# What would really happen if I don't neuter my dog?



## randybrown (Jun 7, 2015)

Would I really be wrong for not having my dog neutered, me personally I'm not up for spay/neuter because I hear and witness it doing more bad than good both behavioral and health wise and it's just not natural, many people say there's a pet overpopulation but to be honest I'm really seeing a overpopulation of cats rather then dogs, I wouldn't deprive my dogs of hormones they desperately need to both mentally and physically mature, dogs that are fixed before 2 yrs of age tend to stay in puppyish mentality and never mentally mature and tend to be more excitable, more distracted, and more aggressive (some but not all) than their intact counterparts, I've never had any of my dogs fixed except for one and they always seem so docile and mellow I had my last dog was neutered because my mom told me that he would get frustrated from not mating, so I had him neutered when he was 1 yr old and boy did I regret that decision ever since he became more hyper, his anxiety worsen, became more aggressive, loss his confidence, and disobedient, he never grew out of it and then it occurred to me that I had him neutered before he matured and he was still going through a phase but after that I vowed to never have another dog spayed or neutered but personally I think having a female spayed sounds more useful than having a male neutered but I only had one female and dealing with her heat cycles wasn't that difficult, I kept a close eye on her when she was in heat and never had an accident litter and she never did get pyometra or mammary tumor and lived to be 12 yrs old, now I think having a male neutered is pointless because he will still do things an intact male would do, my males were always passive even with an aggressive dog unless the aggressor would pick a fight but I'm quick to stop that, they never wandered nor roamed, only marked outside but would sometimes squat to pee, never ever tried to hump me, & very mellow, neutered dogs still mark, hump, & their weiner still appears.

So that's why I'm not up for spay/neuter from both research and experience, this is my biased opinion.

Plus I believe spay and neuter is the vet's cash cow and that's why their advertising it so much, to make money.

Please add your opinions and experience on having your dog fixed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

For male dogs, meh. As long as you can keep him from getting females pregnant, no big deal. There's no health benefits to neutering a male dog (well, there are pros and cons on each side but they come out even, IMO) so it's just about birth control (and being able to take them to dog parks, daycares, etc.). There are some specific behavioral issues that can improve with neutering, but they're really very specific so neutering a dog should not be held up as some kind of cure-all for behavioral problems.

For females, I can see a benefit to allowing her to mature physically before spaying, if the owner is able to keep her safe while she's in heat. But the female reproductive system is troublesome, and becomes even more troublesome with age, so I feel that almost all females should be spayed at some point (after her litters if she's a breeding dog, etc.). I don't see any benefit to keeping a female dog intact past maturity.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

For males, the risks associated with neutering and not neutering pretty much balance one another out. Although it's not called BPH in dogs, intact dogs do often get an enlarged prostate later in life which can cause some urinary issues. But if it happens you can always neuter them then.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

For what I see is this; 

I think everyone needs to look at their own home setup first; A person living alone would probably do a better job keeping a female from getting pregnant compared to a multi-activie kids of all ages. Plus factor in the dedication of the family. A family dog compared to a dog involved in activities. 

Males again dedication of the family members. dog involvement in activities

I think a toy breed could get neutered prior to a year and a larger breed should wait till a year and half at least.

A young dog compared to an old dog. Young dogs do need their hormones and in the old dogs hormones become their enemy. Lately I have seen quite a few older intact males dogs with perianal hernias Last week it was two males that were presented with this problem http://www.willows.uk.net/specialist-services/pet-health-information/soft-tissue/perineal-rupture just so you know what I am talking about. Both owners elected to euthanize the dogs due to cost and age of pet. So when I read oh males not a big deal to get them neutered for health reason, I cringe because I have seen so many problems with leaving the guys intact that I quit saying that. http://www.embracepetinsurance.com/health/perianal-adenoma Another disease I have seen affect the intact males more. 

Females and the chance of mammary cancer and pyometra is too great for me to leave a female intact for very long. The other thing for me is the bleeding. I just do not want that in my house. I have smelled some really nasty females when they go in heat. Now would not be a problem but when health issues arise and you are so nauseauated by smells I just do not want to be smelling that. plus some people should not be breeding dogs. Last week a dog was presented to the clinic with puppy half out of it. When questioning the owner, the owner stated the puppy had been sticking out about since ten pm the night before. It is now 2 in the afternoon. Huh. Where was this owner when the clinic opened up? The owner just was hoping the dog could pass the puppy. Um spay the bitch!

Yep for me I now have the mindset that for my own animals. The smaller dogs could get neutered prior to one years old and the larger dogs waiting on. no matter the sex, that the dogs would get neutered in middle age while the dog is still healthy because as senior see too much problems with the intact dogs due to hormones. 

For you and your dogs you do what you want. It is a pick your poison type of deal.


----------



## LuvMyAngels (May 24, 2009)

Be aware that there are age related hormone issues for intact males (I assume females, too). 

Just shy of his 6th birthday, Buster (my Saint boy) developed an ulcerated lump on his rear end. Vet diagnosed him with a perianal adenoma and recommended we have it surgically removed and castrate Bus at the same time as the tumor is hormone fed. I suspect something was wonky with his prostate as well since we had some other issues that neutering resolved. 

As these guys age surgery becomes more of a risk. Older large/giant breed males will often have more swelling after their neuter (Bus was 3x his intact size at one point, reopened the wound...). Anesthesia is harder on them (Bus had issues with his heart rate). 

Neutering has its risks, intact has its risks. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. I think a good compromise would be leave him intact until he's 3-4 (for a Saint or other giant...they're just so slow to mature) and the neuter, hopefully, before running into the "old man" hormone issues.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Nothing happens if you don't neuter your dog. Yes, your male might impregnate a bitch... might. But as long as YOU are not going to let that happen, it won't happen. 

If you don't have a reason for neutering your dog, like out of convenience, or because of health problems, then nothing is stopping you from keeping your dog intact. Please don't feel pressured by people around you. It's your dog and you are taking care of him, no one else gets to decide. So I'm with you, Randybrown.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I have an intact male dog and it's really not a big deal. He's not left to roam around unsupervised, and there isn't a high population of intact females in my area either (though I have one). I personally see more pros in keeping a male dog intact and more cons in neutering.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

LuvMyAngels said:


> I think a good compromise would be leave him intact until he's 3-4 (for a Saint or other giant...they're just so slow to mature) and the neuter, hopefully, before running into the "old man" hormone issues.


This is my plan.

I had no issues keeping Jack and Thud intact, behaviourally, or in management, but I did ultimately neuter Jack at 8 because I needed him to gain weight and he was going to be knocked out for a dental and small lump removal so went ahead and tried it (after years of resisting). Worked like a charm to help him finally gain some weight. 

I plan on neutering Thud early next year when he'll be about 3/3.5. I might actually wait another year, but either way going forward with males my plan is to leave them intact long enough to benefit from the hormones, then neuter them before they're too old to weather surgery and recovery fairly quickly, and before the more common hormonal issues are likely to crop up. 

HEdge my bets both ways, as it were.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

LuvMyAngels said:


> Neutering has its risks, intact has its risks. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.


Yep pretty much. We've had both neutered and intact males and overall they haven't been different to own.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Huh, I had Moose neutered around age 4, just because he wasn't really "mine" before then. I never thought that might be optimal . I have noticed that older intact males tend to be greasy and smelly but I always kinda figured they probably weren't getting very good food and their digestive system caught up to them.


----------



## heidizag (Dec 1, 2014)

If we did not neuter our dog he would have impregnated a female. There are many, many strays in our neighborhood, all of which are intact; the females go into heat. Argos is capable of escaping from me (he is not stronger than me usually but he knows how to take me by surprise and can jerk hard enough under the right circumstances to get the leash out of my hand; and he can run several times faster than I can. Having seen how he acted around a stray female in heat pre-neuter, it was simply a matter of time. It is also certain that he has impregnated many in the past in his time as a street dog. The street dog population here is enormous and he certainly has contributed to that horrible problem.

The same day that my vet did Argos' neuter, he tried to save the life of a dog that was dying of testicular cancer. I saw the dog. OMG. It was absolutely horrific. His tumor was bigger than his head. Well that's ONE kind of cancer Argos won't be getting.

Also I no longer have to try to clean discharge off the rugs and furniture. He was getting it everywhere. And no more having to listen to him lick himself for 10 minutes before bedtime LOL.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I agree that it doesn't matter, as long as you are responsible, and "For male dogs, meh. As long as you can keep him from getting females pregnant, no big deal."

On the other hand, if I talk to an adolescent Man-Child who doesn't seem responsible, I'd do my best to convince him to neuter. I watched my 25yo nephew promise to get his dog and his girlfriend's dog fixed. I put pressure on the father to have the nephew fix his dog, which happened. However, the nephew and girlfriend went behind people's back to get the girlfriend's dog pregnant, 'because they want to make some money having puppies' !!! They got her fixed after experiencing the reality of backyard breeding.

