i dont enter any debate with the mindset not to change. ever. that is counterintuitive to my stance as an empiricist. however..i have HIGH standards for acceptable evidence. Im studying to be a scientist. i approach questions like this with a scientifically oriented mindset. 

and im not judging people arbitrarily. Im stating my position and reading others. if i see something that is creditable evidence for a change of stance, ill change it. Ive yet to see anything remotely suggestive of the idea that i should be pushing spay and neuter on people and trying to bias them towards it. everything still points to the same conclusion..i dont know everything about people's lives and i dont know everything they're capable of so therefore..innocent until proven guilty. not the other way around.



Laurelin said:


> I may get some flack for saying this but I would consider breed as a factor when deciding whether or not to neuter a dog. It doesn't mean EVERYONE would feel the same way, and I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping an intact dog of such a breed either (we had an intact GSD mix for 12 years after all), it's just one concern I'd have.
> 
> For me, the fact that if my dog had an oops (I would be shocked if it happened), then the puppies would be few and easy to place is comforting. Around here, hounds, pits, shepherds, labs are really really hard to find homes for. On the other hand, small dogs are very sought after plus with my links in the papillon world, I'm positive I could find a GOOD home for 1-5 papillons. Also, if nard had gotten to Mia before I spayed her, the pups would have been from two show quality papillons with pretty well known lineages. For me, that is a factor into it too.
> 
> That's just worse case scenario of course and I just like that peace of mind. If someone were to have pit bulls and kept them the same way we keep our intact dogs, they wouldn't have any problems either.


my point was that a dog's breed doesnt automatically change the situation. that's why i said "has _very little_ to do with" and not "nothing". breed is a factor..but it's not the all encompasing one hulk seemed to be making it to be.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> If someone were to have pit bulls and kept them the same way we keep our intact dogs, they wouldn't have any problems either.


The thing is that most people who keep larger breed dogs don't keep them the same way you keep paps. I would think it horribly irresponsible to leave a toy breed in the yard unattended for any long period of time. Leaving a lab that way would be no big deal though and most people will do it and not think twice about doing so. Most people don't think about letting larger breeds off leash at a dog park although it's something that you'd never do with a toy breed.



JohnnyBandit said:


> I will see your statistics from 100's of vets that neutering does not cause significant health risks and will raise you 100's of animal medical professionals that will say its a bad idea. There are arguments on both sides. From the personal reading I have done, I feel like the risks of neutering (especially in the skeletal area) are significant. I never brought it up because it goes both ways. IF your 100's are FACT my 100's have to be accepted as fact as well and they cancel each other out.


Where are the facts that say neutering is a significant risk? We're not talking pediatric spay/neutuer (which is another animal entirely), we're talking about just neutering in general on a mature, healthy dog. Let's say I have a 2.5 yr old lab who is perfectly healthy. I've had blood tests and x-rays done that determined there is no anesthesia risk to the dog that the vet can detect. What is the significant risk to my dog if I have him neutered?


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I already responded to pretty much everything you just said but apparently repeating oneself is practiced much here 



> Yes there are many organizations that help with low and no cost speuter. But exactly how is that relevant to whether or not it should be done at all?


Because a few pages back it was apparently relevant to someones argument that vets made money on speautering with the intent to almost rob the owner of their money and I find this false.



> All of which have nothing to do with whether it should or should not be done


. 

So why is it you conveniently ignored my last fact which was that with every dogs, age, medical background, breed, sex and circumstance need to be considered before speautering?

Again just because something was not relevant to you didn't mean it was not to someone. The fact is there are laws that have to be followed in some circumstances, there is the obvious prevention of unplanned litters, the clear proof of fixing at least some behavior problems, and the defined argument that it just isn't statistically dangerous just as much as it is not statistically dangerous to NOT get them speautered. 

Bottom line its CHOICE ( if your not rescuing ) and it really can't be debated much further then that.



> 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
> ...


This is just for males but some of the fact risks involved. I don't know where anyone gets off saying there isn't dangers in any surgery and I don't see where anyone gets off saying there aren't risks of unplanned pregnancies with intact animals. But those are some facts of the benefits and risks. You just have to consider your animal and weigh the options. But I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong as a topic as it is right or wrong for your * general* dog

I still don't think it is the best thing to advise new owners or people you don't know to not speauter based on your choice for your dog. It is however wise to suggest they discuss the medical risks of anesthesia and other complications with their vet.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

amavanna said:


> So just because it isn't relevant to you , that makes it untrue or peice of information that isn't something that should be known? Alot of people could be sitting here debating their views and not realize if they get a shelter dog, they might not have the CHOICE. That to me is relevant.


How do people not have a choice? Your fact does not eleminate choices. People are not forced into purchasing from a shelter that is mandated by state law that all animals sold be speutered. They have PLENTY of other options when it comes to purchasing a dog. So the FACT remains irrelevent.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> my point was that a dog's breed doesnt automatically change the situation. that's why i said "has _very little_ to do with" and not "nothing". breed is a factor..but it's not the all encompasing one hulk seemed to be making it to be.


Agreed then. 



> The thing is that most people who keep larger breed dogs don't keep them the same way you keep paps. I would think it horribly irresponsible to leave a toy breed in the yard unattended for any long period of time. Leaving a lab that way would be no big deal though and most people will do it and not think twice about doing so. Most people don't think about letting larger breeds off leash at a dog park although it's something that you'd never do with a toy breed.


Unfortunately most people don't keep toy dogs that way either. I've caught my neighbor's little dogs running lose pretty often. Is it irresponsible- yep. But they still do it. 

Btw, I do bring my dogs to an offleash hiking park, but not a dog park. We rarely encounter other dogs we don't know. Nard does not go, I just take my two girls.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> The thing is that most people who keep larger breed dogs don't keep them the same way you keep paps. I would think it horribly irresponsible to leave a toy breed in the yard unattended for any long period of time. Leaving a lab that way would be no big deal though and most people will do it and not think twice about doing so. Most people don't think about letting larger breeds off leash at a dog park although it's something that you'd never do with a toy breed.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the facts that say neutering is a significant risk? We're not talking pediatric spay/neutuer (which is another animal entirely), we're talking about just neutering in general on a mature, healthy dog. Let's say I have a 2.5 yr old lab who is perfectly healthy. I've had blood tests and x-rays done that determined there is no anesthesia risk to the dog that the vet can detect. What is the significant risk to my dog if I have him neutered?


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


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

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

hulkamaniac said:


> Where are the facts that say neutering is a significant risk? We're not talking pediatric spay/neutuer (which is another animal entirely), we're talking about just neutering in general on a mature, healthy dog. Let's say I have a 2.5 yr old lab who is perfectly healthy. I've had blood tests and x-rays done that determined there is no anesthesia risk to the dog that the vet can detect. What is the significant risk to my dog if I have him neutered?


I dont think he was arguing that it shouldnt be done here hulk. I think he was making a point that there are two types of data, those that say speutering is better than not and those that say not speutering is better than doing so...


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> How do people not have a choice? Your fact does not eleminate choices. People are not forced into purchasing from a shelter that is mandated by state law that all animals sold be speutered. They have PLENTY of other options when it comes to purchasing a dog. So the FACT remains irrelevent.


I am the type of person that would never consider buying a dog when so many need homes, but that is the type of person I am and someone else may be to so AGAIN just because YOU don't get a shelter dog dosen't mean that is the route other people WANT to go. And those people need to know they may not have that option to not speauter. I don't see the point of trying to make me wrong on this one. I mean its just common sence that you have to follow the law and it was law that was related to the topic. As far as law is concerned your opinions mean nothing, and I found it relavent to point out that in some situations you find yourself obligated to speauter if you want the animal.

How about this. there was a lady on the aspca that started with two dogs intact. They had puppies..then those puppies had puppies..before she knew it she was the dog hotel. She finally had more then she could handle and called the aspca herself, they took every dog but three ONLY under the condition they got the dogs speautered or they were gonna take those too..the law in place in this situation will prevent a dozen more puppies, had she gotten them speautered to begin with she wouldn't have found her self in that situation.

If your argument is that someone needs to be a more responsible owner, you might as well hang it up cause it is just not the "normal" for people that owns dogs to spends hours as we have debating because we care. And simple fact is the fact we can all sit and talk this out shows we all have the best interest of the dog at heart. But sometimes innocent till proven guilty is a good way to let bad things happen.


----------



## CandJHarris (Apr 29, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I may get some flack for saying this but I would consider breed as a factor when deciding whether or not to neuter a dog. It doesn't mean EVERYONE would feel the same way, and I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping an intact dog of such a breed either (we had an intact GSD mix for 12 years after all), it's just one concern I'd have.


I'll admit, size does have quite a bit to do with why Tyson will eventually be neutered and Taco will stay intact. A Chihuahua is a lot easier to handle when his mind is set on something than a Great Dane. Plus, it's extremely naive to say that you will never, EVER, in your life have a dog get away from you. Like I said before, there are quite a few unaltered male dogs in my neighborhood. Tyson is by far the biggest (the rest are Boxers or smaller), and if God forbid he were to get away from me and follow the scent of a female and a smaller dog were to be hurt and he was spotted, he'd automatically be the fall guy whether he had anything to do with it or not. Now, if our circumstances were different and I lived on my ideal property with 6', buried privacy fences all around, then he would probably stay intact.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The thing that sets me off and at times causes me to lean towards the anti speuter crowd are when the pro speuter crowd uses less than straight forward information to push their agenda.
> 
> Spaying and neutering works for many folks and that is fine. Each dog owner should decide what is right for them based on reality not scare tactics.


And "OMG, speutering will kill your dog and make his bones wonky and anybody who does it is irresponsible!" (as seen in some of the replies here) isn't a scare tactic? I see just as many scare tactics used by the anti-speuter crowd. I don't think either side can claim the high ground here.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> 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
> ...


Have there been any other studies besides this one done on this? I always see this one linked but I never come across any more. I'd be interested if someone else has researched and found the same thing...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Have there been any other studies besides this one done on this? I always see this one linked but I never come across any more. I'd be interested if someone else has researched and found the same thing...


It's not a study, it's a literature review with no explanation of how he calculated his risks. You'd have to read all the citations in the bibliography to see the studies.

ETA: Not that I'm saying it's untrue. It definitely raises some points that should be investigated further. But it's not gospel, it's one person's interpretation of a bunch different studies with no explanation of methodology.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

What Laura Sanborn put together is a compilation of all the studies that could be found at the time, along with a review and with references available to the names of those studies, so one can read them for themselves. 

I've yet to find anything to match that link as a way to access reference studies on this topic (and I've looked). Earlier in the thread I posted another DVM written page that highlights both risks and benefits, and it links studies as well if you want to go on a reading adventure. I took the time to read all the studies when Laura first put her review out - I'm a bit of a nut and found that fun.

http://www.2ndchance.info/spayneuter.htm

SOB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I may get some flack for saying this but I would consider breed as a factor when deciding whether or not to neuter a dog.


I was thinking that, too. If you have an accidental litter, you'd have 4-5 small cute purebreds (or at least half small cute purebred, if a dog outside got to one of your females) to place. It wouldn't be the end of the world. If I had an accidental litter, I'd have a dozen of the biggest, hairiest, muttliest mutts to place. Quite likely, for at least several of them, it WOULD be the end of the world. It really is a whole different matter.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> It's not a study, it's a literature review with no explanation of how he calculated his risks. You'd have to read all the citations in the bibliography to see the studies.
> 
> ETA: Not that I'm saying it's untrue. It definitely raises some points that should be investigated further. But it's not gospel, it's one person's interpretation of a bunch different studies with no explanation of methodology.


What she said... The studies are in the notes....Follow the studies for the information. 

Actually there has been quite a bit if you want to look for it. Red cited a study specifically on Rottweilers. I have read that one before as well.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

CandJHarris said:


> Plus, it's extremely naive to say that you will never, EVER, in your life have a dog get away from you.


I dont think it's naive at all if you are capable of realistically assessing your strengths, weaknessess and what lengths you are willing to go. I can keep an intact female cat for years straight and counting with no kittens. Ive kept dogs for years intact without even so much as a threat of pregnancy. Ive shown myself to be capable and competant to myself. there's no real reason for me to speuter.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And "OMG, speutering will kill your dog and make his bones wonky and anybody who does it is irresponsible!" (as seen in some of the replies here) isn't a scare tactic? I see just as many scare tactics used by the anti-speuter crowd. I don't think either side can claim the high ground here.


Didn't say it does not happen on both sides.......I just said what sets me off. The opposite most likely sets you off...


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Miranda16 said:


> I dont think he was arguing that it shouldnt be done here hulk. I think he was making a point that there are two types of data, those that say speutering is better than not and those that say not speutering is better than doing so...


If that's the case, then we have no disagreement. My argument is that leaving a dog intact entails just as much health risk as having a dog speutered. You can't make the argument for one side or the other based on health reasons. I speak in general of course as there are always exceptions.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

I think its safe to say that there is not a single person here or anywhere for that matter ... without knowing every detail about somebodies life and their animal, that could say _*DEFINITELY*_ that one person should do one or the other.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Didn't say it does not happen on both sides.......I just said what sets me off. The opposite most likely sets you off...


True . I suppose we all have different triggers.

I have to say that I consider any health factors to be a wash. Either way there are risks, either way there are benefits. The threat of pyo scares me more than, say, the slightly increased threat of hemangiosarcoma. The threat of my dogs' offspring being gassed or poisoned in a shelter if I slip up and he gets loose (dogs dying because of my stupidity=not cool) scares me more than the threat of my dog having a slighly increased risk of prostate cancer. Others might feel the other way. 