If you're responsible, then it's your decision. However, the arguments initially provided are more individual instances, and justifications. For every dog that changes, you can find 10 that don't ... It's frequently a matter of training.


----------



## seaboxador (Sep 23, 2012)

randybrown said:


> Would I really be wrong for not having my dog neutered, me personally I'm not up for spay/neuter because I hear and witness it doing more bad than good both behavioral and health wise and it's just not natural, many people say there's a pet overpopulation but to be honest I'm really seeing a overpopulation of cats rather then dogs, I wouldn't deprive my dogs of hormones they desperately need to both mentally and physically mature, dogs that are fixed before 2 yrs of age tend to stay in puppyish mentality and never mentally mature and tend to be more excitable, more distracted, and more aggressive (some but not all) than their intact counterparts, I've never had any of my dogs fixed except for one and they always seem so docile and mellow I had my last dog was neutered because my mom told me that he would get frustrated from not mating, so I had him neutered when he was 1 yr old and boy did I regret that decision ever since he became more hyper, his anxiety worsen, became more aggressive, loss his confidence, and disobedient, he never grew out of it and then it occurred to me that I had him neutered before he matured and he was still going through a phase but after that I vowed to never have another dog spayed or neutered but personally I think having a female spayed sounds more useful than having a male neutered but I only had one female and dealing with her heat cycles wasn't that difficult, I kept a close eye on her when she was in heat and never had an accident litter and she never did get pyometra or mammary tumor and lived to be 12 yrs old, now I think having a male neutered is pointless because he will still do things an intact male would do, my males were always passive even with an aggressive dog unless the aggressor would pick a fight but I'm quick to stop that, they never wandered nor roamed, only marked outside but would sometimes squat to pee, never ever tried to hump me, & very mellow, neutered dogs still mark, hump, & their weiner still appears.
> 
> So that's why I'm not up for spay/neuter from both research and experience, this is my biased opinion.
> 
> ...


Paragraphs are your friend. Writing a big long post like that with no paragraphs isn't readable. Why are you coming up with opinions without seeing the research?


----------



## seaboxador (Sep 23, 2012)

heidizag said:


> The same day that my vet did Argos' neuter, he tried to save the life of a dog that was dying of testicular cancer. I saw the dog. OMG. It was absolutely horrific. His tumor was bigger than his head. Well that's ONE kind of cancer Argos won't be getting.


....Except neutering increases the chances of a lot of more common cancers. Testicular cancer is rare in dogs and typically easily treated with castration in the odd chance that it happens. Those stray dogs in the neighborhood will get pregnant from some male dog. Why is your dog running around with stray dogs like that?


----------



## randybrown (Jun 7, 2015)

seaboxador said:


> Paragraphs are your friend. Writing a big long post like that with no paragraphs isn't readable. Why are you coming up with opinions without seeing the research?


Sorry but I'm not in school anymore..I graduated years ago ya Troll, so there's really no need to make this statment grammer perfect for a forum..so are you kidding me?! and for your info I've done tons of research on this subject and gain experience on this subject, it sounds like your the one who hasn't done your Research on the Pros and Cons of spay/neuter Buddy!

And if my post isn't readable how come everybody on here is repling to it..including you huh?


----------



## TheDarkestMinds (Feb 28, 2015)

seaboxador said:


> heidizag said:
> 
> 
> > The same day that my vet did Argos' neuter, he tried to save the life of a dog that was dying of testicular cancer. I saw the dog. OMG. It was absolutely horrific. His tumor was bigger than his head. Well that's ONE kind of cancer Argos won't be getting.
> ...


Uhm..If you would have read heidizags post fully, you would know that they don't let their dog run around with street dogs. Argos WAS a street dog prior to living with his current owner. That is why they assume he had impregnated street dogs PRIOR to his getting a home.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

If you do think about leaving your male intact, I encourage you to be really, really honest with yourself about the likelihood of him ever running around unattended. I can't guess how many people I've heard say "He's never loose, and I'm super responsible! So he can't get any bitches pregnant!" and then a few weeks later it's, "Whoops, my nephew left the screen door open...if anyone has seen my dog, please call 555-555-5555."


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

seaboxador said:


> ....Except neutering increases the chances of a lot of more common cancers.


That's a really definitive statement not yet fully supported by studies AFAIK. It would be more accurate to say that neutering, particularly pediatric neutering, is correlated with an increased risk of certain cancers. It's also worth noting that these studies were done on cancer-prone breeds; I'd be interested to see whether there is a similar correlation in dogs from healthier genetic pools.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Also if we're going to dismiss testicular cancer as rare, it's worth pointing out that the cancers whose risk may be increased by neutering are also very rare. An increased risk may still be a very small risk in the grand scheme of things. In fact, the incidences are just about equal of, say, testicular cancer in an intact male and prostate cancer in a neutered male. And there are many non-cancerous health issues like the perineal hernias and perianal adenomas that luv mi pets pointed out, as well as prostatitis, that accompany being intact later in life. 

Orthopedic issues would be a far larger and more significant concern for me than cancers and my suspicion is that as more research is done, when a dog is neutered in relation to growth plate closure will be the key risk factor there rather than whether a dog is neutered.


----------



## BostonBullMama (Apr 20, 2013)

parus said:


> That's a really definitive statement not yet fully supported by studies AFAIK. It would be more accurate to say that neutering, particularly pediatric neutering, is correlated with an increased risk of certain cancers. It's also worth noting that these studies were done on cancer-prone breeds; I'd be interested to see whether there is a similar correlation in dogs from healthier genetic pools.


There are also risks of cancers with keeping a dog intact too - but that's more along the "damned if you do, damned if your don't" bit... 


So realistically OP, the truth about neutering is that it is 100%, completely *up to you.* Literally - you will always have uninformed people judging you for keeping your dog intact, and you will always have those anti-neuter folk (the ones that are not only against it, but freakishly extreme) that will judge you for neutering. 

But it's your dog. What can YOU live with. 
If you don't neuter and there's no problems down the line associated with keeping him intact - perfect. 
If you don't neuter and then there ARE problems down the line associated with keeping him intact - then neuter.
If you neuter - you're potentially increasing OR decreasing risks for whatever problems you may or may not have encountered down the line had you kept him intact. 

and so on, and so forth.... Your call.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

parus said:


> That's a really definitive statement not yet fully supported by studies AFAIK. It would be more accurate to say that neutering, particularly pediatric neutering, is correlated with an increased risk of certain cancers. It's also worth noting that these studies were done on cancer-prone breeds; I'd be interested to see whether there is a similar correlation in dogs from healthier genetic pools.


Actually try google past the SPCA. There have been several studies on the matter. There is a very small chance of death from Testicular cancer. The others shown to come with neutering prior to full maturity, have a higher chance of death. 
Also studies show marking has no bearing on neutered or unaltered, along with a higher rate of aggression in early neutered than unaltered.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

MastiffGuy said:


> Actually try google past the SPCA. There have been several studies on the matter. There is a very small chance of death from Testicular cancer. The others shown to come with neutering prior to full maturity, have a higher chance of death.
> Also studies show marking has no bearing on neutered or unaltered, along with a higher rate of aggression in early neutered than unaltered.


I didn't "google the SPCA," whatever that means, I read several actual studies. Could you cite the specific studies you're referring to so I can read those as well?

No talking heads or pop sci news articles, please.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

parus said:


> I didn't "google the SPCA," whatever that means, I read several actual studies. Could you cite the specific studies you're referring to so I can read those as well?


Sure give me a minute I can post a ton for you.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

If you have an intact dog and can 100% guarantee they will never get loose, and you can guarantee that they will never breed unintentionally, and you can guarantee that you will never have to sell, rehome, give them away, in a hurry, where you may not be able to be picky about how responsible the new owners will be, then have at it.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

If more articles or some videos are needed past this please let me know I can post a lot more on the matter.

http://vitalanimal.com/neutering/

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_24534195/neuter-your-dog-or-not-new-studies-change?source=infinite

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/is...nefits-spay-neuter-your-dog_20685-1.html?pg=2

http://www.chicagonow.com/training-...or-neuter-your-dog-one-size-does-not-fit-all/

http://healthypets.mercola.com/site...angers-of-early-pet-spaying-or-neutering.aspx


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

None of those are studies :\


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

spotted nikes said:


> If you have an intact dog and can 100% guarantee they will never get loose, and you can guarantee that they will never breed unintentionally, and you can guarantee that you will never have to sell, rehome, give them away, in a hurry, where you may not be able to be picky about how responsible the new owners will be, then have at it.