But I don't think I can apologize for being skeptical when people SAY they're responsible enough to keep intact dogs without accidental pregnancies, especially if they have mixed genders in the home. I've heard that before. Usually about 2 months before "oh, she's pregnant!". The truly responsible ones will just have to overlook my skepticism.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CandJHarris said:


> Plus, it's extremely naive to say that you will never, EVER, in your life have a dog get away from you. .


43 years old.... Owned multiple dogs my entire life. Never had one get away from me. Could it happen? Yea, but based on experience.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Miranda16 said:


> I think its safe to say that there is not a single person here or anywhere for that matter ... without knowing every detail about somebodies life and their animal, that could say _*DEFINITELY*_ that one person should do one or the other.


YUS! *boogies* ^this.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually there has been quite a bit if you want to look for it. Red cited a study specifically on Rottweilers. I have read that one before as well.


The rottweiler study is one of the few that has really impressed me with its study design.

Then the question comes up... can you generalize results from one breed to another? Who knows? Maddening.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

sassafras said:


> The rottweiler study is one of the few that has really impressed me with its study design.
> 
> Then the question comes up... can you generalize results from one breed to another? Who knows? Maddening.


does someone have a link to this study? if it's construction is really good they should try to repeat it with other breeds.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> does someone have a link to this study? if it's construction is really good they should try to repeat it with other breeds.


I don't have one handy, but I know Red has posted it fairly recently.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> Have there been any other studies besides this one done on this? I always see this one linked but I never come across any more. I'd be interested if someone else has researched and found the same thing...


Same i have been looking up stuff for several hours I have to this conclusion. I have already called my Vet as lela was scheduled to get spayed in the next county next month. I am not sure why so many people run into vets that are all for "dollar" or Pushing for speautering. My vet was understandable and reasonable told me the risks which included allergic reaction to the anesthesia and possible risks when she gets older with hip problems if she were under 6 months (which she isn't) she also stated that I might feel comfortable letting her get her first heat out of the way so that they know she has developed properly. And last but not least she emphasized this is a major surgery even though it is commonly done and all surgery has their risks but their #1 concern is the safety of my dog. I also asked all the said questions I posed earlier and she said of coarse we have all those options and/or meet those requirements and we can discuss in detail before the surgery how we will dose her anesthesia on weight and she said I was welcome to run a blood test for any noticeable irregularities that might complicate the surgery. She said she can run the tests when she does the heart worm test she just might need to take two samples In the end I was shocked at how informational she was and polite. I have kept her appointment we are going to run the blood work and when everything comes back okey dokey then we will go through the surgery. She is strong healthy dog that I feel will be just fine being spayed. I feel comfortable knowing I wont be adding to a surplus population of homeless dogs and feel better knowing I took every precaution I could before going through the surgery.


----------



## CandJHarris (Apr 29, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I dont think it's naive at all if you are capable of realistically assessing your strengths, weaknessess and what lengths you are willing to go. I can keep an intact female cat for years straight and counting with no kittens. Ive kept dogs for years intact without even so much as a threat of pregnancy. Ive shown myself to be capable and competant to myself. there's no real reason for me to speuter.


All I'm saying is that nothing is ever guaranteed. No matter how diligent and responsible a person is, accidents can happen (a car accident when your dog is with you for example and the dog gets loose in the midst of all the chaos). That's why they're called accidents, but I'm not saying that should automatically mean that everyone in every situation should speuter. I have both intact and speutered dogs and no puppies for me either. Ultimately it's up to each of us to decide what we feel is right for us and our pets. For me, my choices have been made on an individual basis for each dog I've owned in my life depending on my circumstance at the time.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> If that's the case, then we have no disagreement. My argument is that leaving a dog intact entails just as much health risk as having a dog speutered. You can't make the argument for one side or the other based on health reasons. I speak in general of course as there are always exceptions.


I have never stated on this forum that I am anti speuter. I have stated the opposite several times on this thread. I have gone as far to say it is probably the best choice for many folks. 

But on a personal level, reading the health risks for and against.... from what I see, and a little personal experience, I feel the risks are greater. 

Given my personal situation and how I manage my dogs, neutering is not needed.... 

I have two bad experiences with dogs living much shorter lives that should be expected. Can I prove neutering caused it? No but there is enough doubt and circumstantial stuff, I am not going through it again.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Willowy said:


> True . I suppose we all have different triggers.


I get flack from both sides. Why isn't he neutered yet! You really shouldn't have gotten her spayed like that!

I don't know how I live with myself, lol. Nobody likes me.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I get flack from both sides. Why isn't he neutered yet! You really shouldn't have gotten her spayed like that!
> 
> I don't know how I live with myself, lol. Nobody likes me.


Well that's because of how irresponsible and lazy you are!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

CandJHarris said:


> All I'm saying is that nothing is ever guaranteed. No matter how diligent and responsible a person is, accidents can happen (a car accident when your dog is with you for example and the dog gets loose in the midst of all the chaos). That's why they're called accidents, but I'm not saying that should automatically mean that everyone in every situation should speuter. I have both intact and speutered dogs and no puppies for me either. Ultimately it's up to each of us to decide what we feel is right for us and our pets. For me, my choices have been made on an individual basis for each dog I've owned in my life depending on my circumstance at the time.


same here. except that i feel like saying "accidents can happen" and that's a good reason to speuter is kind of silly. Im not contributing to the shelter population.

and ill go a step further...Im extremely knowledgable about canine anatomy and health(for a non vet). Ive done time assisting breeders and i check my dogs *daily* for abnormalities. if a pregancy were to happen, there is almost no doubt id catch it early enough to abort. and that may piss people off that i would abort...but i have no problems with it. My mindset is if there isnt a pressing reason or a solid case for doing some medical procedure, im not going to do it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I get flack from both sides. Why isn't he neutered yet! You really shouldn't have gotten her spayed like that!
> 
> I don't know how I live with myself, lol. Nobody likes me.


LOL, some lady at the vet's office offered to buy Moose from me. Until she noticed his lack of family jewels. Then she got mad at me. Said I ruined him and he was useless now (I think she would have said a lot! more but the vet (who neutered him) was standing right there writing out her receipt). Poor Moose. Must be tough being so useless  .



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> if a pregancy were to happen, there is almost no doubt id catch it early enough to abort


But the abortion (which I also don't have a problem with, until late in the pregnancy, in which case I do object to it, as I don't see a difference between offing them a week before they're born vs offing them a week after they're born) would involve a spay. . .and, from my understanding, an increased surgical risk. A big increase in bleeding risk, not some piddling .002 increased risk of whatever obscure cancer. I guess if the risk of spay/abort being necessary is reallyreally low. . .but I'd rather just do a routine spay on a young healthy dog than wait until she gets tagged by a male or has pyo or mammary tumors when she's older and the surgical risks are higher.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> if a pregancy were to happen, there is almost no doubt id catch it early enough to abort


Wow you would fight the argument that you are responsible owner but then say that second your unspayed female landed pregnant the answer is to kill her pups ..incredible I can not find that justifiable

I dont care how much school you have under your belt or what kind of skeptic you are but to say you would chose abortion over prevention..boggle


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Zim has Pit(s). The LAST thing the world needs is more oops pit puppies. And did you miss the last seven pages of Zim not letting her bitch get pregnant in the first place?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

amavanna said:


> Wow you would fight the argument that you are responsible owner but then say that second your unspayed female landed pregnant the answer is to kill her pups ..incredible I can not find that justifiable


IF it DID happen...*which it will not*. and if you're against canine abortion..then you're against a significant number of spay surgeries...because one of the main methods of canine abortion is to spay.

and they arent pups until they are developed enough to meet all the criteria of puppies..









that's a puppy? it doesnt even really have a brain yet.

seems like a super lame excuse to be all for a spay and against an early term spay. they're no different.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

did you miss the fact that crap happens. I also dont remotely understand how you can argue speautering is bad for the dog or immoral or whatever then turn around support aborting a dogs pups. That is mind boggling to me and I dont care what you say on that. If you read the last 15 pages ive been commenting and reading through this whole thread. The fact that the basis of the statement is she would rather take her chances based on her experience but would have no issue in killing unborn pups if she screwed up, im sorry there nothing responsible about that.

A spayed abortion is still an abotion, spaying should be done when the female is NOT pregant. I will NOT get into a debate of abortion ESPECIALLY a dog abortion who has no capable way of stopping it. I will not agree or have a change of mind set on that.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> seems like a super lame excuse to be all for a spay and against an early term spay. they're no different.


To be fair, I don't think you can quite say that, I do think they're different but I don't think one is more objectionable than the other. Aborting dog fetuses isn't the same as aborting human fetuses. No one LIKES to do it, but it doesn't have the same moral quandaries that human abortions have.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

amavanna said:


> Wow you would fight the argument that you are responsible owner but then say that second your unspayed female landed pregnant the answer is to kill her pups ..incredible I can not find that justifiable.


Meh. I don't have a big problem with it if it's done early enough in the pregnancy. As long as a person doesn't deliberately let their pet get pregnant and then abort. That would be morally dubious. But if (for example) someone was letting their dog have one heat before spaying, but she got out or they think a male got to her, and they booked the surgery for the next week. . .no, I don't have a problem with that.

I do think there some moral quandaries involved in aborting dog fetuses, same as there are moral quandaries in ending any unwanted-but-otherwise-perfectly-good animal's life. But early on in the pregnancy, IMO, it's not quite as much of a quandary. Better that they never experience life outside the womb if they're just going to be killed not long after.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> The fact that the basis of the statement is she would rather take her chances based on her experience but would have no issue in killing unborn pups if she screwed up, im sorry there nothing responsible about that.


There's everything responsible about that, and I'd do the same.

She's not allowing more unwanted's into the world. I'm taking my chances having The Mogwai intact because I show her, but if (heaven forbid) she got knocked up due to a silent heat, or she got out, or someone caring for her accidentally lost her, I'd do an emergency spay too.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

amavanna said:


> did you miss the fact that crap happens. I also dont remotely understand how you can argue speautering is bad for the dog or immoral or whatever then turn around support aborting a dogs pups. That is mind boggling to me and I dont care what you say on that. If you read the last 15 pages ive been commenting and reading through this whole thread. The fact that the basis of the statement is she would rather take her chances based on her experience but would have no issue in killing unborn pups if she screwed up, im sorry there nothing responsible about that.




Um would you rather have them grow up to be cute little dogs and put them down or never know them and not have them suffer a shelter life (though i know for a fact zim would make sure these pups have contracts saying they stay in their homes otherwise they are back with her) and put them down.... because honestly thats what it would kinda boil down to in this kinda situation. PLUS she wasnt talking about a late term pregnancy. BUT BESIDES THAT what would or wouldnt be done in this case doesnt really pertain to the thread at all besides the fact that its technically a spay.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Hell yeah. I'd rather have my bitch than put the stress of an unwanted litter on her and the general dog population.


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

> and if you're against canine abortion..then you're against a significant number of spay surgeries.


of coarse I would be against spaying a dog that is pregnant!



> seems like a super lame excuse to be all for a spay and against an early term spay. they're no different


im sorry you dont see the difference between life and death,



> Meh. I don't have a big problem with it if it's done early enough in the pregnancy. As long as a person doesn't deliberately let their pet get pregnant and then abort. That would be morally dubious. But if (for example) someone was letting their dog have one heat before spaying, but she got out or they think a male got to her, and they booked the surgery for the next week. . .no, I don't have a problem with that.


Im sorry unless it was pregnancy that could kill the mother there is no excuse to kill an entire litter of pups. The only way this were even remotley acceptable in my eyes is if the dog was too young to carry the litter to term or had severe medical complications that would make her unsuitable carry.

But to sit there and say that is your back up plan, to get her spayed anyway and kill the pups..yea im sorry....no im not sorry that just make any sence at all.



> Um would you rather have them grow up to be cute little dogs and put them down or never know them and not have them suffer a shelter life


The fact that it is the basis of my whole argument to speauter in the first place to prevent these unwanted litters, im sorry but you cant say I will not speauter then say but if she does get knocked up just kill the pups and spay her then MEH . WHAT?!



> Hell yeah. I'd rather have my bitch than put the stress of an unwanted litter on her and the general dog population.


 If you didnt want to put her through stress with a litter I guess you could have PREVENTED IT FIRST


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Really interesting read so far, and can't believe this thread has gone to 16 pages! 

BUT... THIS:



amavanna said:


> of coarse I would be against spaying a dog that is pregnant!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Umm... how about we NOT turn this into an anti/pro abortion debate??


----------



## amavanna (Nov 20, 2010)

I intend to make this last my post because the though of someone chosing abortion over prevention has made this whole topic disgust me, Feel free to bash me and quote me and try to debate me but im totally done.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Equinox said:


> Umm... how about we NOT turn this into an anti/pro abortion debate??


It is pertinent to the conversation, I think. It doesn't have to turn into a debate about what humans do. If people behave themselves.

So I guess the big question now is: is it OK to choose not to spay to prevent unwanted litters, then if there is an accident, have a spay/abort done?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I can see Zim's reasoning. The risk from a spay is higher than the risk of a pregnancy happening for HER. So then it is highly unlikely she'll ever even need to consider an abort so it's almost a moot point. But the option is there in an absolute last case scenario. For me, I would probably let the pregnancy go through unless it was a huge stud with my tiny dogs or something else like that where there were health risks. Then again, that's ME and not HER. I also don't have pit bulls and that changes things in this case imo. Spay/aborts in dogs really don't bother me much anyways though.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I think you're winding yourself up into a tizzy over things people aren't really saying. NO ONE is saying, "I will not speauter then say but if she does get knocked up just kill the pups and spay her then MEH."

They're saying "For me, the risks of spaying do not outweigh the benefits and I can be a responsible dog owner and keep my bitch contained when she is in heat. But in the remote chance that the worst happens, I find the benefits of an early term spay (in relation to health of the female and the support system for unwanted dogs) to be preferable to the risks of carrying a litter to term and bringing more unwanted puppies into the world."

And it's not like responsible owners are breeding their unspayed dogs all over town. That pretty much takes one off the responsible owner list, in which case I will always recommend a spay if an accidental breeding is at all likely to happen. But there's nothing evil or frightening about intact animals.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

If the bitch that is often in my care, turned up pregnant accidentally, I would have other issues to deal with in addition to the pups. Like keeping from being tarred and feathered. I have never lost a second sleep over it and won't until she or my intact male grow opposable thumbs. 

But since we are going off the deep end....Well....

Getting WOUND up over not likely to happen, is a bit much....


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It is pertinent to the conversation, I think. It doesn't have to turn into a debate about what humans do. If people behave themselves.
> 
> So I guess the big question now is: is it OK to choose not to spay to prevent unwanted litters, then if there is an accident, have a spay/abort done?


Okay, I guess that is a good point. What I really meant was that I had a problem with the way *amavanna *is portraying the act of abortion as a whole, not just pertaining to dogs, and stating it as if it were a universal fact everyone must believe in. 

I'm just really in agreement right now with whoever asked WHY this has to be a topic to be debated over. I thought it was just an "offer your opinion"/poll type thread. I didn't know we had to all agree on this. 

*Laurelin*, your posts have been fantastic. I think it should be stressed that this is all different from individual to individual. We state our OWN opinions for our OWN situations and dogs and the pros and cons for US. No one has to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with everyone.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> 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
> ...



Wow...that's just wonderful. *looks at Wally and sighs*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> They're saying "For me, the risks of spaying do not outweigh the benefits and I can be a responsible dog owner and keep my bitch contained when she is in heat. But in the remote chance that the worst happens, I find the benefits of an early term spay (in relation to health of the female and the support system for unwanted dogs) to be preferable to the risks of carrying a litter to term and bringing more unwanted puppies into the world.".


BINGO! word for word that is my position.

and there's NOTHING irresponsible about it. Because in every possible scenario, i take it upon myself to produce the least negative impact on the situation possible. if one chooses not to spay, one needs to prepare to make decisions regarding an accident. I am fully prepared to do so.

Like i said..the chances of me with dog having an accidental litter is incredibly small. i dont leave dogs together alone and unsupervised EVER, let alone when they're in heat. I dont leave in heat bitches in places where intact dogs can get to them. I track and record my bitches' heat cycles so that i know when they are approaching and at the first sign of discharge of any kind at any time, a sample is collected for analysis(to check for pyo). I give them physical exams EVERY DAY to check for abnormalities and at the slightest sign of something weird, they're at the vet. the chances of an unwanted pregnancy are negligable. BUT..if it DID happen, I would take immediate action. There is a difference between a collection of cells that is living and something that is alive and aware..i know where that line is..and i wouldnt cross it. if for some bizarre and unfathomable reason i DID end up with a bitch too late to abort..i am fully willing to keep EVERY PUPPY if i have to. 

but the chances are so miniscule that they're almost not worth mentioning.

the end.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Thanks Equinox! I hope I've been at least somewhat informative. 



KBLover said:


> Wow...that's just wonderful. *looks at Wally and sighs*


I really wouldn't worry AT ALL. Millions of dogs are neutered every year and most will have no problems. As has been pointed out the risks are small to start with and that's only one person's interpretation of some studies. What i'd really like to see would be more studies done on a lot of different breeds and not only dealing with neutering in juvenile dogs. A lot of those studies I noticed were talking about neutering prior to maturity.

Anyways, it's already done and I don't see any reason to be concerned about Wally at all. The likelihood of problems coming from being neutered is (imo) really really slim.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I sit down and look at it like this.

If you speuter: 
Eliminates the Damocle's blade of accidental pregnancy.
Has minor health risks.

If you don't speuter:
Damocle's blade is always there. Extra supervision is required 24/7/365. Dogs must always be supervised at all times no matter what.
Has minor health risks.

At least that's how it seems to break down for me.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

Wowza I leave for class and come back and 4 more pages have been added.lol.

I would really like to see more studies done(real studies) on why neutering is not necessary, but made on what was recently shown on here, the risks still seem very little to make me think twice, same goes for spaying. I also just don't want to deal with heats, I want to be able to take my bitch without having to worry about her heat cycles. Still, IMO the risks still seem very low to show any real concern. If I ever did own an intact dog that female and if she EVER got out, I and she locked up with a dog then I would spay her immediately.

I will spay/neuter my pets once they fully mature(and that of course depends on the breed), I will get tests done to make sure my dog is safe while under. 

You can be a responsible owner of a intact dog and you can be a responsible owner of an altered dog, and you can be a responsible owner of both.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I've always spayed and neutered and will continue to do so. However, I've become smarter about it and in the future, will wait until the dog is a year, at least. I've also become smarter about vets offices & surgeries. I assumed that all "vet techs" were licensed or certified and had been schooled in anesthesia etc. I found out I was wrong. I have a local vet who is great for most everything but will not be doing any surgeries or procedures on my dogs if anesthesia is needed. The vet tech in the practice is not licensed or certified and I want someone who knows what they are doing in charge of monitoring my dog.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Also, if nard had gotten to Mia before I spayed her, the pups would have been from two show quality papillons with pretty well known lineages. For me, that is a factor into it too.


I've seen pictures of that dog of yours around the forum. If Nard had gotten to her before she was spayed, you'd have demon spawn on your hands. XD 

I am completely joking.



amavanna said:


> How about this. there was a lady on the aspca that started with two dogs intact. They had puppies..then those puppies had puppies..before she knew it she was the dog hotel. She finally had more then she could handle and called the aspca herself, they took every dog but three ONLY under the condition they got the dogs speautered or they were gonna take those too..the law in place in this situation will prevent a dozen more puppies, had she gotten them speautered to begin with she wouldn't have found her self in that situation.


She didn't neccesarily have to neuter them though, she could have just chosen to be responsible. It's quite apparent she had no intentions of being a responsible pet owner, though.



Laurelin said:


> Have there been any other studies besides this one done on this? I always see this one linked but I never come across any more. I'd be interested if someone else has researched and found the same thing...


Along with the couple Red posted, I believe I found a few a while back by searching for the specific risk of the diseases. Hemangiosarcoma and osteosarcoma are the more common studies, and I have seen some that were well compiled that Red didn't quote too, so they are out there. 



hulkamaniac said:


> I sit down and look at it like this.
> 
> If you speuter:
> Eliminates the Damocle's blade of accidental pregnancy.
> ...


You have to realize that it may be extra work for you to keep an intact animal, but for others they may have to do nothing differently, just because of their lifestyle. 

Like, I've extensively trained Frag with heat scent, recall, not approaching strange dogs until I guage reaction, just because I'm overly cautious in general and have nothing better to do. Because I've never had a fenced in yard, Frag is and always will be taken outside to go to the bathroom on leash. So right there eliminates most hassle that others would have to change or adapt to. The difference between having an intact male and a neutered male is none to me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But you ARE going to have Frag neutered once he's old enough. So it's kind of moot, I don't know why you're arguing so hard against neutering. You aren't going to have experience with long-term management of an intact dog, which is really quite different from having an intact dog for a year and a half.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> But you ARE going to have Frag neutered once he's old enough. So it's kind of moot, I don't know why you're arguing so hard against neutering. You aren't going to have experience with long-term management of an intact dog, which is really quite different from having an intact dog for a year and a half.


not really. not in my experience at least.

now managing an intact female CAT on the other hand....holy cow...talk about test of your patience lmao...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> now managing an intact female CAT on the other hand....holy cow...talk about test of your patience lmao...


Oh, ugh, no kidding. I mean, I've had cats go into heat before I could get them spayed. A month maybe, 3 months one time, but that's it. And that was bad enough. I don't know what I'd do if I had a cat who couldn't be spayed. Check myself into the crazy house maybe.

But I do think long-term management is diferent from short-term management. If I know a situation is temporary (like having unspayed cats until I can get an appointment), I can be extra careful around doors, make sure the windows aren't open enough for a cat to slip through (because they might rip the screens. . .it's never happened but who knows), etc. But after a few years most people will get a bit lax. . .it's never happened before so it won't happen now, this is pretty easy. Then BAM something happens.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Oh, ugh, no kidding. I mean, I've had cats go into heat before I could get them spayed. A month maybe, 3 months one time, but that's it. And that was bad enough. I don't know what I'd do if I had a cat who couldn't be spayed. Check myself into the crazy house maybe.


i have a cat that cant be spayed. Ive had her for four years. I can handle intact dogs lol.



> But I do think long-term management is diferent from short-term management. If I know a situation is temporary (like having unspayed cats until I can get an appointment), I can be extra careful around doors, make sure the windows aren't open enough for a cat to slip through (because they might rip the screens. . .it's never happened but who knows), etc. But after a few years most people will get a bit lax. . .it's never happened before so it won't happen now, this is pretty easy. Then BAM something happens.


maybe it's because i already have a dog who needs extreme vigilance and most of my dogs have been like that. it's not a big deal to me because most of the litter preventative measures are things i already have to do dealing with DA.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> But you ARE going to have Frag neutered once he's old enough. So it's kind of moot, I don't know why you're arguing so hard against neutering. You aren't going to have experience with long-term management of an intact dog, which is really quite different from having an intact dog for a year and a half.


I'm not argueing against neutering. I'm arguing against neutering 100% of the time. It's not right for everybody, and I don't know why so many people think it should be. 

And I will be managing an intact dog long term. Frag is being neutered so I can show him (my selfish reason) AND so that I don't have to have an issue with the bitch I'm getting in the spring. If I weren't getting her, he'd never be neutered. It is unlikely that I will neuter an animal in the future. I really wish I didn't have to neuter Frag.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i have a cat that cant be spayed. Ive had her for four years. I can handle intact dogs lol.


I know, I saw your other posts, that's what I was responding to. You have my admiration. There's someone on the cat forum who had a cat who couldn't be spayed due to a heart problem, and she lived. . .um, a long time, 20 years maybe, and was pretty much constantly in heat for 15 of those years. Funfun. I might have threatened my vet until he managed to get me some of those progesterone injections they use in Europe. Or Feralstat. . .I wonder if that would work. Anyway I wouldn't like it at all.


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I can be extra careful around doors, make sure the windows aren't open enough for a cat to slip through (because they might rip the screens. . .it's never happened but who knows)


It happens. That's how my last cat had 5 kittens: a window was left partially opened and she slid it open a bit more, ripped out the screen, jumped 2 stories down and came back 3 days later very tired and very pregnant. This was 2 days before her scheduled appontment to get spayed. I'm never going to have an un-spayed female cat ever again! 

I have to admit this thread has made me better understand people who choose to keep unaltered dogs, when they make it a conscious and informed decision. My beef is with Joe Schmoe who doesn't want to do it because it's too expensive, takes away their dog's manliness or because they make such cuuuuuuuuute puppies. If you are responsible enough, by all means do what is best for your situation.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Heck I don't even want claws on cats....... Much less sexual organs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't think anyone is arguing to neuter 100% of the time on here. I'd be shocked if people wouldn't give leeway for at least something (like dogs that have health issues that absolutely cannot be put under, etc). Now the rest of it is debatable and not everyone is going to agree. It's the nature of it.

But I really read a lot of the 'pro-neuter' replies as people defending why they neutered their own dogs. It may not have been intended this way but a lot of the posts in this thread come across as very anti-neutering to me. People who chose to neuter because they thought it was the best choice in their situation might rightly feel defensive when they are told that you only need to neuter if you're irresponsible and that they aren't putting their dog's health first because they chose to neuter him. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> And I will be managing an intact dog long term. Frag is being neutered so I can show him (my selfish reason) AND so that I don't have to have an issue with the bitch I'm getting in the spring. If I weren't getting her, he'd never be neutered. It is unlikely that I will neuter *an animal* in the future


I do hope you'd neuter any male cats you get. Otherwise your friends are going to start finding excuses not to go to your house. . . .

And, managing a single intact animal is different from managing mixed genders in the same home. I think that's where most slipups happen. And a lot of people reading any criticism of neutering have multiple dogs of mixed genders, and will go "oh! Better not neuter then!" and will have accidental litters. Just saying, I don't think most people should be discouraged from neutering for any reason.

And yeah, DJetzel, I have to say that most of your posts in this thread have been heavily on the "OMG! Neutering will kill your dog!" category I referred to earlier.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I know, I saw your other posts, that's what I was responding to. You have my admiration. There's someone on the cat forum who had a cat who couldn't be spayed due to a heart problem, and she lived. . .um, a long time, 20 years maybe, and was pretty much constantly in heat for 15 of those years. Funfun. I might have threatened my vet until he managed to get me some of those progesterone injections they use in Europe. Or Feralstat. . .I wonder if that would work. Anyway I wouldn't like it at all.


yeah. ive figured out a few things to calm her down during heat cycles thanks to a cat breeder i know. I dont like it but pretty much my only other option is putting her down..and i dont feel like that's really the right thing to do here. she's otherwise generally healthy and happy(a bit of a spoiled officious brat) but she doesnt have a bad life.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Meshkenet said:


> It happens. That's how my last cat had 5 kittens: a window was left partially opened and she slid it open a bit more, ripped out the screen, jumped 2 stories down and came back 3 days later very tired and very pregnant. This was 2 days before her scheduled appontment to get spayed.