I bit of a simplistic reply. While nothing is 100% I can say in 30+ years of having intact males, none of mine have fathered a litter. 
I'll take a healthier dog over neutering prior to them reaching full maturity.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

parus said:


> None of those are studies :\


 studies are listed in the articles.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

MastiffGuy said:


> studies are listed in the articles.


Then it should be no problem to post actual scientific studies supporting your statements, right?


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

parus said:


> Then it should be no problem to post actual scientific studies supporting your statements, right?


Studies for the first 2 links 3rd not typing that much lol.
4 and 5th have fun.

Please show me the current studies or research that the pro neuter/ spay crew uses.

Slauterbeck, et al “Canine Ovariohysterectomy and Orchiectomy Increases the Prevalence of ACL Injury” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 429 (301): 5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175472
http://www.aaha.org/blog/NewStat/po...eutered-or-spayed-dogs-lead-longer-lives.aspx
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10498

3rd link you will just have to read not typing that much ref.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

The first one doesn't appear to be about cancer, the second (news release, but as least it's closer) starts with:


> After examining 40,139 dog death records spanning a 20-year period, University of Georgia researchers have concluded that spayed or neutered dogs tend to live longer than intact dogs.


which is the opposite of your claim, and the third is the UC-Davis study I was already referring to.

So yeah.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

MastiffGuy said:


> Actually try google past the SPCA. There have been several studies on the matter. There is a very small chance of death from Testicular cancer. The others shown to come with neutering prior to full maturity, have a higher chance of death.
> Also studies show marking has no bearing on neutered or unaltered, along with a higher rate of aggression in early neutered than unaltered.


It depends on the studies. There was a study done in Hong Kong I think on GSD. That study showed males left intact and spayed females had higher aggression issues and neutered males and intact females had a lower rate of aggression. Now the bone cancer study done on Scottish Deerhounds who have a higher rate of osteosarcoma did not show the same study outcome as did the Rott study. Guess what one get published all over the web showing the correlation between neutering and bone cancer. 

The other big problem is the lack of keeping records When a dog or cat comes in to be euthanized that does not get reported. Now if it does go to a central computer and everything would be recorded and tracked how would that change the outcome of the studies. Reading the studies one would come to the conclusion that spaying/neutering your dog would be its death sentence. I just do not see that.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Worried about cancer in your dog read straight from the source. '

It does state about the Rott study but again even in a cancer website it does not go and say this is standard just a base for cancer. 

read about cancer from the people on the front lines of the studies. 

http://www.wearethecure.org/osteosarcoma.htm
http://www.caninecancer.com/typesofcancr.html

One thing that keeps popping up is lawn chemicals and genetics for the cancer.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I have two intact males...one is 7 and one is 3. They have been no more difficult than my neutered rescue I had. Neither of them mark in the house or hump things...because of training. My neutered male actually did hump. 

My 7 year old was collected...so the only way he will produce a litter of puppies is artificially through a repro vet.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

It is MUCH cheaper to license your neutered dog where I live. Mine are all neutered. Two came that way (rescues). Others done by me. Latest was fluffy white dog. I waited until he was two. In the future all my new dogs will be neutered after growth plates have closed.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

Another article that list the studies where the facts come from.
http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.co...&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

A couple of housekeeping reminders:

1) It not not necessary, or particularly neighborly, to correct another members grammar, spelling, sentence structure or writing style.

2) It is NEVER okay to call another member a troll, or anything else derogatory. Anyone who can't find a civil way to disagree should probably find another forum.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

Apparently if your intact dog gets picked up by animal control in New York...you won't have a choice.

https://www.facebook.com/5050071529...5007152948390/816708881778214/?type=1&theater


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

My kneejerk reaction is that if a dog is picked up by AC, then clearly the person is not successfully containing it, which is a basic responsibility with any dog, but especially intact dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> It is MUCH cheaper to license your neutered dog where I live. Mine are all neutered. Two came that way (rescues). Others done by me. Latest was fluffy white dog. I waited until he was two. In the future all my new dogs will be neutered after growth plates have closed.


Ours is double....

$40 for intact $20 for altered.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

parus said:


> My kneejerk reaction is that if a dog is picked up by AC, then clearly the person is not successfully containing it, which is a basic responsibility with any dog, but especially intact dogs.


A knee jerk reaction is not what is needed for a complex situation.


I will agree... An owner/animal with repeated instances of escape.... Proves irresponsibility.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

Dogs get loose. It doesn't necessarily make you a bad owner. Repeated times, who knows.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Ours is double....
> 
> $40 for intact $20 for altered.



I think it is even more than that here.


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

So Cavalier said:


> Apparently if your intact dog gets picked up by animal control in New York...you won't have a choice.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/5050071529...5007152948390/816708881778214/?type=1&theater


As someone who has an intact dog and intends to keep him that was as long as possible, that is a little horrifying.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

chimunga said:


> As someone who has an intact dog and intends to keep him that was as long as possible, that is a little horrifying.


It is like that in more and more places....

And it is knee jerk.....

Some folks have dogs get repeatedly have dogs get loose....

Some folks never do.... In 41 years of owning dogs I have yet to have a single dog get away from me..

But what if?


I have never considered it an option.... I figure if any of my ACDs was to get lost, I find them or they get a bullet...
They are not coming to a stranger and if someone tried to use a catch stick on them, it would be bad news.


----------



## Jvcomp (Jul 15, 2015)

Its really a preference, there is not really any difference other then one can make/have pups, and one can't. If its a vanity thing they do make prosthetic testicles for dogs. 
We have had both neutered and intact and the main difference I noticed is one spends an inordinate amount of time trying to inhale his man parts and the other does not. Just be responsible if kept intact


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

> If its a vanity thing they do make prosthetic testicles for dogs.


Being a woman...I can assure you I don't keep my dogs intact for vanity reasons. Being performance dogs, I need them to keep their testosterone so they will stay well muscled. Being well muscled will help protect them from injuries that their sports can dish out. Various studies have shown that Rottweilers in particular can have health benefits from staying intact longer.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

MrsBoats said:


> Being a woman...I can assure you I don't keep my dogs intact for vanity reasons. Being performance dogs, I need them to keep their testosterone so they will stay well muscled. Being well muscled will help protect them from injuries that their sports can dish out. Various studies have shown that Rottweilers in particular can have health benefits from staying intact longer.


The veterinary issues are complex, but don't seem to favor neutering for males. I like this guy's analyses (he has done many of them . . . follow links . . . this is just his most recent comment) http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2015/03/evidence-update-neutering-and-cancer-risk-in-danish-dogs/ . He gives sources and looks critically at study methodology. Also notes that findings seem to depend on age, breed, and sex.

In running a boarding a kennel I often noted that the group we code named 'senior statesman' (ie. intact elderly males) often have very stinky urine and mark enthusiastically in the presence of many other dogs.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

I haven't read through this entire thread, but for those of you that want to keep the testosterone without the responsibility of a dog that can reproduce, have you thought of a vasectomy? It's more common in certain areas than others but I've been able to find a vet in my area who performs them. It's less invasive and you can go back later on to do the full neuter if you so wish. I am in the process of researching more about it, but it is likely the route I will take with my next dog.


----------



## NothingButtDogs (Apr 15, 2015)

I didn't have a choice. The contract I signed with the shelter to adopt, stated I had to get Kizzie/Huckle spayed/neutered. They were both spayed/neutered at around 18 mos. I've really seen no behavioral effect to Kizzie, my female, but with Huckle, my male, it was a godsend. I would have had it done even if I wasn't required to do it, I think. Before the neuter, I had to keep him in a belly band to prevent marking in the house. He would try and drag me to every tree and bush outside to mark. He was constantly licking down there and although he didn't hump, there was some unwanted effects of sexual arousal. After the neuter all those behaviors went away. He's such a great dog now. He's no longer ruled by his hoo-hah, just his stomach.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jan 2, 2015)

With regards to a vasectomy:

I considered it. But then for triple the cost of a neuter I have the EXACT same dog I know and love without the ability to transfer sperm. That seems like a whole big hassle for essentially no benefit. I'm able to easily control my dog, otherwise he'd be neutered. The only thing that would make me consider a vasectomy was if I owned an intact, breeding age female. That might merit a vasectomy in my eyes, as the risk would be much higher in that situation. But then I'd still have an "intact" male dog living with a sometimes-in-heat female, and all the normal behaviors would still continue if I didn't intervene...

Also, AKC doesn't accept vasectomies for dogs seeking a PAL. That's not a problem with my dog, but anyone looking for a PAL is forced to neuter, no ifs ands or buts.