How did she get "very pregnant" in 3 days? Cat gestation is 9 weeks, they don't show for 5-6 weeks. I totally would have kept the spay appointment. You didn't even know she was pregnant yet!



JohnnyBandit said:


> Heck I don't even want claws on cats....... Much less sexual organs.


That's entirely different and you know it. You're just baiting.


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

I was 12 at the time, and because she had missed her appointment we couldn't get her to the vet before a few weeks, by that time she had started to show and my parents had decided to show us the mirace of birth. Meh. I'm not from a very animal savvy household. I know better now.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Just cause I'm curious and have never owned a cat in my life (and I'm not sure I ever will), what's so bad about a cat in heat? I gather it's very different than a dog in heat?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Just cause I'm curious and have never owned a cat in my life (and I'm not sure I ever will), what's so bad about a cat in heat? I gather it's very different than a dog in heat?


the screaming mostly. and the smell.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the screaming mostly. and the smell.


Well that sounds fun.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Well that sounds fun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbS8Alai_hw

granted this one's not that bad...but some of them are awful.


----------



## Meshkenet (Oct 2, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Just cause I'm curious and have never owned a cat in my life (and I'm not sure I ever will), what's so bad about a cat in heat? I gather it's very different than a dog in heat?


Firstly, a dog in heat rarely spends her whole days and nights screaming bloody murder, doesn't look for any way out of your house like an Alcatraz prisonner and will not shove her butt in your face (or any available body part) at every chance she gets.

granted, my memories of cat heats are quite distant (the 11 cats I have had as an adult have always been speutered) so there are probably more inconveniences.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> That's entirely different and you know it. You're just baiting.


Actually it was humor..... I could not find the smileys.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbS8Alai_hw
> 
> granted this one's not that bad...but some of them are awful.


Mia wanted to let you know she liked that video. It really set her off barking lol.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Mia wanted to let you know she liked that video. It really set her off barking lol.


Yea.... It sent the two cats here.... Both of whom have been speutered for at least ten years..... Into a tizzy.... The little she cat is bellowing and the former tom is lowing.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> the screaming mostly. and the smell.


Oooo that smell! Can't you smell that smell?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufoqrr-ToiI

this one sounds like my cat.


----------



## Miranda16 (Jan 17, 2010)

She sounds like a baby-gremlin mix.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Just cause I'm curious and have never owned a cat in my life (and I'm not sure I ever will), what's so bad about a cat in heat? I gather it's very different than a dog in heat?


A cat in heat is in PAIN. If she's not, she sure acts like it, LOL. They howl and roll around and act like their stomach is going to explode. And they will kill themselves to get to a male. They are utterly miserable and want to make you just as miserable. It's hard to keep an intact female cat in any kind of condition. . .they don't want to eat while they're in heat. This is why there's an alter class in cat shows  . Breeders spay a cat as soon as she's done having litters. There might be a 5-year-old tom in Championship class, if he's a gentleman and doesn't spray too much. But you never see an older female in Championship, only very young females--9 months (after they're too old for Kitten class) to about 18 months or 2 years, never much older than that. They just don't look so great with all that stress.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufoqrr-ToiI
> 
> this one sounds like my cat.


I am going to load that into my coyote call.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Okay I am never having an intact cat I've decided.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Okay I am never having an intact cat I've decided.


funny thing is...that second video shows how to keep them calm..

not getting into it any further than that.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I do hope you'd neuter any male cats you get. Otherwise your friends are going to start finding excuses not to go to your house. . . .
> 
> And, managing a single intact animal is different from managing mixed genders in the same home. I think that's where most slipups happen. And a lot of people reading any criticism of neutering have multiple dogs of mixed genders, and will go "oh! Better not neuter then!" and will have accidental litters. Just saying, I don't think most people should be discouraged from neutering for any reason.
> 
> And yeah, DJetzel, I have to say that most of your posts in this thread have been heavily on the "OMG! Neutering will kill your dog!" category I referred to earlier.


Eh. If I ever get another cat it will most certainly be rescued and will already be neutered, so I won't have to worry about that. I doubt I'll ever get another cat after this one though.

I never said that people should be discouraged from neutering. But I don't think they should be forced into it, either. 

And I have not made a single comment about neutering killing your dog. I have no problem with people neutering and don't judge them for it. I've said that numerous times. I've commented that the risks I've analyzed are too much for _me_ to neuter for no reason, and that people should have all of the information given to them if you're (general) going to try pushing your agenda on them.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

I will get cats from s shelter/rescue. I have heard about unaltered cats and their craziness.(not saying all are but I just don't want to go through it.)

DJ-I thought you can't show a dog if he/she is altered?


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

JessieLove09 said:


> DJ-I thought you can't show a dog if he/she is altered?


Ah, sorry for the confusion. You can't in conformation (which is why my next dog will stay unspayed), but Frag isn't AKC registered and I want to show him in rally/obedience/agility (one of them, not sure which yet) so in order to get an alternative listing number to show performance, he needs to be neutered.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

This one is mine.... Intact









This one lives with me. Intact...









Both will be bred. But never together..... They are halve siblings - same sire.... And the the bitches dam is Merlins have the same dam.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

Oh ok. I am thinking of doing agility later on and rally.

I am thinking of doing AKC confirmation when I get a Rough Collie in a few years. Of course then I would wouldn't mind having a intact. Not against owning them, just not now or until I want to.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

JessieLove09 said:


> Oh ok. I am thinking of doing agility later on and rally.
> 
> I am thinking of doing AKC confirmation when I get a Rough Collie in a few years. Of course then I would wouldn't mind having a intact. Not against owning them, just not now or until I want to.


Completely reasonable.  Agility and rally are both something I defintely want to do with Frag because they're both fun. Obedience we may do just for the exposure, but that would be it. Rally is very easy to accomplish, too. There aren't too many time consuming commands to train or complex maneuvers.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

Rally looks like alot of fun too. I am liking the idea of fly ball.

The fact that one my friend's has a dog that is a stray has nasty black lump near his man parts and that it can possibly be something serious and she isn't doing anything about it. I have told her about it, but she says they don't have the money to go to a vet. That is something I don't understand. I know she has good intentions for taking him in.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

JessieLove09 said:


> Rally looks like alot of fun too. I am liking the idea of fly ball.
> 
> The fact that one my friend's has a dog that is a stray has nasty black lump near his man parts and that it can possibly be something serious and she isn't doing anything about it. I have told her about it, but she says they don't have the money to go to a vet. That is something I don't understand. I know she has good intentions for taking him in.


Unfortunately, a lot of people have good intentions, but no resources to make due. That dog needs to see a vet.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> I sit down and look at it like this.
> 
> If you speuter:
> Eliminates the Damocle's blade of accidental pregnancy.
> ...


Why do you care so much about how convenient someone else's life is? Heck, some of us already live certain lifestyles that would make having intact dogs no big deal. For instance, my dog (and future dogs) is never left outside unsupervised, is always on a leash when outdoors, he's trained never to bolt out of doors (and watched so he doesn't bolt) and if I had multiple dogs, they would be kept in separate rooms when home alone. Intact or not. 

As long as a person is responsible with their dogs, it shouldn't matter if they choose to alter or not. What aren't you getting? 

Zim, in regards to the emergency spay/abortion topic, isn't there a certain timeframe where unborn puppies can be randomly absorbed back into the mother's body? I don't understand how one could oppose an emergency spay when done early enough (there's no guarantee that the puppy would even be born anyways), especially for unplanned litters.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

Very true. She recently said they are taking him to the vet to get him checked out, but I highly doubt it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Zim, in regards to the emergency spay/abortion topic, isn't there a certain timeframe where unborn puppies can be randomly absorbed back into the mother's body? I don't understand how one could oppose an emergency spay when done early enough (there's no guarantee that the puppy would even be born anyways), especially for unplanned litters.


less likely to happen later in the pregnancy, more likely to happen early in pregnancy. Later on, if they arent going to survive, oftentimes they'll spontaneously abort. or just die in womb. others may die during or immediately after birth. frequency varies but all of those are possibilities. Sometimes, even if you are going to let a bitch have a litter, its better to selectively abort a few because the litter is too large for the bitch to safely carry. I have no qualms aborting a pregnancy early on.


ETA: My course of action is really dependant on what the situation is, dogs i plan to place with others at some point(strays i pick up and rehome), i go ahead and fix most of them. two i didnt because responsible people took them and didnt want to. they lived out their lives completely puppy free. Dogs i keep, i dont spay because it doesnt bother me, i dont ever have behavior issues because of it(if i did, i might spay..but i havent), they really dont get any opportunity to mate and due to no compelling evidence, there's really no reason. *shrug*


----------



## mitzi (Aug 3, 2010)

I'm 100% for spay/neuter. I would spay/neuter because of something that could happen to make sure it doesn't. The thought of just one unwanted dog (or cat) being born beacuse I didn't spay/neuter horrifies me, I would never take that chance.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

mitzi said:


> I'm 100% for spay/neuter. I would spay/neuter because of something that could happen to make sure it doesn't. The thought of just one unwanted dog (or cat) being born beacuse I didn't spay/neuter horrifies me, I would never take that chance.


But what is that chance? 

In a lot of our cases, the chances of our dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is higher than the chance of our dogs getting out and getting pregnant.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> In a lot of our cases, the chances of our dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is higher than the chance of our dogs getting out and getting pregnant.


I'm not sure that could ever be true. . .is the chance of a dog getting out less than .003% or whatever those minuscule chances of whatever problems neutering "causes" are? I mean, I do see why some people don't want to neuter but I'm not sure that^^ could be considered a factual sentence.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

DJEtzel said:


> In a lot of our cases, the chances of our dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is higher than the chance of our dogs getting out and getting pregnant.


I'm going to have to stay out of this thread for my own piece of mind.

Not because it's making me crazy with the debate discussion being seeing "risk of....higher in neutered dogs..."


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure that could ever be true. . .is the chance of a dog getting out less than .003% or whatever those minuscule chances of whatever problems neutering "causes" are? I mean, I do see why some people don't want to neuter but I'm not sure that^^ could be considered a factual sentence.


If you added up the percentages of a dog getting each problem caused by neutering, it would be significantly more than the chances of MY dog getting out. Since he never has (and none have) I would call that a less than 1% chance of it happening. I'm not sure how to accurately guage it though. 



KBLover said:


> I'm going to have to stay out of this thread for my own piece of mind.
> 
> Not because it's making me crazy with the debate discussion being seeing "risk of....higher in neutered dogs..."


While the risk may be higher, there are plenty of dogs that it will not effect. I would honestly not worry about it if it is beyong your control. Wally has size on his side, too. A lot of the issues are worse for larger breeds.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> But what is that chance?
> 
> In a lot of our cases, the chances of our dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is higher than the chance of our dogs getting out and getting pregnant.


If the thought of your dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is so terrifying to you, why are you neutering him just so you can play some games in a certain sandbox?

Even the best cared for dogs get out. Tragedy strikes. This summer someone's SAR dog got out and was killed by a car. Do you think that disaster was their fault because they didn't restrain their dog properly?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You can't accurately measure the likelihood of a dog escaping. It's entirely dependent on the situation from day to day or even minute by minute. All you can say is that you will be very diligent and the risk is minimal, but it's always there. Two days from now the risk might be very different than it is now. Just my opinion but I agree with Willowy.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure that could ever be true. . .is the chance of a dog getting out less than .003% or whatever those minuscule chances of whatever problems neutering "causes" are? I mean, I do see why some people don't want to neuter but I'm not sure that^^ could be considered a factual sentence.


I've owned dogs for 30 years - most times in multiples. Most times collie/shepherd or border collie type mixes, and a little one here and there, but I have had a husky mix or two along the way as well. Not once have I had a dog escape from my care. That is not by luck, BTW.

For some of us, we view the risk of a dog getting out to be much less than even the low risks taken through neutering or not-neutering.

I have spayed females (of my own, I often am in the position of caring for other's dogs as well), but do I understand and argue for the right of someone else to make their own decision about which risks they have come to decide are higher for them?

Absolutely. No-one else can pretend to know, for others, how they should weigh those risks.



> If the thought of your dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is so terrifying to you, why are you neutering him just so you can play some games in a certain sandbox?


I read this same post by DJEtzel -



> In a lot of our cases, the chances of our dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is higher than the chance of our dogs getting out and getting pregnant.


. . . and she did not mention the risks are 'high' or 'terrifying'. That is being read into it by others. Why? I'm trying to understand why some feel that the above quote means risks of neutering are high? (Higher than a low risk is STILL a low risk).

There have been many instances of things read into posts on this thread that are very obviously not there . . . trying to figure that out.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't think Willowy is saying it's all luck but I do think you can't possibly know the risk for a dog escaping throughout it's life... It's not something that is measurable nor is it something you can say one day that "The risk of him getting out ever is <.003%" or whatever. In the case that you are 100% responsible then the risk is fairly negligible. I don't think it's ever zero though. Saying that doesn't mean it's luck your dog hasn't gotten loose.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> If the thought of your dog getting cancer or a disease and dieing as a result of neutering is so terrifying to you, why are you neutering him just so you can play some games in a certain sandbox?
> 
> Even the best cared for dogs get out. Tragedy strikes. This summer someone's SAR dog got out and was killed by a car. Do you think that disaster was their fault because they didn't restrain their dog properly?


If you read through the thread and my posts you'll find the much better reason for neutering him.  If it was all because of showing, I doubt I'd do it. 

I realize even the best cared dogs for get out, but if mine never have in 18 years, what's to say they will in the rest of my life? If someone's dog got out (regardless of what he was trained to do or what happened to him) with no outside interference, then yes it's their fault. They apparently didn't restrain him properly, or he wouldn't have escaped.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

The 'luck' comment was an aside and I hadn't given a thought to Willowy thinking it might be luck. 

I still, however, have the value of my good judgement and my own experiences with my own dogs and lifestyle. I can judge, for myself, that the infinitely small risk of escape and producing pups for my own dogs would be lower than the risks of neuter (or even non-neuter). I am capable of doing that without the exact percents. I believe others can be as well.

SOB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> If someone's dog got out (regardless of what he was trained to do or what happened to him) *with no outside interference*, then yes it's their fault. They apparently didn't restrain him properly, or he wouldn't have escaped.


Just wondering what your excuse would be if any of your dogs ever DID get out. . .. It seems that those who have never had it happen think it's SO black-and-white--"no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" and then it does happen and the excuses start. I suppose I'd respect them a lot more if they just said "it was my fault and it was stupid and irresponsible of me" instead of making excuses. But I guess it's the bolded part that I worry about. I can control my own actions but I can't control others'. And my dog could still get out and procreate because of someone else's actions.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Just wondering what your excuse would be if any of your dogs ever DID get out. . .. It seems that those who have never had it happen think it's SO black-and-white--"no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" and then it does happen and the excuses start. I suppose I'd respect them a lot more if they just said "it was my fault and it was stupid and irresponsible of me" instead of making excuses. But I guess it's the bolded part that I worry about. I can control my own actions but I can't control others'. And my dog could still get out and procreate because of someone else's actions.


to my mind "outside interference" brings up like...sometimes we get hurricanes that hit pretty far inland..it's feasable one could rip through the area and tear the door off my house....not really much i can do about that...but ideally id have my animals evacuated before then...and have a plan to that effect...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think "outside interference" could also be a breach in the fence that you can't see, a workperson leaving your door unlatched, a family member not watching while they bring in the groceries. . .lots of things.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't know... I feel like I am a very responsible owner. I feel like I go above and beyond what 99.9% of people do and yet I've still had one dog escape on me. I won't count the other three as they happened when I was a kid but still, Beau ran off when I was an adult and on my watch. I'm one who keeps dogs indoors and they NEVER are out without someone supervising and still... it happened. I was counting 6 dogs coming in and Beau must've slipped back out as one of the slower dogs was coming in. I noticed almost right away but in that short amount of time he was gone.

I do feel the chance of it happening is very very VERY slim but that chance is always there unless you never open the door without the dog crated or tied to something I guess. The idea that it 'is just that irresponsible owner's fault' is ridiculous to me. Sh!t happens to the best of us, imo. Never say never. I've known some very responsible owners have a dog get loose.

I would not be so arrogant to say it will _never_ happen to me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I think "outside interference" could also be a breach in the fence that you can't see, a workperson leaving your door unlatched, a family member not watching while they bring in the groceries. . .lots of things.


see but none of those things are a concern for me due to my routine and lifestyle. so assuming something like that when someone is talking is..a bit jumping the gun.



Laurelin said:


> I don't know... I feel like I am a very responsible owner. I feel like I go above and beyond what 99.9% of people do and yet I've still had one dog escape on me. I won't count the other three as they happened when I was a kid but still, Beau ran off when I was an adult and on my watch. I'm one who keeps dogs indoors and they NEVER are out without someone supervising and still... it happened. I was counting 6 dogs coming in and Beau must've slipped back out as one of the slower dogs was coming in. I noticed almost right away but in that short amount of time he was gone.
> 
> I do feel the chance of it happening is very very VERY slim but that chance is always there unless you never open the door without the dog crated or tied to something I guess. The idea that it 'is just that irresponsible owner's fault' is ridiculous to me. Sh!t happens to the best of us, imo. Never say never. I've known some very responsible owners have a dog get loose.
> 
> I would not be so arrogant to say it will _never_ happen to me.


the closest a DOG has ever gotten to getting away from me was Simon, the Dane/hound mix i dogsat for in middle school. he took off on leash and i was still holding on. he dragged me over a hundred feet down a gravel driveway which completely ripped my face and arms to shreds. didnt let go though...and i approach everything dog with the same attitude..

i dont see arrogance. that's a little..i dunno...its more like will.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I still just see it as arrogance... not you per say but the idea that 'MY dog will NEVER escape like yours has". I think it makes a lot of assumptions about things. I have known too many wonderful, responsible owners have one single small mis-step and end up with a loose dog. Mostly this attitude bothers me because I see it with a lot of AR and crazy rescue types. IE the thought that if your dog is found loose regardless of how it got loose or the steps you took to prevent it, then you are an irresponsible owner. And then sometimes even the following conclusion that if you're so irresponsible then you do not deserve your dog back. I have heard this many many times... 

We all do what we can to prevent things from happening of course and I agree if you're truly responsible then the risk is very small. But it's still a risk that is there. You can plan all you want but sometimes shit happens that you don't expect.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I still just see it as arrogance... not you per say but the idea that 'MY dog will NEVER escape like yours has". I think it makes a lot of assumptions about things. I have known too many wonderful, responsible owners have one single small mis-step and end up with a loose dog. Mostly this attitude bothers me because I see it with a lot of AR and crazy rescue types. IE the thought that if your dog is found loose regardless of how it got loose or the steps you took to prevent it, then you are an irresponsible owner. And then sometimes even the following conclusion that if you're so irresponsible then you do not deserve your dog back. I have heard this many many times...
> 
> We all do what we can to prevent things from happening of course and I agree if you're truly responsible then the risk is very small. But it's still a risk that is there. You can plan all you want but sometimes shit happens that you don't expect.


i do think my dog will never get out. i can say that with practical 100% certainty. but i dont think anyone's trying to make a comparison of responsibility level. that's like comparing apples to a chunk of lead. totally different material within the assessment.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Just wondering what your excuse would be if any of your dogs ever DID get out. . .. It seems that those who have never had it happen think it's SO black-and-white--"no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" and then it does happen and the excuses start. I suppose I'd respect them a lot more if they just said "it was my fault and it was stupid and irresponsible of me" instead of making excuses. But I guess it's the bolded part that I worry about. I can control my own actions but I can't control others'. And my dog could still get out and procreate because of someone else's actions.


It would depend on how they got out and if it was my fault or not. If it wasn't then it was an outside interference and that would be my excuse. 



Willowy said:


> I think "outside interference" could also be a breach in the fence that you can't see, a workperson leaving your door unlatched, a family member not watching while they bring in the groceries. . .lots of things.


If you're present when any of these things happen though, it's your own fault for not stopping it. I would call outside interference something like a tornado/hurricane or burglar. 

I don't have a fenced in yard, no workperson will leave a door open on my watch (and the dogs are crated while we're gone), and my dog is trained not to "rush the door" or go through it while we're coming and going. I frequently leave the front door wide open and bring groceries or laundry in and out with no issue. If my dog did get out during something like this then it would obviously be my fault. If I left a door open, forgot to latch his crate, left a window open, etc. that would be my fault.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Just wondering what your excuse would be if any of your dogs ever DID get out. . .. It seems that those who have never had it happen think it's SO black-and-white--"no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" and then it does happen and the excuses start. I suppose I'd respect them a lot more if they just said "it was my fault and it was stupid and irresponsible of me" instead of making excuses. But I guess it's the bolded part that I worry about. I can control my own actions but I can't control others'. And my dog could still get out and procreate because of someone else's actions.


No one on the thread said "no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" Please stop putting your own spin on like this. This changes the meaning of what was said completely. Small chance of getting out =/= never gets out.



Laurelin said:


> I don't know... I feel like I am a very responsible owner. I feel like I go above and beyond what 99.9% of people do and yet I've still had one dog escape on me. I won't count the other three as they happened when I was a kid but still, Beau ran off when I was an adult and on my watch. I'm one who keeps dogs indoors and they NEVER are out without someone supervising and still... it happened. I was counting 6 dogs coming in and Beau must've slipped back out as one of the slower dogs was coming in. I noticed almost right away but in that short amount of time he was gone.
> 
> I do feel the chance of it happening is very very VERY slim but that chance is always there unless you never open the door without the dog crated or tied to something I guess. The idea that it 'is just that irresponsible owner's fault' is ridiculous to me. Sh!t happens to the best of us, imo. Never say never. I've known some very responsible owners have a dog get loose.
> 
> I would not be so arrogant to say it will _never_ happen to me.


Again, no one has remarked that they believe the chance/risk is not there. No one has said, or even implied that, -



> 'MY dog will NEVER escape like yours has"


It has been said the chances are tiny for some people and that they can rightfully believe it is lower than the risks of neuter/not neuter.


SOB


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> It would depend on how they got out and if it was my fault or not. If it wasn't then it was an outside interference and that would be my excuse.


But. . .does having an excuse (even the BEST, most legitimate excuse in the world!) make it any better? The bad consequences are the same regardless of how it happened.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Man I'm always late responding to things... 



Laurelin said:


> I do feel the chance of it happening is very very VERY slim but that chance is always there unless you never open the door without the dog crated or tied to something I guess. The idea that it 'is just that irresponsible owner's fault' is ridiculous to me. Sh!t happens to the best of us, imo. Never say never. I've known some very responsible owners have a dog get loose.
> 
> I would not be so arrogant to say it will _never_ happen to me.


I never said that it was an irresponsible owner's fault. I just said that a dog escaping without interference is still the owner's fault. I won't say that my dog will never escape because I'm sure there is some way that he could somehow escape sometime. The chance is there. It's just a small one based on my lifestyle. If I had kids, a dumb husband, and three intact untrained animals I would surely be asking for trouble. But I don't.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> No one on the thread said "no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" Please stop putting your own spin on like this. This changes the meaning of what was said completely. Small chance of getting out =/= never gets out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not reading your posts that way but I did read this that way:



> If someone's dog got out (regardless of what he was trained to do or what happened to him) with no outside interference, *then yes it's their fault*.


My posts have nothing to do with spay/neuter but more a general warning about the 'it will never happen to me because I'm responsible!' attitude. That attitude irks me in any context, not just in dog-related ones. It will never happen to you... till it does.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> No one on the thread said "no responsibly-kept dog ever gets out!!!!" Please stop putting your own spin on like this. This changes the meaning of what was said completely. Small chance of getting out =/= never gets out.


I hear it lots of times, from lots of sources, not necessarily on this thread or even on this forum. . .although a few replies on this thread have implied in that direction (or at least that's what *I've* inferred from them).

Usually I hear it from people who have an accidental pregnancy (or at least a scare) a few months later. And a million excuses to go with it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Yes, it may not have been stated that way, but it was inferred in many posts.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> But. . .does having an excuse (even the BEST, most legitimate excuse in the world!) make it any better? The bad consequences are the same regardless of how it happened.


No, but that wasn't the point of what I was asked. And like I've said; because the chance of my dog escaping is so slim, I would rather take the chance with him intact. That is my choice. If there was a large chance and liklihood that my dog would escape and procreate, I would get him neutered for the benefit of dogs in shelters. But the chance of that happening is slim. 

AND, who's to say if he DID get out, that he would in fact find an intact, in-heat bitch, tie, and produce puppies. WAAAY too much stuff would have to play out correctly to think it's probable.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Yes, it may not have been stated that way, but it was inferred in many posts.


You read it in then. It was not inferred but for those that chose to read it that way.



> 'it will never happen to me because I'm responsible!' attitude.


That attitude was not written into those posts. I wrote some of them and know that for a fact of mine. I haven't detected it in DJEtzel's posts either. 

SOB


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> My posts have nothing to do with spay/neuter but more a general warning about the 'it will never happen to me because I'm responsible!' attitude. That attitude irks me in any context, not just in dog-related ones. It will never happen to you... till it does.


Glad that's not my attitude. 

I'm not saying it won't happen to me, I'm just saying it's unlikely. And I'm not saying it's unlikely just because I'm responsible, but because of my lifestyle.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just don't understand... aren't you getting him neutered? I don't understand the need to vehemently defend something you're not doing. *I'm* the one with the intact dog that will stay intact... I don't feel there has been any reason to have to really defend the decision to keep him intact. I don't see anyone really arguing against 'my right' to do so.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> I just don't understand... aren't you getting him neutered? I don't understand the need to vehemently defend something you're not doing. *I'm* the one with the intact dog that will stay intact... I don't feel there has been any reason to have to really defend the decision to keep him intact. I don't see anyone really arguing against 'my right' to do so.


I will most likely be getting him neutered next year, yes. I am keeping intact animals now and forever forth though, so why can't I discuss it, too? It's just a discussion, I'm not defending anything.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> AND, who's to say if he DID get out, that he would in fact find an intact, in-heat bitch, tie, and produce puppies. WAAAY too much stuff would have to play out correctly to think it's probable.


Probably depends where you live. In THIS town, I'd be surprised if he didn't, although I guess that might depend on the time of year. I suppose in other areas where spay/neuter is more common, it might be hard for him to find one. A kind of herd immunity, if you will.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Probably depends where you live. In THIS town, I'd be surprised if he didn't, although I guess that might depend on the time of year. I suppose in other areas where spay/neuter is more common, it might be hard for him to find one. A kind of herd immunity, if you will.