----------



## Jvcomp (Jul 15, 2015)

Yeah, I don't show or do competitions with my rotties so no real reason for me to keep them intact. Like I said I have tried both ways and I prefer to have them fixed, mine are straight pets. I have no problem with it either way really.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

One likely outcome of not neutering is well-meaning obnoxious people who don't mind their own business making inquiries about why you haven't neutered.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

Kingfisher said:


> With regards to a vasectomy:
> 
> I considered it. But then for triple the cost of a neuter I have the EXACT same dog I know and love without the ability to transfer sperm. That seems like a whole big hassle for essentially no benefit. I'm able to easily control my dog, otherwise he'd be neutered. The only thing that would make me consider a vasectomy was if I owned an intact, breeding age female. That might merit a vasectomy in my eyes, as the risk would be much higher in that situation. But then I'd still have an "intact" male dog living with a sometimes-in-heat female, and all the normal behaviors would still continue if I didn't intervene...
> 
> Also, AKC doesn't accept vasectomies for dogs seeking a PAL. That's not a problem with my dog, but anyone looking for a PAL is forced to neuter, no ifs ands or buts.


Yep - that's why I was directing that towards people who have sports dogs that are often around intact females. If you don't have your dog in that situation often, then I agree you may as just leave him totally intact. But for people that want/need the added benefits of testosterone but have an intact female or are around them often, it takes away that slight chance that even under supervision, accidents can happen. 

Where I am a vasectomy is actually less expensive or the same as a neuter. It's far less invasive and the vet I found is more holistic and believes it is more natural for the dog. I guess I'm just lucky. My insurance covers neuters, but I haven't asked whether or not a vasectomy would be covered.

And if you are in some sort of situation where either the law or your personal goals requires you to neuter...then you wouldn't be considering a vasectomy, anyways, as it't not a viable option.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jan 2, 2015)

Out where I live there seems to be a mentality that all problems are the responsibility of the owner of the male dog, not the female.

I was at a horse show the other week when Keeper started giving me a few "special interest" signs regarding a young Corgi. Sure enough, the dog was in heat. And around a TON of working, intact dogs. The people clearly believed that they could do no wrong. If a male approached their dog it was obviously the other owner's fault, no matter that they brought a female who's IN HEAT in public. 

Maybe it's because you can see male parts, but nobody ever bothers thinking about if a female is still intact. I hate the stigma. If you leave a male dog intact, you're obviously "a lazy owner, too macho to neuter, furthering overpopulation, etc." but nobody even thinks about the responsibility of the female's owner. It takes two to tango, the owner of a female is just as responsible for preventing unwanted litters as the owner of a male.

Our local animal control penalizes an intact male by raising the collection fee for a recovered dog. But since you can't outwardly see a spayed/intact dog, they don't change the extra fee for a female. It just seems unbalanced.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sydneynicole said:


> I haven't read through this entire thread, but for those of you that want to keep the testosterone without the responsibility of a dog that can reproduce, have you thought of a vasectomy? It's more common in certain areas than others but I've been able to find a vet in my area who performs them. It's less invasive and you can go back later on to do the full neuter if you so wish. I am in the process of researching more about it, but it is likely the route I will take with my next dog.



The ONLY reason to consider a vacectomy, is if you are trying to fulfill a neuter contract without removing the testosterone.

Other than that, it is pointless.


----------



## GHill762 (Jul 13, 2015)

sandgrubber said:


> One likely outcome of not neutering is well-meaning obnoxious people who don't mind their own business making inquiries about why you haven't neutered.


holy cow. this. 

our vet tech got super confrontational about it when I said we weren't planning to snip our boy, after she started to get confrontational I basically told her it's not their decision and it's not up for debate at this time and she just gave me a dirty look and basically shut up about it. I don't understand why everyone has to make it their mission to tell you what to do with your pets. but she was at the point where it was about to turn into an argument rather than a civil discussion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The ONLY reason to consider a vacectomy, is if you are trying to fulfill a neuter contract without removing the testosterone.
> 
> Other than that, it is pointless.


Interesting. . .birth control is pointless? 

I think it would be a good option for someone who doesn't want to neuter but there's a chance their male dog could get to a female in heat. At least you wouldn't get slapped with a paternity suit from the neighbors . I wish free-roaming farm dogs would get a vasectomy (since neutering is out of the question for a lot of guys :/) but then I doubt those types of owners would bother to do that much.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I was quite annoyed when I had Monty in to have his teeth done that the Vet office phoned up and wanted to know if they should neuter him at the same time. Monty was ten years old at the time and his being entire has never been a problem even though Remmy is also not neutered and they get along fine. I do Agility with Remmy and it has never been a problem at all. Luckily they are both a little hairy in that area so have never had any remarks on them. I know the Vet was just thinking of the fact that he would be going under anesthetic so could do it at the same time but if I wanted him neutered I would have said so when I took him in.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

One thing you might want to be aware of -- a lot of rescues will not adopt to anyone who already has an intact pet, because they see this as a sign of an irresponsible pet owner. I personally find this infuriating, but that's the way it is. So if you have any intentions of adopting an animal from a rescue in the future, just keep it in mind.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Shep said:


> One thing you might want to be aware of -- a lot of rescues will not adopt to anyone who already has an intact pet, because they see this as a sign of an irresponsible pet owner. I personally find this infuriating, but that's the way it is. So if you have any intentions of adopting an animal from a rescue in the future, just keep it in mind.


Yeah, the Sioux Falls Humane Society has that as a blanket policy. I understand why---before they had that policy, I did know several people who adopted animals with full intention to breed them to their existing pet---but I think they're probably missing out on some good homes. Blanket policies are generally not completely wonderful. I mean, it should definitely be a question they ask, but they should consider the answer and see if it's reasonable (what if the animal has a health condition that precludes anesthesia?). I just wish they could afford to spay/neuter all animals before adoption :/. Although a lot of shelters/rescues still won't adopt to you if you have an intact pet even if they spay/neuter their animals before adoption. Which is even less reasonable as a blanket policy.

I probably overthink things but I also wonder how strict they are about it. Like, do they count rabbits, maybe guinea pigs? If someone has a 4H colony of breeding rabbits can they adopt a dog or cat? What if I have a kitten under 4 months old who isn't fixed yet? What about that wild tomcat I feed who can't be trapped? Hehe. I probably won't adopt from them again but I'm just curious. I could probably call them to ask but meh.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I just wish they could afford to spay/neuter all animals before adoption :/. Although a lot of shelters/rescues still won't adopt to you if you have an intact pet even if they spay/neuter their animals before adoption. Which is even less reasonable as a blanket policy.


Yeah, that's actually what I was thinking about. There are several rescues I know of in this area which absolutely spay/neuter all their animals prior to adoption, and STILL won't allow anyone with an existing intact pet to adopt. They're not worried about their adoptees being bred, they just don't like people who have intact animals. To them, that's automatically irresponsible.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Interesting. . .birth control is pointless?
> 
> .


Your words not mine....

But you do not need a vascectomy or a neuter to practice birth control....


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Your words not mine....
> 
> But you do not need a vascectomy or a neuter to practice birth control....


This.

My elderly , non pet , person grandmother kept a golden retreaver husky cross intact for 15 years without adding puppies to the world. And if she can do it than I figure at least 90% of the human population can if they just took responsibly for their actions. 

The only reason I'll ever be getting animals altered is if it's in contract or they came altered.


----------



## BostonBullMama (Apr 20, 2013)

I kept my female cat, Honey, unaltered for 3 years and never once had a litter of kittens - or a scare for that matter. 
Trixie came spayed, Sebastian came neutered, Shadow was part of foster so was neutered at 12 weeks, but Honey - I didn't alter her until I decided I wanted to start fostering, and the only reason I did it then was because I didn't want to risk pregnancy if the cats came into the house unaltered since I was mainly taking unaltered strays.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah. . .I know for a fact there would be an oops if I tried to live with non-sterilized female animal (well, cat or dog. I'm sure a caged animal would be easier) for any extended amount of time, and most likely with a male too. And 100% definitely if I tried to live with a non-sterilized male AND female. I make mistakes. Lots of them. Absent minded. My dogs have escaped a few times and I don't know what they were up to (except I know they didn't get anyone pregnant ). I guess you could say I'm irresponsible, sure, I'll take it. But I take responsibility for my irresponsibility , and make sure that's not possible. So, eh, I guess I'm not in that 90% or something. I'm just super glad spay/neuter is an easily available option.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Yeah. . .I know for a fact there would be an oops if I tried to live with non-sterilized female animal (well, cat or dog. I'm sure a caged animal would be easier) for any extended amount of time, and most likely with a male too. And 100% definitely if I tried to live with a non-sterilized male AND female. I make mistakes. Lots of them. Absent minded. My dogs have escaped a few times and I don't know what they were up to (except I know they didn't get anyone pregnant ). I guess you could say I'm irresponsible, sure, I'll take it. But I take responsibility for my irresponsibility , and make sure that's not possible. So, eh, I guess I'm not in that 90% or something. I'm just super glad spay/neuter is an easily available option.


Why do you know that? I would think you are more than capable....