I'm pretty sure he'd get hit by a car or stolen before tieing with a bitch here. 

Maybe I should lo-jack him.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> I'm pretty sure he'd get hit by a car or stolen before tieing with a bitch here.


If he was stolen it's a fair bet that someone would be using him for breeding. . .TBH, that was a big reason I neutered Moose. An obviously intact purebred looks mighty tempting to some people.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> If he was stolen it's a fair bet that someone would be using him for breeding. . .TBH, that was a big reason I neutered Moose. An obviously intact purebred looks mighty tempting to some people.


It's entirely possible. This is a big research town though, I think the chances of him being sold to research are higher.


----------



## JessieLove09 (Mar 27, 2010)

I had a guy asked me twice if Molly was spayed and I said yes because he wanted to know if we wanted to breed her with his male GSD(Who btw is a beautiful lONG Hairded Bi-Colored GSD, but I wouldn't have bred Molly even she was intact.) The first time he was nice, then the second time he thought I was lying, so I would be scared if he tried to steal Molly.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> It's entirely possible. This is a big research town though, I think the chances of him being sold to research are higher.


Eh, I think usually intact purebreds go to puppymills. The mutts and altered purebreds go to research labs. That's the story going around, anyway---although there aren't a lot of research labs here, there are a lot of bunchers who steal the animals here and truck them elsewhere for sale. The research labs are required to check for microchips, the puppymills don't check for any I.D. Or so the local Humane Society says. Who knows if there really are as many bunchers as they say. Although once Willow was nearly stolen by a guy in a big van with no windows. . .and a lot of local dogs just disappear.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Eh, I think usually intact purebreds go to puppymills. The mutts and altered purebreds go to research labs. That's the story going around, anyway---although there aren't a lot of research labs here, there are a lot of bunchers who steal the animals here and truck them elsewhere for sale. The research labs are required to check for microchips, the puppymills don't check for any I.D. or so the local Humane Society says. Who knows if there really are as many bunchers as they say. Although once Willow was nearly stolen by a guy in a big van with no windows. . .


purebreds would be more useful in study because of their similarities.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> purebreds would be more useful in study because of their similarities.


I know purpose-bred purebreds are. Do you think the same applies to random purebred out of backyards? Hmm. And not all research that uses dogs is medical research.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I know purpose-bred purebreds are. Do you think the same applies to random purebred out of backyards? Hmm. And not all research that uses dogs is medical research.


the general rule where you'd want some similarity between subjects is "the closer the better". Do you think a lab who is buying from bunchers heavily is likely looking at the option of purpose bred purebreds? using both would be counterintuitive. and this doesnt just apply to medical research.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Almost all labs buy from bunchers. . .even if they also have their own line of purpose-bred dogs going, they don't always need them, and buncher dogs are cheaper. They have no way of knowing if the animals were acquired legally or not. The same guys who steal pets also buy from puppymills and rural shelters, so most of the dogs they have ARE perfectly legal. Stealing pets is just a bonus. 

But yeah, you're right. Even if the study is something like, say, the effect of hollow-point bullets on coyotes (my dad was told this really was a study the university here did, and they used dogs), you would want them all to be the same size and build.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Even though this has been quoted I'm removing it. I don't care that people disagree but I've gotten more than 1 rude PM over this and apparently a differing opinion is just enough to get everyone's sensitive panties in a wad.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Mr. V said:


> This topic has gotten huge and I haven't even seen it before. Now to answer...
> 
> Just the number of people that come on to this one website to talk about their bitch that just got accidentally bred (and all the clowns that come in with those fun little accidents at the hospital) shows me that people (***there are exceptions of course***) are not and will not ever be responsible enough to have intact dogs and cats. Therefore, I always say that the average individual should just have their dog fixed and be done with it.* If it were up to me, I would make it mandatory for everyone to have their dog fixed and breeders could obtain a license to own and breed their dogs.* I never felt like this until week after week of shelter rounds through my school.


I find people that think this thought, that you just posted, scary.

I posted earlier in this thread about why, but to briefly elaborate, my FIL and his family did not suffer and have to give up everything they owned through WWII, because people who thought they were more right than others, and had more rights than others, 'imposed' their way and took from others. My grandfathers did not fight in WWI and WWII for freedoms, just to have people who have no idea how precious freedoms are figure that we should just give them away. 

If you believe the gift of this precious freedom and MSN would help to solve the problems in shelters, you are dead wrong. 

http://saveourdogs.net/2009/05/05/santa-cruz-county-spare-california-this-msn-model-for-the-state/

_"Santa Cruz County – A Disastrous “Model for the State”

For years, California’s supporters of mandatory spay/neuter laws have proclaimed that Santa Cruz County’s 1995 MSN ordinance is the “model for the state”. Yet they never compare Santa Cruz County’s shelter stats to neighboring jurisdictions, or to California’s leaders in reducing shelter killing. That’s because on a per capita basis

•Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are higher than those in nearby counties such as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin — none of which have mandatory spay/neuter laws
•Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 44% higher than San Diego County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
•Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are more than 4 times higher than Nevada County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
•Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 16 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America, where they also do not have mandatory spay/neuter"_

http://saveourdogs.net/category/population/

_"Lake County MSN – worst shelter kill stats in California

Of the 58 counties in California, one of them has to have the highest euthanasia rates in their public animal shelters. That dubious honor goes to Lake County. Lake County is also one of the few counties in California that has a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

Here’s some comparisons (dogs+cats euthanized in 2007 in public animal shelters per 100,000 population)

•Lake County, CA: 4560
•USA national average: 1000-1300
•California average: 1066
•Nevada County, CA: 163
•Calgary, Canada: 44
Lake County’s kill stats are more than 4 times higher than the California state average. Most jurisdictions in California do not have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 28 times higher than in Nevada County. Nevada County has made tremendous strides in reducing their shelter kill rates. Nevada County does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 104 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America. Calgary does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter, BSL, an extreme differential license fee for intact animals, or pet limit laws."_

If I am gonna be persuaded to give up a freedom, it best be for something that is gonna accomplish some good. MSN has proven that it will not.

SOB


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I never understood the logic behind people who see a *20 million yearly (1970) to 4 million yearly (today)** DROP* in shelter killing since the implementation of basic S/N educational campaigns in the 1980s (without anything mandatory being imposed except in a very few places scattered here and there) as some kind of 'proof' that we need harsher, draconic laws and controls to 'force' people to do what's right. It seems to me, looking at the shelter situation in the past 30 years in the U.S., that we haven't needed mandatory controls on dog ownership and breeding to get this far, so why would we need it going forward? Having AC impound and kill dogs for the 'crime' of not being altered does exactly _what_, to reduce shelter killing? As the pet population in the U.S. has gone up and up, shelter killing _dropped_, and S/N education and outreach to pet owners is the #1 reason for that, not laws or blanket penalties on people who keep intact dogs. And also, as SOB pointed out, the simple fact that every county that has ever made S/N mandatory has _increased_ intakes and killing. 

The scale of the shelter problem in this day and age does not justify that kind of need for invasive legislation (and generally it's the poorer people who get their dogs taken away and killed, since the highest rates of intact dog ownership is in households making less than 30k a year). If we were back in the 1980s before wide S/N education of the public, when shelter intakes were still going up instead of down, I could understand people feeling that way. But nowadays? There is no statistical basis for that kind of anti-intact-pet extremism. We're talking about 4 million cats and dogs out of a total U.S. cat and dog population of _170 million_. Where is the justification for creating new legal restrictions instead of resorting to more owner education and outreach (like low-cost S/N programs), when the past 30 years has shown that those two things have had the greatest positive impact up to this point?

National Council on Pet Population's shelter demographics research is a good place to start if someone really is interested in better understanding what the main reasons for pets ending up in shelters is, and the demographics of the people responsible for relinquishing them (another one is the AVMA's market research sourcebook). It is not purely an 'intact pet'-caused problem; it's more complex than that and cannot be properly addressed solely by S/N.

We should look to the communities who have greatly reduced their homeless pet problem for solutions (like Washoe County, Tomkins County, Charlottesville, Shelby County, Ivins City, Calgary, and others) as guides, instead of making controlling laws to punish and restrict people out of a misguided belief that they won't do the right thing otherwise. Reality does not support that dim of a view towards U.S. pet owners. I understand how people who are immersed in shelter/rescue (which by it's very nature revolves around dealing with the heartbreaking results of pet owners' failures day in and out) can begin to feel that the awful things they see all the time represents the status quo of how things are _everywhere_, but that really is not the case. The majority of pets in the U.S. never see the shelter system in their lifetime. The majority of pet owners _want_ to do the right thing. There is no reason for mandatory S/N, and every attempt by various places to create such laws has ended up with _more_ animals in their shelters, not less. 

Both the HSUS and ASPCA (and many other animal groups) are against MSN for exactly that reason.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> =shellbeme;924133]:jaw: Guys I am kinda shocked by some of the responses in this thread! First let me say that I feel everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I choose to spay/neuter because I don't want to contribute to the overpopulation of pets already out there. *I don't care how responsible someone is, life happens-stuff happens, dogs get loose, and if they aren't fixed they can make babies-I don't care how careful you are you can't be 100% sure it's not going to happen.*


Speak for yourself! I've had intact bitches and dogs and never had an "accidental" breeding. I've had them together in my own home, or just a single sex, and NO accidental breedings in over 40+ years. Look at all the breeders who have unaltered dogs and bitches and do not have "accidental" breeding.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> am keeping intact animals now and forever forth though, so why can't I discuss it, too? It's just a discussion, I'm not defending anything.


I have a question about the above...what if you can't keep them intact? We have a Brittany puppy joining our family this coming Friday. The contract says she will be spayed between 12-18mos, so unless I don't want the dog, I don't have any choice.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

poodleholic said:


> Speak for yourself! I've had intact bitches and dogs and never had an "accidental" breeding. I've had them together in my own home, or just a single sex, and NO accidental breedings in over 40+ years. Look at all the breeders who have unaltered dogs and bitches and do not have "accidental" breeding.


Breeders are a whole different story than the average pet owner. Breeders know when their females are in heat. They have kennels to keep their intact males in (sometimes their females). Accidents at a breeder's would result in puppies of unknown parentage - not good from a breeder's point of view. Average owners have house pets and in houses doors or windows can be left open - perhaps the door didn't latch properly. In yards, dogs dig under fences, jump them, or sometimes go right through them. You can't compare breeders and pet owners. 

The intact dog wants to escape because its drives are telling it to reproduce. That's a pretty strong drive.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JuneBud said:


> Breeders are a whole different story than the average pet owner. Breeders know when their females are in heat. They have kennels to keep their intact males in (sometimes their females). Accidents at a breeder's would result in puppies of unknown parentage - not good from a breeder's point of view. Average owners have house pets and in houses doors or windows can be left open - perhaps the door didn't latch properly. In yards, dogs dig under fences, jump them, or sometimes go right through them. You can't compare breeders and pet owners.


bullcrap. you CAN compare breeders and owners. breeders ARE owners. and responsible owners can keep intact dogs without all th AHHH! and AAARRRGGG! the mere thought seems to produce. its just honestly not that big of a deal to keep an intact dog.



> The intact dog wants to escape because its drives are telling it to reproduce. That's a pretty strong drive.


so far...ive never had even so much as an escape attempt. imagine that. strong drive my butt...no more difficult to handle than midline prey drive.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> bullcrap. you CAN compare breeders and owners. breeders ARE owners. and responsible owners can keep intact dogs without all th AHHH! and AAARRRGGG! the mere thought seems to produce. its just honestly not that big of a deal to keep an intact dog.
> 
> 
> 
> so far...ive never had even so much as an escape attempt. imagine that. strong drive my butt...no more difficult to handle than midline prey drive.


Not unless every single owner is as responsible as most reputable breeders. Most run of the mill pet owners cannot even handle a dog on a walk.

You sure do have a way with words. I had to live 70 years before I got someone to call something I said bullcrap. Oh well. You know, it's not really personal - responsible breeders are way more knowledgeable and competent than the average dog owner and no one is really talking about responsible breeders, at least not me. I'm talking about average, run of the mill pet owners, and I can assure you that most cannot be trusted with intact dogs. If they could, millions of dogs would not be put down every year. 

Got to go to work now and deal with a bunch of grumpy old people.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

InkedMarie said:


> I have a question about the above...what if you can't keep them intact? We have a Brittany puppy joining our family this coming Friday. The contract says she will be spayed between 12-18mos, so unless I don't want the dog, I don't have any choice.


That is pertaining to your particular breeder. You have a choice amongst breeders. I will not be buying a dog from any breeder that makes me neuter them. The puppy I'm getting from a breeder in the spring will not be spayed (_maybe_ later in life once retired) and the german shepherd I will be getting after her will not be neutered. Any offspring I may keep from her won't be neutered, either. 



JuneBud said:


> Breeders are a whole different story than the average pet owner. Breeders know when their females are in heat. They have kennels to keep their intact males in (sometimes their females). Accidents at a breeder's would result in puppies of unknown parentage - not good from a breeder's point of view. Average owners have house pets and in houses doors or windows can be left open - perhaps the door didn't latch properly. In yards, dogs dig under fences, jump them, or sometimes go right through them. You can't compare breeders and pet owners.


Wait, you're telling me breeders don't have doors and windows and lives!? No WAY. All of this stuff can happen to a breeder too, they're no different from anybody else. 



> The intact dog wants to escape because its drives are telling it to reproduce. That's a pretty strong drive.


Along with Zim, I've never had an attemp at escape. Doors are left open, he's let off leash, no desire whatsoever.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

I really can't believe what I'm hearing about this. Somehow responsible breeders are being put in the same class as an average pet owner or vice versa? Like my neighbor down the street who lets his dog out alone at night to do his business? Like the folks out in the contry with intact dogs running free? Like the neighbor's lab and his pit buddy that challenged me in my front yard over a piece of garbage they had dragged there? No matter how everyone SHOULD or COULD be responsible, not many are. Personally, I put responsible breeders in a different class - because, as a whole, they know better. I'm taking it as truth that one can prevent a dog from escaping and that a few of them aren't interested in mating, but not that the average joe is the same as a quality breeder, either in mindset, experience, or facilities to manage their animals. I also admit that there are exceptions to every situation.

It's absolutely amazing to me that intact dogs would be uninterested in getting to a female in season (not to say there aren't any at all, obviously). How did some of them gain so much more self control than the average human? Maybe it could be "bottled."


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

JuneBud said:


> I really can't believe what I'm hearing about this. Somehow responsible breeders are being put in the same class as an average pet owner or vice versa? Like my neighbor down the street who lets his dog out alone at night to do his business? Like the folks out in the contry with intact dogs running free? Like the neighbor's lab and his pit buddy that challenged me in my front yard over a piece of garbage they had dragged there? No matter how everyone SHOULD or COULD be responsible, not many are. Personally, I put responsible breeders in a different class - because, as a whole, they know better. I'm taking it as truth that one can prevent a dog from escaping and that a few of them aren't interested in mating, but not that the average joe is the same as a quality breeder, either in mindset, experience, or facilities to manage their animals. I also admit that there are exceptions to every situation.
> 
> It's absolutely amazing to me that intact dogs would be uninterested in getting to a female in season (not to say there aren't any at all, obviously). How did some of them gain so much more self control than the average human? Maybe it could be "bottled."


I so agree with this! I see so many intact animals running loose around my neighborhood, some repeatedly. In my mind, the "average" pet owner isn't well equipped to deal with intact dogs, period. I also have doubts that most people that have intact dogs are doing it for their dogs health. Around here, they are typically left intact because the owners don't want to spend any unnecessary money on "just a dog." Yep, real responsible folks.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

The intact dog wants to escape because its drives are telling it to reproduce. That's a pretty strong drive.[/QUOTE]



JuneBud said:


> I really can't believe what I'm hearing about this. Somehow responsible breeders are being put in the same class as an average pet owner or vice versa?."


Oh this is B.S. and has changed what was written on other posts into a completely different meaning.

There has been no comparisons made of breeders to the AVERAGE pet owner. If it can't get through without simple language . . . not ALL pet owners are AVERAGE. Not ALL pet owners are THE SAME. They all have different abilities, and circumstances, and ownership styles with their dogs, and along with that the capability to make decisions about their own dogs for themselves.

Pet owners are not one class of people all to be lumped of the same ability, while breeders another. What utter tosh.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I wrote out a really long reply and then it got lost because my internet went out.

The gist was... DJ, I understand you feel very strongly about this but I would implore you to keep the options open for neutering dogs in the future. I find it a bit premature to decide after handling one 15 month old intact male that you will never neuter again. Circumstances change as you get older and individual dogs require different strategies. If you find yourself with an older bitch you may decide that you should spay because the risk of pyo in older intact girls is relatively high. There is a reason most breeders I know will spay bitches once their breeding days are done... Likewise, the risk of certain cancers in intact cryptos is high. Also, as you get more into showing and keeping dogs things will get more difficult as you will likely have bitches and males. I am not saying they can't be kept well apart, but rather that it may be more work than you are anticipating. It is very different from handling a single, intact male. I have met many people that have said they would not neuter a dog and then they end up in a situation where neutering is what needs to be done to be responsible for them in that situation. As I said, times and your ability to handle an intact animal may change in the future. 

I am not anti-leaving a dog intact. Not by far. Just in case people are wondering. I vehemently disagree with mandatory spay or neuter or the notion that pet owners can't keep a dog intact properly. I am simply stating that anyone looking to do that needs to be as responsible as possible and they shouldn't totally discount spaying and neutering in case it does become the course of action they should need to take.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JuneBud said:


> I really can't believe what I'm hearing about this. Somehow responsible breeders are being put in the same class as an average pet owner or vice versa? Like my neighbor down the street who lets his dog out alone at night to do his business? Like the folks out in the contry with intact dogs running free? Like the neighbor's lab and his pit buddy that challenged me in my front yard over a piece of garbage they had dragged there? No matter how everyone SHOULD or COULD be responsible, not many are. Personally, I put responsible breeders in a different class - because, as a whole, they know better. I'm taking it as truth that one can prevent a dog from escaping and that a few of them aren't interested in mating, but not that the average joe is the same as a quality breeder, either in mindset, experience, or facilities to manage their animals. I also admit that there are exceptions to every situation.


my take is a little simpler. good owners vs bad owners. i dont think being a breeder makes one necessarily more responsible. 



> It's absolutely amazing to me that intact dogs would be uninterested in getting to a female in season (not to say there aren't any at all, obviously). How did some of them gain so much more self control than the average human? Maybe it could be "bottled."


did you ever have to manage prey drive in a dog? if you can do that, you can have a dog that doesnt chase tail or try to escape. the drives are extremely similar.



brandiw said:


> I so agree with this! I see so many intact animals running loose around my neighborhood, some repeatedly. In my mind, the "average" pet owner isn't well equipped to deal with intact dogs, period. I also have doubts that most people that have intact dogs are doing it for their dogs health. Around here, they are typically left intact because the owners don't want to spend any unnecessary money on "just a dog." Yep, real responsible folks.


this is outright insulting. I dont want to fix my dog first and foremost because i object to unnessecary elective surgery. second because i see temperament changes i dislike when i fix dogs...most of the dogs i have had fixed exhibited significant temperament change that i found to be a huge negative.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

JuneBud said:


> I really can't believe what I'm hearing about this. Somehow responsible breeders are being put in the same class as an average pet owner or vice versa? Like my neighbor down the street who lets his dog out alone at night to do his business? Like the folks out in the contry with intact dogs running free? Like the neighbor's lab and his pit buddy that challenged me in my front yard over a piece of garbage they had dragged there? No matter how everyone SHOULD or COULD be responsible, not many are. Personally, I put responsible breeders in a different class - because, as a whole, they know better. I'm taking it as truth that one can prevent a dog from escaping and that a few of them aren't interested in mating, but not that the average joe is the same as a quality breeder, either in mindset, experience, or facilities to manage their animals. I also admit that there are exceptions to every situation.
> 
> It's absolutely amazing to me that intact dogs would be uninterested in getting to a female in season (not to say there aren't any at all, obviously). How did some of them gain so much more self control than the average human? Maybe it could be "bottled."


Breeders don't have anything more than we have. No extra "facilities" or information we can't gain and have. They aren't different from any other responsible pet owner. 

I think most dogs gain self control through... training. That's why your neighbor's dogs are nuts. No training, intact, recipe for disaster!



Laurelin said:


> I wrote out a really long reply and then it got lost because my internet went out.
> 
> The gist was... DJ, I understand you feel very strongly about this but I would implore you to keep the options open for neutering dogs in the future. I find it a bit premature to decide after handling one 15 month old intact male that you will never neuter again. Circumstances change as you get older and individual dogs require different strategies. If you find yourself with an older bitch you may decide that you should spay because the risk of pyo in older intact girls is relatively high. There is a reason most breeders I know will spay bitches once their breeding days are done... Likewise, the risk of certain cancers in intact cryptos is high. Also, as you get more into showing and keeping dogs things will get more difficult as you will likely have bitches and males. I am not saying they can't be kept well apart, but rather that it may be more work than you are anticipating. It is very different from handling a single, intact male. I have met many people that have said they would not neuter a dog and then they end up in a situation where neutering is what needs to be done to be responsible for them in that situation. As I said, times and your ability to handle an intact animal may change in the future.
> 
> I am not anti-leaving a dog intact. Not by far. Just in case people are wondering. I vehemently disagree with mandatory spay or neuter or the notion that pet owners can't keep a dog intact properly. I am simply stating that anyone looking to do that needs to be as responsible as possible and they shouldn't totally discount spaying and neutering in case it does become the course of action they should need to take.


It doesn't really have anything to do with keeping Frag, it has to do with the research I've done and how I feel about the subject. And I said that I would most likely spay a dog after retiring. I'm not against it if it's necessary, but I won't be neutering any animal for the sake of neutering it.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this is outright insulting. I dont want to fix my dog first and foremost because i object to unnessecary elective surgery. second because i see temperament changes i dislike when i fix dogs...most of the dogs i have had fixed exhibited significant temperament change that i found to be a huge negative.


I don't see how this is insulting in the least. I wasn't talking about people like you who are clearly able to responsibly handle an intact dog, I was speaking of those irresponsible people that I interact with who don't want to spay/neuter because they don't want to pay for it, and then get mad when the dog gets pregnant and dumps the puppies at the shelter. They are also the same kind of people who won't pay for vaccinations or get illnesses treated. I'm sorry, but these sort of people are exactly the people that should have their dogs spayed/neutered, because despite their obvious lack of fitness to own animals, they are going to anyway, and the cycle just continues.

My rescue work definitely makes me biased towards most people having their dogs spayed/neutered, however, I certainly think that there are people who can handle intact dogs responsibly and I would never say that those RESPONSIBLE people shouldn't have intact dogs. I am somewhat annoyed that in this thread, those who have/want to have their dogs spayed/neutered are basically told that they haven't done the research/aren't smart enough to get the research or that we don't care about the health of our dogs. The truth is that there are several studies that contradict each other and there really isn't any clear consensus as to the positive/negative effects.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

JuneBud said:


> I really can't believe what I'm hearing about this. Somehow responsible breeders are being put in the same class as an average pet owner or vice versa? Like my neighbor down the street who lets his dog out alone at night to do his business? Like the folks out in the contry with intact dogs running free? Like the neighbor's lab and his pit buddy that challenged me in my front yard over a piece of garbage they had dragged there? No matter how everyone SHOULD or COULD be responsible, not many are. Personally, I put responsible breeders in a different class - because, as a whole, they know better. I'm taking it as truth that one can prevent a dog from escaping and that a few of them aren't interested in mating, but not that the average joe is the same as a quality breeder, either in mindset, experience, or facilities to manage their animals. I also admit that there are exceptions to every situation.
> 
> It's absolutely amazing to me that intact dogs would be uninterested in getting to a female in season (not to say there aren't any at all, obviously). How did some of them gain so much more self control than the average human? Maybe it could be "bottled."


Not all breeders keep their dogs in kennels. The majority of small scale breeders keep their dogs in their homes just like regular pet owners. There are even breeders who don't breed a litter for years and just keep intact dogs in their house. Aside from purposely breeding litters, there's no difference between a responsible pet owner and a responsible breeder. I don't understand why either you think breeders are immune to mistakes, or that owners for some reason cannot be as responsible as breeders. There are irresponsible breeders as well as responsible breeders, just are there are irresponsible owners as well as responsible owners.

Any sort of blanket statement about owners not being responsible enough to handle intact dogs to justify mandatory spay/neuter is just plain dangerous. No responsible owner should be forced to give up freedoms because someone else is irresponsible, especially when it comes to non-necessary surgeries (both mandating and banning).


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Nargle said:


> Any sort of blanket statement about owners not being responsible enough to handle intact dogs to justify mandatory spay/neuter is just plain dangerous. No responsible owner should be forced to give up freedoms because someone else is irresponsible, especially when it comes to non-necessary surgeries (both mandating and banning).


Who was justifying mandatory spay/neuter? I haven't really seen that sentiment in this thread.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't think most people get their dogs neutered just for the sake of getting them neutered. I think most people get their dogs neutered for a reason (and that reason can include not having to deal with the issues coming from having intact dogs)

And



> I am somewhat annoyed that in this thread, those who have/want to have their dogs spayed/neutered are basically told that they haven't done the research/aren't smart enough to get the research or that we don't care about the health of our dogs. The truth is that there are several studies that contradict each other and there really isn't any clear consensus as to the positive/negative effects.


This^^


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

brandiw said:


> Who was justifying mandatory spay/neuter? I haven't really seen that sentiment in this thread.


Though I was making a general statement about those who to want to mandate spay and neuter, (They DO exist. There are TONS of people that I meet everyday that think it should be illegal to keep an intact dog unless you're a licensed breeder, and we certainly need to fight against them to protect our freedoms) Mr. V blatantly stated it on the last page:



Mr. V said:


> Therefore, I always say that the average individual should just have their dog fixed and be done with it. If it were up to me, I would make it mandatory for everyone to have their dog fixed and breeders could obtain a license to own and breed their dogs.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Nargle said:


> Though I was making a general statement about those who to want to mandate spay and neuter, (They DO exist. There are TONS of people that I meet everyday that think it should be illegal to keep an intact dog unless you're a licensed breeder, and we certainly need to fight against them to protect our freedoms) Mr. V blatantly stated it on the last page:


Gotcha, I must have missed that. I do know that there are many proponents of mandatory s/n, I just didn't remember seeing the sentiment in this thread.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

I am not going to agree that a responsible breeder and an average pet owner are the same. I also want to point out that "average pet owner" is not the same thing as "responsible pet owner." I have no idea where you got the impression that I lumped all pet owners into one class - I used the term "average owner." I could break it down I suppose into excellent, good, average, poor, and bad dog owners (could do the same with breeders), but that would be patently ridiculous. I never speak in absolutes and if you will re-read my posts you will see that. I use words like "many," "some," etc., and it is somewhat distressing to be so misunderstood.