Keely the Labrador had the great timing to come into heat last march, about 10 days after I had surgery reconstructing my throat and nasal passages. I was on two Oxy every four hours for pain. My wife had gone back to work and I managed just fine. Drug induced fog and all. 

And if that was not enough, she had the timing to come into heat right after my wife had a quadruple bypass in September. I was trying to work, taking care of my wife, cooking, cleaning, etc etc etc... I still managed the dogs fine. 

It is NOT hard.... I have lived with intact males and females now pushing 50 years without a single oops.. 

And I just spayed our Labrador Bitch. Not because I was worried about her getting pregnant. 

I was worried about me being gone and my wife having to manage two male ACDs, which can be total jerks in the best of times, with an in heat bitch. 

She was spayed to reduce the likelyhood of a dog fight. It had nothing to do with an accidental pregnancy.... That is easy to manage.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Um. Why do I think that? _Because my dogs have gotten out_ in the past, due to me absent-mindedly leaving the door unlatched or the gate open or whatever, during which time I didn't know where they were or what they were doing, for maybe a couple hours at a time. 

And, yeah, there are so few unwanted litters born, super easy :/.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Um. Why do I think that? _Because my dogs have gotten out_ in the past, due to me absent-mindedly leaving the door unlatched or the gate open or whatever, during which time I didn't know where they were or what they were doing, for maybe a couple hours at a time.
> 
> And, yeah, there are so few unwanted litters born, super easy :/.


It is super easy..... All you have to do is pay attention...

there are only about 10 days a year a bitch can get pregnant....


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The truth of the matter is, if the easy option wasn't available and you were concerned enough, you'd prevent it because it requires minor changes to lifestyle and attentiveness. The possibility of pregnancy provides the incentive and I have no doubt that you could manage an intact animal. 

I also think Johnny is discounting, radically, the fact that he's had and been around intact dogs so long that it's now second nature for him to do that management and that there is (or would be) an adjustment period for people who don't have that experience. 

Me? I'm in the middle. It isn't that hard, it isn't impossible, I'm basically lazy and don't like the impact a dog in heat has on my life and find it annoying so I spay. I don't spay as early as I do for any reason other than convenience. It's annoying and I don't want to deal with it. So I don't. Could I keep an intact bitch? Yup. Without pregnancy? Easily. Do I want to? NOPE.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is super easy..... All you have to do is pay attention...
> 
> there are only about 10 days a year a bitch can get pregnant....


Yeah, but you've lived with intact dogs how long? You're used to it. Someone who isn't it requires lifestyle changes that are relatively easy and minor, on their own, but is still a lifestyle change and still requires more thought and deliberation. It's not hard to do some kind of exercise every day, or learn a foreign language, or stop eating junkfood, either. If someone wants to do it, they will, but if they don't want to it's just a pain in the butt and NOT WORTH the hassle.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I also think Johnny is discounting, radically, the fact that he's had and been around intact dogs so long that it's now second nature for him to do that management and that there is (or would be) an adjustment period for people who don't have that experience.
> 
> 
> .


Yes.... I grew up with it... 

And yes... based on personal experiences I am probably discounting it a little.... 

But radically.... I do not think so.

With the serious health issues in our house in 2014, if we were going to have an oops, it would have been then. But we did not have a close call.... I used to think my experience played more of a factor. But I had no issues handling it in an oxy induced fog... Six months later, I had no issues while caring for my wife, doing all the household work and working.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yes.... I grew up with it...
> 
> And yes... based on personal experiences I am probably discounting it a little....
> 
> ...


The thing is, you have to have some desire to do it, to do it. 

I mean, honestly? I know it's not hard. I really do. But when I have a lifetime of habits of letting the dogs out without thinking about it, not paying close attention to keeping the dogs separated, whatever, then all that easy management stuff is riding up against all the established things going on in my head and requires a concerted effort to change things. It isn't impossible, it isn't even hard, but if *I* (general I, this isn't my issue) don't REALLY WANT it, it's just an obnoxious pain in the butt thing for me. Also there's a level of anxiety until you get familiar with it and know what you're doing and recognize what you need to recognize and trust the measures you've got into place and it's not all OMGNEW.

That doesn't make it _difficult_ but it does mean that it takes some conscious effort for a while.

Now, if that effort is worth it or not is a whole nother debate and all kinds of personal and probably going to vary. I'm just saying it's not effortless when you're going from 'not something I have to think about at all because it's impossible to have happen' to 'need to pay attention, even if it's only a little'.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, but you've lived with intact dogs how long? You're used to it. Someone who isn't it requires lifestyle changes that are relatively easy and minor, on their own, but is still a lifestyle change and still requires more thought and deliberation. It's not hard to do some kind of exercise every day, or learn a foreign language, or stop eating junkfood, either. If someone wants to do it, they will, but if they don't want to it's just a pain in the butt and NOT WORTH the hassle.


I will be 48 this month.... I was feeding up and cleaning kennels and running dogs by the time I was 7. At first Granddaddy tied a pink logging ribbon on the kennels of bitches in heat. I forget when he stopped the ribbon deal. I learned how to tell a bitch was in heat... By the time I was ten anyway Maybe a little sooner. 

But... All it takes is paying attention to your dogs.... If you have dogs and bitches in the house. Your dogs are going to tell you, a bitch is coming in, well before she is actually in heat.. 

I am not anti speuter.... But it is not necessary for birth control.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

But I have to say.... If it is too much of a bother to pay attention to notice if your bitch is coming in heat.... What else is too much of a bother? 

It is not like a heat in an intact bitch is a surprise...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've known people who tried super hard to prevent their pet from getting pregnant/causing a pregnancy. And were thoroughly distraught when it happened. But maybe the door didn't latch right or the spouse/kids/friends/roommate didn't hear them say "don't let the dogs be in the same room" or there was a funny spot in the fence they never noticed before and the dog wasn't previously motivated enough to find. Stuff happens and I'm not betting a dozen puppies' lives on it not happening.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't know. I'm actually with you and think that the level of fear of pregnancy being that high is actually a little into the realm of the irrational. It's not that hard to see coming, it's not like you can't spay/abort, and I personally can't think of a single accidental litter that happened where people made even a minor effort to prevent it - as in every last one I know involves a dog kept outside with minimal human contact, and in either a kennel with an opposite sex dog or on a chain or just free roaming- so no protection. And I live in the south, but seriously. Not one single litter where anyone made ANY effort to prevent pregnancy. NOT ONE. 

Bottom line, intact bitches going into heat have lots and lots of lead up time where things are WEIRD and obviously changing before a mating can happen. I agree with that. Even if an accident *does* happen, you see a tie, you go spay. You see things starting to get strange, you up the separation. It's. Not. Rocket. Science. It's like being afraid that you're going to get struck by lightening. It MIGHT happen, but it probably isn't going to and fine, buy some insurance for your house but don't be so paranoid about it that you refuse to live anywhere that has thunderstorms BECAUSE OMG IT MIGHT HAPPEN. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. 

I begrudge no one doing it for convenience. I can't. Heat bugs me, it gets in my way, I don't want to deal with it, just because it limits all the dogs in the household and by extension me. 

So I guess, I sort of agree with you that it isn't hard, and the 'fear' of accidental pregnancy in dogs (accidental as in not just giving a flip and letting it happen and carry on) is overblown, but I don't really think spaying or neutering for convenience is a particularly big deal, either. Just... admit it's for your own convenience, I think.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> Even if an accident *does* happen, you see a tie, you go spay. You see things starting to get strange, you up the separation.




You don't even have to spay any longer... There is a "morning after" pill for dogs. It is actually not a pill but a couple of injections.......And it does not have to be done the morning after....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't stand outside in a lightning storm either . 

But yeah, if I saw it happen or knew it happened I'd spay/abort. Although I think someone who's hard-core against spay/neuter wouldn't want to do that either, plus I still consider that as taking the puppies' lives, just at an earlier stage of development when it's less objectionable. But if I didn't know it happened (friend/relative let them out and was afraid/not aware to say something, etc.) and it was too late to spay by the time I figured it out, what would I do with a dozen mutt puppies? I don't think I could find good homes for all of them. That's pretty high stakes. Though at least I'd have some control if the female were mine, even if it meant keeping some of them. I would worry more about the boys getting loose and knocking up a female whose owner doesn't want pups. I mean, I know it happens but I DO NOT want to bear any kind of responsibility for that.

Hehe, my mom's neighbor had a big Rott/Lab who knocked up the other neighbor's Golden. I don't think she even knew it happened until the Golden's owner dropped the pups on her doorstep when they were 8 weeks old (it was obvious they were his). I guess that's one way to handle it .