I am using the word "average" in the following context (from Encarta):

"Definition: 
1. typical: lacking any extraordinary, untypical, or exceptional characteristic
just an average person
2. not very good: not bad, but not very good either
The performance was no better than average."

I have made no statement in this thread or anywhere else that I believe in mandatory neutering - in case anyone was wondering. I made no such statement because it would be untrue.

I sit here wondering why internet formum participants seem to try to do their best to misinterpret. I reiterate - the average dog owner is not responsible enough to keep their animals safely contained. I don't know why that simple statement causes some people to get so defensive when it is so obviously true.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I just think that this neutering=bad thing is the latest fad. It seems that everybody is jumping on the bandwagon. Just when the shelter kill rate in the U.S. gets down to a level that could realistically be fixed within a few years (largely due to pediatric spay/neuter), something comes along to wreck it. I can honestly see the kill numbers going back up to 10 million or even more. Already the local HS has around twice the number of animals they had at this time last year. And THAT scares me.

The worst part is when people transfer their opinions about speutering dogs to apply to cats as well. In the last year or so (I don't remember exactly when), there have been several different anti-speutering performance dog owners join the cat forum and say they didn't plan to speuter their new cat. With bad results, every time. Cats aren't dogs, people!!!


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The worst part is when people transfer their opinions about speutering dogs to apply to cats as well. In the last year or so (I don't remember exactly when), there have been several different anti-speutering performance dog owners join the cat forum and say they didn't plan to speuter their new cat. With bad results, every time. Cats aren't dogs, people!!!


Yeah, that's pretty messed up imho. The cat situation in the U.S. is not comparable to the dog situation at all -- from what I understand, most shelter animals and the higest populations of stray pets are cats. I think much less progress has been made for cats, in terms of reducing the homeless/unwanted population.

Also, at least in my opinion, intact cats are ten times the pita that intact dogs are.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The cat problem is almost entirely due to overpopulation. They breed like. . .cats (I would say like rabbits, but I knew a kid who was trying to start in 4-H rabbit showing/breeding, and he couldn't get a live litter at all! Meanwhile the farm cats were doing quite well, reproduction-wise). Spay/neuter is always beneficial for cats, both collectively and individually.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The cat problem is almost entirely due to overpopulation. They breed like. . .cats.


I will once again get on my own personal soapbox, and say that the entire culture surrounding pet cats 'being allowed to roam at will' has to be the number #1 cause for that problem. I just do NOT comprehend why people think that's ok. If someone let their dog roam the neighborhood at will, hunting random wildlife, etc. (and intact, at that!), folks would think them terrible dog owners. AC would not tolerate it. But when it's a cat, most people just shrug and accept it as normal! It also seems to me that in general, people seem to value cats less than dogs.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> OP asked for opinions on the matter and I gave mine - feel free to give yours but do not ever talk to me about giving freedoms away just b/c your opinion differs from mine.


And your opinion, based on the part of the post that's mentioned, is that the freedom to choose if a dog is intact or not should be removed unless you're a breeder that can get a license. 

And if I agreed with that on a ballot or petition, I'd be agreeing to give away a freedom as I am not a breeder and would be willing to submit to my dog getting snipped whether I personally wanted to or not.

SOB is correct. Your view is exactly that of one taking away the freedom to choose intact or fixed, except for one subset of the dog-owning population the "average owner" is not going to be a member of.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

For me, the benefits outweigh the risks for all but performance and breeding dogs. Even active pets don't undergo quite the same unnatural, repeated physical stress that sport dogs do. I mean, how common are CCL/ACL tears in the general dog population? From my understanding not very, but it's fairly common in performance (especially agility) dogs. That's the biggest thing in my eyes; I'm asking a dog to do something quite dangerous so the two of us can have some fun, I feel like I owe it to him to give him that extra percent insurance against injury. 

I HATE puppy spay/neuter. HATE it. I think it does a great disservice to dogs for little to no benefit. If it is the ONLY way that a shelter can keep their local pet population down, I'll grudgingly accept it, but I really think a voucher to wait until at least six months is a better deal.


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

When i brought Rex to the spca for the rabies clinic they wanted me to neuter him asap and got sorta huffy when i said no i was waiting till he was full grown. They said that the waiting till the dog is grown is a lie. But anyways. on this whole subject all my dogs have always been neutered/spayed as have my cats. Heck i have even had neutered rats that i adopted.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> For me, the benefits outweigh the risks for all but performance and breeding dogs. Even active pets don't undergo quite the same unnatural, repeated physical stress that sport dogs do. I mean, how common are CCL/ACL tears in the general dog population? From my understanding not very, but it's fairly common in performance (especially agility) dogs. That's the biggest thing in my eyes; I'm asking a dog to do something quite dangerous so the two of us can have some fun, I feel like I owe it to him to give him that extra percent insurance against injury.


they probably arent that common but Bolo's life could be comparable. it's only recently that ive cut our skating sessions down to two miles a day.....it used to be seven. this is where she runs the greenway through the city pulling me on rollerskate. the Greenway is basically a ridiculous obstacle course containing hills, sharp bends, tree branches cutting through the concrete that i have to direct her around, bridges of various types and places were the line dead ends (i had to teach her to do a complete stop so she could be the anchor to the slingshot that is the leash) as well as significant numbers of people, dogs and bicycles etc.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Pai said:


> I will once again get on my own personal soapbox, and say that the entire culture surrounding pet cats 'being allowed to roam at will' has to be the number #1 cause for that problem. I just do NOT comprehend why people think that's ok. If someone let their dog roam the neighborhood at will, hunting random wildlife, etc. (and intact, at that!), folks would think them terrible dog owners. AC would not tolerate it. But when it's a cat, most people just shrug and accept it as normal! It also seems to me that in general, people seem to value cats less than dogs.


What's odd is, even here in the middle of the city, I see tons of loose cats in my apartment complex. And there's a busy road with a 45 mph speed limit not 30 ft away!! One particular stray cat that hangs around our building followed my boyfriend and Basil into my apartment one time, and I called the number on his collar. It turns out, he has owners (they live like two doors away) but they're just fine with letting him roam free!! I want to take him into a shelter as a stray, but I'm not sure if they charge to turn him in (I wouldn't be able to afford to pay for turning in strays). 

Sorry, rant over!


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> they probably arent that common but Bolo's life could be comparable. it's only recently that ive cut our skating sessions down to two miles a day.....it used to be seven. this is where she runs the greenway through the city pulling me on rollerskate. the Greenway is basically a ridiculous obstacle course containing hills, sharp bends, tree branches cutting through the concrete that i have to direct her around, bridges of various types and places were the line dead ends (i had to teach her to do a complete stop so she could be the anchor to the slingshot that is the leash) as well as significant numbers of people, dogs and bicycles etc.


I believe the CCL/ACL tears pertain only to male dogs. I would spay a non-breeding bitch after her first heat.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Pai said:


> I will once again get on my own personal soapbox, and say that the entire culture surrounding pet cats 'being allowed to roam at will' has to be the number #1 cause for that problem. I just do NOT comprehend why people think that's ok. If someone let their dog roam the neighborhood at will, hunting random wildlife, etc. (and intact, at that!), folks would think them terrible dog owners. AC would not tolerate it. But when it's a cat, most people just shrug and accept it as normal! It also seems to me that in general, people seem to value cats less than dogs.


This bugs me to no end as well. I will never have an outdoor cat. At least in my area, it is a very irresponsible and dangerous thing to do.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Pai said:


> I will once again get on my own personal soapbox, and say that the entire culture surrounding pet cats 'being allowed to roam at will' has to be the number #1 cause for that problem.


It's a factor. But even a cat kept inside will almost certainly end up pregnant if not spayed. Cats in heat are escape artists, and if she even gets out once (even when not actively in heat) it's almost 100% that she'll be pregnant when she comes back. Like DJetzel said, if a dog gets out, the chances (in some places) aren't terribly high that the dog will find another intact dog of the opposite sex to mate with, at the same time the female is actually fertile. But a cat always will. So while the free-roaming is a problem, it's not THE problem. Not speutering, or not doing it young enough (I had a female go into heat at 4 months! And I had a terrible time keeping her in--she kept diving for the door _every single time_ I opened it, and kittens are slippery beasts) is THE problem.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> (I had a female go into heat at 4 months! And I had a terrible time keeping her in--she kept diving for the door _every single time_ I opened it, and kittens are slippery beasts)


*counts in her head* HOW old is Emajean, now!? 

I knew I needed to get on her spay. Thankfully, there are multiple doors between her and the outside. I'm booking her appointment asap now though...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yep! Little baby Emajean is growing up *sniff*. I like spaying at 14 weeks for females. Old enough to be big and tough enough for surgery, but young enough to recover quickly and not go into heat.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I believe the CCL/ACL tears pertain only to male dogs. I would spay a non-breeding bitch after her first heat.


i wasnt referring to the ACL tearing. just the fact that some pet dogs do live similar live in intensity and frequency of activity as performance dogs...nothing beyond that.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Yep! Little baby Emajean is growing up *sniff*. I like spaying at 14 weeks for females. Old enough to be big and tough enough for surgery, but young enough to recover quickly and not go into heat.


-whew- Just did the math and this wednesday she will be 14 weeks. *off to email the vet*


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> The intact dog wants to escape because its drives are telling it to reproduce. That's a pretty strong drive.


How much experience have you had with intact dogs?

This hasn't been my experience at all with my males, or even my intact females. Beau, for example, had plenty of opportunities to bolt out the front door during the timeframe he was intact. He never did, nor did he have any desire to escape our fenced-in back yard. My neighbors are two young people, neither of whom really knows a whole lot about dogs in general, but they have a 7 yr. old dog. JoJo is an intact male Mastiff, who is often in his own yard off leash. I've never seen him take off for any reason. He was sitting on the front steps one evening when I had Lucia out for a quick walk. She was in her heat cycle, but JoJo just sat there. His owner opened the door and came out, walked over to say hi. JoJo followed, and sat down next to me. Was he interested? Oh YES. Our discussion concluded, Lucia and I continued on our walk, leaving JoJo and his owner behind. Now Beau, on the other hand, is, as the saying goes, hot to trot! lol He's neutered, however, he takes any and all opportunities to try and mount/mate Lucia! All I have to say is "don't you DARE." Therefore, he's crated when I cannot directly supervise them. It's really not that big of a deal.


----------



## Lil Red Express (Jan 18, 2009)

I have about the same experience with my intact male. I hear the propaganda all the time about your dog will bolt and jump 10 foot fences and yadda yadda yadda . I've never seen Red act this way once and I know for a fact there have been females in the neighborhood in heat . As far as getting his nuts cut out , I wont do to him what I wouldn't do to myself  
I think a lot of times inexperienced dog owners come to places like this and hear all the spay/neuter talk and do it because everyone else does it but actually have no clue about it . 

Have a good day. 



poodleholic said:


> How much experience have you had with intact dogs?
> 
> This hasn't been my experience at all with my males, or even my intact females. Beau, for example, had plenty of opportunities to bolt out the front door during the timeframe he was intact. He never did, nor did he have any desire to escape our fenced-in back yard. My neighbors are two young people, neither of whom really knows a whole lot about dogs in general, but they have a 7 yr. old dog. JoJo is an intact male Mastiff, who is often in his own yard off leash. I've never seen him take off for any reason. He was sitting on the front steps one evening when I had Lucia out for a quick walk. She was in her heat cycle, but JoJo just sat there. His owner opened the door and came out, walked over to say hi. JoJo followed, and sat down next to me. Was he interested? Oh YES. Our discussion concluded, Lucia and I continued on our walk, leaving JoJo and his owner behind. Now Beau, on the other hand, is, as the saying goes, hot to trot! lol He's neutered, however, he takes any and all opportunities to try and mount/mate Lucia! All I have to say is "don't you DARE." Therefore, he's crated when I cannot directly supervise them. It's really not that big of a deal.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

spanielorbust said:


> I find people that think this thought, that you just posted, scary.
> 
> I posted earlier in this thread about why, but to briefly elaborate, my FIL and his family did not suffer and have to give up everything they owned through WWII, because people who thought they were more right than others, and had more rights than others, 'imposed' their way and took from others. My grandfathers did not fight in WWI and WWII for freedoms, just to have people who have no idea how precious freedoms are figure that we should just give them away.
> 
> ...


We have an intact 17 mo old male who has been having issues as he matures (gotten out a few times, our property isnt even fully fenced, growling at strange male dogs, increased fence barking at the instigation of our giant schnauzer female) - we let his his walks lapse when we moved to the country -- 2 fenced acres a few months ago)..He gets along great with our dogs, chickens kittens and child-- submissive and friendly good natured)-- but am under SOOOOOO much pressure to get him neutered, everyone says that will solve all our problems,,, he lives with 2 spayed females, we dont plan to bred, and have now gone back to 1hr leash walks and more training and just want to work this thru.... but under so much pressure....


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

RaeganW said:


> For me, the benefits outweigh the risks for all but performance and breeding dogs. Even active pets don't undergo quite the same unnatural, repeated physical stress that sport dogs do. I mean, how common are CCL/ACL tears in the general dog population? From my understanding not very, but it's fairly common in performance (especially agility) dogs.


 We lived in a condo in SF for almost 20 years--- our Boxer who we had neutered at age 5 mo had 2 ACL tears (and 2 TLPOs) at about 9k expense-- I would never do early neuter again...


----------