Oh, and not everybody has a few hundred dollars available at all times for an emergency spay. Particularly if they were avoiding a spay for financial reasons (also the reason they'd be trying hard to prevent pregnancy and upset when it happens). I mean, that's just reality.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I've known people who tried super hard to prevent their pet from getting pregnant/causing a pregnancy. And were thoroughly distraught when it happened. But maybe the door didn't latch right or the spouse/kids/friends/roommate didn't hear them say "don't let the dogs be in the same room" or there was a funny spot in the fence they never noticed before and the dog wasn't previously motivated enough to find. Stuff happens and I'm not betting a dozen puppies' lives on it not happening.


If a pregnancy happen... They did not try super hard... It is doubtful they tried at all..

Because I have never tried super hard... It is just not that difficult...

Frankly, I think you are a victim of propaganda...... You have stated things over the years that are what the super pro speuter people say as scare tactics..... 

1) there are about ten days a year a bitch can get pregnant... There are three stages in the heat cycle. Male dogs will be attracted during the entire 21 days.... But only about 5 of them can the bitch get pregnant..

2) Stories of dogs breeding through fences, through crates, etc.... I first heard that sometime around 1980. I have been trying to wrap my head around that since. Anyone that has actually watched dogs breed, knows this is just a story... A triple jointed dog with magical powers could not pull it off. 

3) Male dogs are mindless sex addicts... Not the case...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Nice that your doors always latch correctly and your fence is always perfect. I've never managed that level of excellency. The other day I found the cats outside in the dog yard because. . .I don't know! I swear that door was shut and locked. Fortunately I found them pretty quickly this time.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Nice that your doors always latch correctly and your fence is always perfect. I've never managed that level of excellency. The other day I found the cats outside in the dog yard because. . .I don't know! I swear that door was shut and locked. Fortunately I found them pretty quickly this time.


My doors latch because I make sure they are shut... I have a former indoor/outdoor cat.... I have coyotes and a busy road in the area.... He gets out and I lose him he stands a good chance of an ugly death.... He tries all the time to get out.... Far more of a challenge than managing intact dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The cats are not supposed to be outside. I don't want them to be run over or eaten. I'm highly motivated to keep them indoors. I make every effort to do this. I make sure the doors are shut. And yet there they were, outside. I honestly don't know what happened. Except, stuff happens and I'm not perfect.

And I'm fairly certain I'm not THAT unusual . 

And I should probably go tell people I know that stuff didn't actually happen to them, I'm just parroting propaganda. I'm sure they'll be relieved .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> The cats are not supposed to be outside. I don't want them to be run over or eaten. I'm highly motivated to keep them indoors. I make every effort to do this. I make sure the doors are shut. And yet there they were, outside. I honestly don't know what happened. Except, stuff happens and I'm not perfect.
> 
> And I'm fairly certain I'm not THAT unusual .
> 
> And I should probably go tell people I know that stuff didn't actually happen to them, I'm just parroting propaganda. I'm sure they'll be relieved .


People make excuses after the fact....


It does not take perfection.... Just a little attention....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Oh we tried super hard to keep Spot and Buffy apart.... 

But somehow they got together....

Now we have puppies.....

Ummm yea.... 


Go with that one... shift the blame...... 

Fact is... IF they paid as much attention as someone would to make sure their eggs did not burn.... Buffy would not be pregnant....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Heh. I burn things too. Not every time but it's not a rare occurance. Like I said, I'm absent-minded.

I'm glad you have such a high opinion of strangers' abilities. Being constantly vigilant/attentive is not in the list of my abilities, I fully admit that.


----------



## pom (Jun 26, 2015)

Do small breed male dogs tend to mark if a person doesn't neuter?


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

pom said:


> Do small breed male dogs tend to mark if a person doesn't neuter?


Small breed, large breed, male, female, altered, unaltered, it really doesn't matter. It's an individual thing more than a gender/size/altered thing.


----------



## GHill762 (Jul 13, 2015)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Small breed, large breed, male, female, altered, unaltered, it really doesn't matter. It's an individual thing more than a gender/size/altered thing.


100% this.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I have an intact male. He will be 5 this year. I have no plans to alter him. He can't even go to my job because he isn't altered, but that's the "biggest" loss. He doesn't do any of the stereotypes associated with intact males because he's trained. He has never escaped and will never have puppies. 

And really, to me, that is the extent I have to explain myself. I am heavily involved in rescue and get questioned from time to time but it's my choice and my dude ain't mad either way.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

We neuter for convenience and just only have boy dogs. As a result, we only will neuter Louie if we think it will help his health when he is old.

Clyde was actually a raging hormone machine before we neutered at 2.5 years... No puppies.

Louie flirts with every female he sees, but in almost 3 years...no puppies.

Our dogs are trained well and we don't let them out unsupervised. If I see a strange dog or can't 100% trust them off leash, they are leashed or put securely in the house or yard. All it takes is closing the gate or door until it latches and won't give anymore. If that's not the case, we fix the door. Any time he wants to meet another dog I ask if she is spayed if it's not a male. Intact female? I keep distance.

The only way Louie could mate with a female in heat would be if she got to where he is, not the other way around.


----------



## pom (Jun 26, 2015)

BigLittle said:


> We neuter for convenience and just only have boy dogs. As a result, we only will neuter Louie if we think it will help his health when he is old.
> 
> Clyde was actually a raging hormone machine before we neutered at 2.5 years... No puppies.
> 
> ...


Your male chihuahua doesn't spray indoors?


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

pom said:


> Your male chihuahua doesn't spray indoors?


If you mean marking, no...not since he was an adolescent.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> This is my plan.
> 
> I had no issues keeping Jack and Thud intact, behaviourally, or in management, but I did ultimately neuter Jack at 8 because I needed him to gain weight and he was going to be knocked out for a dental and small lump removal so went ahead and tried it (after years of resisting). Worked like a charm to help him finally gain some weight.
> 
> ...


Yes, gaining weight is one of the most common reasons people give for deciding to neuter, so I did some reading and there is some weight to this theory. 

I of course don't plan to neuter my boy, because he hasn't given me a reason to (either behaviorally or otherwise).

I have read that neutering can change their drive and their temperament, though.


----------



## TravelingKoolie (Jan 4, 2011)

I have three intact males and one intact female I have to say, the single worst thing about it is the way other male dogs react to my boys. They get targeted often by other dogs because of being intact and dogs either get really obsessed with them or keep trying to start a fight. Though, females seem to love them.

My girl? The worst part is her coming into heat for comps. And the splitting the house in half when she's in heat. 

I'm probably always going to have intact dogs of all sexes, I prefer it and it's a not that big of deal ten and half months out of the year. 

I am really happy alternatives to traditional spay and neuters are becoming more available though, like vasectomies and ovary sparing spays. If I'm in a position where I need/want to alter I'll probably go that route. Didgie will more than likely get an OSS after she's bred. 

I am a big believe though in education. I really wonder how much the average person would be helped if they were told WHAT a heat looks like, that it doesn't end when the bleeding stops and what you need to do to prevent her getting bred rather than just "NO, ALTER, OH MY GOD NOW".


----------



## Max and Me (Aug 19, 2011)

I've had male dogs that were intact and dogs that were neutered. The same rules applied to all the dogs. It's a matter of training. I don't want my neutered male dog to get out and possibly get hit by a car or become a meal for another animal just as much as I wouldn't want an intact dog to get out and impregnate another dog. They are taught not to bolt for the doors and doors are kept shut and locked. If company comes over the dogs are put in another room before the door is even opened.


----------



## SirviRavenWind (Dec 1, 2014)

I currently have one intact of each sex, I have had several in the past. It is very easy to learn to deal with them if you so chose so I don't see why it should be such an issue. My best guess is that we have way to many uneducated, greedy or a mix of that and/or something else that S/N is needed.

I do find it annoying when I go to the petstore and someone just can't take that my male if intact--but I get over it, it is my dog and I will do what I want.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

TravelingKoolie said:


> I have three intact males and one intact female I have to say, the single worst thing about it is the way other male dogs react to my boys. They get targeted often by other dogs because of being intact and dogs either get really obsessed with them or keep trying to start a fight. Though, females seem to love them.
> 
> My girl? The worst part is her coming into heat for comps. And the splitting the house in half when she's in heat.
> 
> ...


In a lifetime of owning dogs... Most of which are of breeds that at least lean towards being DA.... Most of the crap starters I have met in my life, have been altered males....


----------



## Annageckos (Mar 21, 2015)

I have an intact male basset hound, he has never fathered a litter of pups. He is 13. My mom has an intact male Scottish Terrier and up until a year or so ago had an intact female Scottie too. The males get along great and play together when we visit. I also have an intact female Great Dane, but she is still a pup, around 7 months. If she is spayed it will not be until minimum of a year old. I feel that hormones are important, especially to a growing animal. As I understand it, it is less common to alter in other some other countries. They seem to do ok. Now surprisingly I'm never had a nasty comment about the male being intact. But I did have someone say "what a waste" when they asked if my Dane was spayed and I said not yet. I am leaning towards spaying our girl, but probably wouldn't or would hold off longer if we didn't have the intact male.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Here's something to think about when talking about intact males being in the same area as in season females. This summer USDAA agility had their regionals at an indoor facility in our state and they allowed in season females to complete. I saw several bitches inside the complex with their panties on and they were allowed to run last in their classes and were able to sit on a mat at the start line. 

I had Ocean there who is intact. We walked right by a bitch in season with her panties on...6' away. He didn't look a her, air scent, or acknowledge her presence as being out of the ordinary. He ran agility....off leash (and qualified in classes) for 3 days in a building where there were several bitches in season. If I didn't see the in season females myself, I would have never known they were there from Ocean's lack of reaction. He didn't leave the ring, he didn't act like a lunatic, and he was business as usual. And he's going to be 4 in November, so he is an adult male. 

So, this whole notion that dogs are sex crazed maniacs who can find a bitch in season a half mile away in the neighborhood is a bunch of crap in my experience.

I will edit to add...I won't do intact females because the heat cycles can side track showing in obedience and more normal agility events, moodiness around seasons, and false pregnancies.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Having done a lot of research recently about the altering of giant breeds, and reading multiple studies concerning the links between early stage spay/neuters and the likelihood of developing osteosarcoma (amongst other things), I lean heavily towards the idea of not altering a dog until it is at least fully grown. In giant breeds, this is around 2 years of age. Personally, I am not planning on neutering my Dane until the latter years of his life. 

The "accidental litter" argument kind of gets to me sometimes. Quite frankly, if someone is worried that their dog may escape their home/yard and produce an unwanted litter, I think reproducing should be pretty low on that owner's list of concerns. The dog getting hit by a car or into a conflict with another wandering animal or becoming permanently lost is much more likely than the dog finding another dog with which it can reproduce in a short period of time. So for the people making the "in case my dog gets out" argument, that just doesn't really hold up - there shouldn't be an "in case", in my opinion.

That being said, altering is great for people who don't want to deal with females in heat, or owners who have other intact dogs in the house and don't want to have to do the crate and switch, or people who do it for a myriad of other reasons. I just hope people do the research and neuter/spay at an appropriate age.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> Here's something to think about when talking about intact males being in the same area as in season females. This summer USDAA agility had their regionals at an indoor facility in our state and they allowed in season females to complete. I saw several bitches inside the complex with their panties on and they were allowed to run last in their classes and were able to sit on a mat at the start line.
> 
> I had Ocean there who is intact. We walked right by a bitch in season with her panties on...6' away. He didn't look a her, air scent, or acknowledge her presence as being out of the ordinary. He ran agility....off leash (and qualified in classes) for 3 days in a building where there were several bitches in season. If I didn't see the in season females myself, I would have never known they were there from Ocean's lack of reaction. He didn't leave the ring, he didn't act like a lunatic, and he was business as usual. And he's going to be 4 in November, so he is an adult male.
> 
> ...


 
And dogs show in conformation all the time with in-season bitches in the same ring as intact males. I don't notice any craziness going on there, either. Granted, the dogs are on leash, but it's not like they're desperately trying to get at each other and the handlers have to fight to keep them from doing so.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

It's widely acknowledged that my dog is kind of a adolescent idiot a lot of the time, and even he can work around intact females. He's distracted by other dogs in general, but it's based far more on appearance and mannerisms than whether it's an intact female. We worked at a seminar last summer next to female in heat (she was crated next to us as well) and he didn't react even a bit. When he was bred to Hazel's mother she was in our house for 3 days and he was fine. He was able to sleep on my lap while she was crated in the same room. The only time he has ever reacted to a female in heat he was about 12-18 months old and at a dog show, and he got a little wild and pulled on the leash when she was directly in front of us.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

And then you have dogs like Luna, who, when left loose outside, had a litter likely every time she was in heat since she reached maturity. So I doubt the boys were walking by all apathetic.

Certainly there are many factors to consider when determining what option is right for you and your dog.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> And then you have dogs like Luna, who, when left loose outside, had a litter likely every time she was in heat since she reached maturity. So I doubt the boys were walking by all apathetic.
> 
> Certainly there are many factors to consider when determining what option is right for you and your dog.


Nobody is saying that male dogs won't try to breed if they are free to do so and nobody is telling them to stop. But we are saying that it's not nearly as hard to manage as people seem to think.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Nobody is saying that male dogs won't try to breed if they are free to do so and nobody is telling them to stop. But we are saying that it's not nearly as hard to manage as people seem to think.


The impression I got was that people were trying to say that their dogs weren't even remotely interested in the in heat females, maybe I misunderstood!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> The impression I got was that people were trying to say that their dogs weren't even remotely interested in the in heat females, maybe I misunderstood!


All of the dogs mentioned, at least lately, are well handled and well trained. Of course Watson is interested, but he's also interested in stealing my dinner off the counter, and running after deer. They are all just impulse control and training issues. Some things are more difficult for individual dogs of course, but it's really not hard to manage if you manage your dog at all. Of course if you let him just roam the neighborhood and do whatever, he's going to do what he wants to do and finding intact females is probably on that list, along with a bunch of other fun things dogs want to do.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

ireth0 said:


> The impression I got was that people were trying to say that their dogs weren't even remotely interested in the in heat females, maybe I misunderstood!


Ocean was not interested in the in season female that we walked by or others in the building with us. Lars has done obedience shows in the same building as in season females. I'm trying to say that my dogs didn't try to tear themselves out of their fabric crates to go search out females in season to breed with. I even left my dogs unattended in those fabric crates in those situations and they were still there when I came back. 

When I had Lars collected this spring...they brought the in season bitch into the exam room with him. I had to lead him over to her and had to encourage him to interact with her. 

What I am trying to say that intact male dogs do not turn into sex driven zombies that will chew their way through concrete walls in order to find the female in season down the street as a lot of people who haven't ever owned intact male dogs seem to believe.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

It took Watson at least 20min to figure out what to do with the first in season bitch he met. Mostly he wanted to play with her. I will say that he become much faster though once he has experience, so a dog who has bred before is probably going to need more careful supervision if only because of the speed thing.


----------



## TravelingKoolie (Jan 4, 2011)

I think it's fair to say that the majority of intact males (and probably altered males) would be interested in an in heat female, especially in standing. Not all, and to various degrees of course but most are going to show at least passing interest. 

But, that doesn't mean they are incapable of listening. You train for it, you treat it as a distraction and you work on it. Other countries manage to do it because it's the way it is. It's just another thing they have to proof so it's on the owners of male dogs to do so, not the female owners to negate any chance of the other dogs having to deal with them. 

In the US it's put on the female dog owners. And because it's not common, most people don't train for it and aren't in a position to train for it. I think many people just think of it as "Mindless males can't handle an in heat dog so the female needs to go away." Kinda sound familiar to the human culture sometimes doesn't it? 

It's just like anything else, some dogs will be easier to work with and train in regards to it and others will be harder. One of my males is a little whiny during Didgie's heat and the other went off food for three days. But, I still work them around her and proof against it and I still expect them to listen.

ETA: Didgie missed a big disc comp last year due to being in heat and I really was upset and this year it's looking like she's headed the same way. Won't lie and say I don't really like the rules not allowing her to compete.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And then my mom says that when she was a kid (she grew up in Panama in a US government housing area), every time her dog went into heat, they'd have 30-50 dogs show up; some dogs they knew came from the other side of the housing area (not sure how big it was), some were street dogs, and they'd have to kick them away from the door because they would try to duck in between their legs to get inside. Everybody has a different story I guess.

There are similar stories in the James Herriott books. I guess there could be a discussion as to whether leash laws or neutering have had the biggest effect in reducing that kind of thing, but I for one am glad it's not like that anymore in most areas of the country.

In the "in retrospect" area of the local paper (where they print bits from past newspapers), from 50 years ago they had the requirements to get a "license to run free" for dogs. Males had to be castrated, females had to be locked up during heat, both genders needed rabies vaccines. At least they knew that much in 1965 .


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

When Freyja was in heat there were no male dogs showing up on our doorstep. My neighborhood is full of "lawn ornament dogs" a fair percentage of which are intact males and could easily have hopped a fence to get here but didn't. That is without taking into account the many intact males running the streets, they didn't show up on my doorstep, in my yard and most certainly were not trying to slip between my feet when I went outside. Somehow I managed to make it through without these hordes of dogs appearing. They may chase me when I walk my dogs on any given day (all of my female dogs are spayed now, they chase because they are DA) but they didn't show up at my house to court my in heat female dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And then my mom says that when she was a kid (she grew up in Panama in a US government housing area), every time her dog went into heat, they'd have 30-50 dogs show up; some dogs they knew came from the other side of the housing area (not sure how big it was), some were street dogs, and they'd have to kick them away from the door because they would try to duck in between their legs to get inside. Everybody has a different story I guess.
> 
> There are similar stories in the James Herriott books. I guess there could be a discussion as to whether leash laws or neutering have had the biggest effect in reducing that kind of thing, but I for one am glad it's not like that anymore in most areas of the country.
> 
> In the "in retrospect" area of the local paper (where they print bits from past newspapers), from 50 years ago they had the requirements to get a "license to run free" for dogs. Males had to be castrated, females had to be locked up during heat, both genders needed rabies vaccines. At least they knew that much in 1965 .


No offense to your Mother..... But I do not buy her tales of 30-50 dogs... I grew up in the country with dogs everywhere. We were one of the few families that kept our dogs contained. Between Dad, Granddaddy, and Great Granddaddy we nearly always had a bitch in heat on the property.... A roaming male was rare.... 

And using James Herriot to prove your point..... LMAO.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

IDK, if you don't want to believe me ask someone who lives in Panama, the Philippines, etc. (any urban area with a lot of loose intact dogs) currently. My cousins just moved here from Panama and say it hasn't changed much. One of them was volunteering with Spay Panama and they've been doing a lot so that's helped a little. Maybe things are hotter in the tropics .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Some males will be reactive to bitches during the entire heat. But a fair number will ignore them until they are in standing heat. 

In any case a bitch that is not in standing heat is not going to have anything to do with a male. In fact she is likely to be testy to downright tenacious in response to a dog's advances prior or post standing heat. More than one dog has had his face stitched up courtesy of a bitch rebuffing his advances. 


Heat does not cause a dog to become unmanageable... It does not cause a dog to be unworkable..... I have used in heat bitches as a training distraction... Frankly it is not that great of a distraction. A dog will work right past it....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> IDK, if you don't want to believe me ask someone who lives in Panama, the Philippines, etc. (any urban area with a lot of loose intact dogs) currently. My cousins just moved here from Panama and say it hasn't changed much. One of them was volunteering with Spay Panama and they've been doing a lot so that's helped a little. Maybe things are hotter in the tropics .


I live in Florida and saltwater fish... While I have not been specifically to Panama... I have been all over the Caribbean, Mexico, Trinidad, Belize, etc. Places with loads of street dogs.... And I find the 30-50 dog comment amusing.... 
And since this supposedly happened on a US government housing area..... Makes it downright laughable....


Another.... It is a fact, because my cousin's brother's Fiance's Dad's Lawn guy saw this happen story....


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> IDK, if you don't want to believe me ask someone who lives in Panama, the Philippines, etc. (any urban area with a lot of loose intact dogs) currently. My cousins just moved here from Panama and say it hasn't changed much. One of them was volunteering with Spay Panama and they've been doing a lot so that's helped a little. Maybe things are hotter in the tropics .


I have a coworker from the Philipines as well as several former coworkers. I'll try to remember to ask them tomorrow.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hehe. Hey, maybe my mom's memory is shot (everything is bigger when you're little) or she couldn't count well as a kid . Do you prefer "a butt-load of dogs" instead of exact numbers?  The dog did have a lot of puppies (my grandma confirmed) but I suppose that only takes one. 

I should tell her to start a topic on her forum and see what other people remember on the subject. My dad's childhood dog was spayed so he's no help.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm curious to see what they say, both have family currently living in the Philipines, so should be pretty accurate.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Hehe. Hey, maybe my mom's memory is shot (everything is bigger when you're little) or she couldn't count well as a kid . Do you prefer "a butt-load of dogs" instead of exact numbers?  I should tell her to start a topic on her forum and see what other people remember on the subject. My dad's childhood dog was spayed so he's no help.


I could care less if you use 30-50, buttload, or what ever....

Having been in many places with large numbers of street dogs.... I am not buying....

Frankly Willowy...... As much as you try to be an advocate of speuter or your dog will produce puppies...

The reality is far different..... And the facts contradict your diatribe......

1) A bitch can only become about 5 days during a heat cycle... That translates to 10 days a year....Given a first heat at 9 to 12 months and the fact that heats become less frequent as the bitch ages . Which translates to about 2 percent of a bitches life based on a 12 year lifespan... Heats beyond that are rare. 

2) While a dog might come to a bitch... Mass numbers of males outside your door is not going to happen. It is fantasy.... Not reality. Regardless of what you heard from your cousin's hair dresser's boyfriend... 

3) Managing intact dogs and bitches in the same home is easy.... Managing a single intact animal is no more difficult than managing an altered dog. 

4) Dogs do not become mindless zombies when they smell a bitch in heat. They still obey commands, will still work, still perform, etc. 

5) IF a person understands the basics of heat cycles as well as the physical signs... And still cannot easily manage the cycle without issue...Well... maybe they should not own dogs...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm sure shelters were killing 20 million pets in 1970 (10% of the human population!) because everybody was so responsible and good at keeping their pets contained. And of course the fact that now 80% of pet dogs are altered and back then they weren't means nothing . I do think we need to maintain a high percentage of neutered pets to keep "herd immunity" or we'll be right back to that point.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I'm sure shelters were killing 20 million pets in 1970 (10% of the human population!) because everybody was so responsible and good at keeping their pets contained. And of course the fact that now 80% of pet dogs are altered and back then they weren't means nothing . I do think we need to maintain a high percentage of neutered pets to keep "herd immunity" or we'll be right back to that point.


During the same time period leash and containment laws changed.... Dogs moved from the yard to the living room....

Yet you CLING to the speuter thing........

You even used yourself as an example... How absent minded you are..... Etc.... 

Frankly if you were as absent minded as you make yourself out to be, you would not be able to remember to feed and water the dogs much less keep from burning down your house or remember to go to work for that matter....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Right. Nevermind that the dogs tell me when they're hungry and work is a regularly scheduled thing. I'm sure it's not different at all .

I guess I just don't see all the wonderfully responsible dog owners you seem to know. And it doesn't seem particularly difficult for a dog to get pregnant to me. There don't seem to be any shortage of "free puppy" ads anyway.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> IDK, if you don't want to believe me ask someone who lives in Panama, the Philippines, etc. (any urban area with a lot of loose intact dogs) currently. My cousins just moved here from Panama and say it hasn't changed much. One of them was volunteering with Spay Panama and they've been doing a lot so that's helped a little. Maybe things are hotter in the tropics .


I do not have to ask anyone.... I have been on a bunch of Bahamian Islands. Belize, Mexico, Costa Rica, Trinidad, Several Virgin Islands, Jamaica, Puerto Rico.... I have plenty of exposure to third world street dogs....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Right. Nevermind that the dogs tell me when they're hungry and work is a regularly scheduled thing. I'm sure it's not different at all .
> 
> I guess I just don't see all the wonderfully responsible dog owners you seem to know. And it doesn't seem particularly difficult for a dog to get pregnant to me. There don't seem to be any shortage of "free puppy" ads anyway.


Never said all dog owners are responsible.... But the fact remains.... IF a person can attend to their dog's basic needs.... They can manage a heat.....

And if you rely on your dogs to tell you they are hungry.... You have no worries... Your dogs speak ten times louder of someone is in heat.... 


Let me ask you this.... You say you are absent minded... how do you remember when it is time for your animals to get routine vet care? Shots etc.... 

Down here, most vets send out reminders.... But if someone is SO absent minded... They will not remember their appointment date, even with the reminder letter...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I hear of "responsible" show breeders having oopses all the time. I believe several dogs on this forum are the result of an oops litter from a responsible show breeder. You're insulting an awful lot of people there. 

Smartphones are nice for forgetful people .


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I hear of "responsible" show breeders having oopses all the time. I believe several dogs on this forum are the result of an oops litter from a responsible show breeder. You're insulting an awful lot of people there.
> 
> Smartphones are nice for forgetful people .


Lol, I highly doubt that. And I know of ONE oops litter from a responsible breeder here, and the dog in question wasn't in the breeder's possession when she got pregnant, so it still doesn't validate your claim.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I hear of "responsible" show breeders having oopses all the time. I believe several dogs on this forum are the result of an oops litter from a responsible show breeder. You're insulting an awful lot of people there.
> 
> Smartphones are nice for forgetful people .


First of all...


> I hear of "responsible" show breeders having oopses all the time.


Secondly...


> I believe several dogs on this forum are the result of an oops litter from a responsible show breeder.


Name them....

Third....


> You're insulting an awful lot of people there.


I am insulting No one.... Including you....

You on the other hand are going out of your way to attempt to prove a point. 

I do not know whether to laugh or feel bad for you. Because it is pretty pathetic.


You would not need a smartphone to manage intact dogs. 







What this boils down to is..... More reaching.... More obscure rumors or frankly things you made up.... To try to prove a point you cannot prove...

In short just more...... 


> I hear of


Which translates to yet another in a long line of...... "someone I work with, heard of someone, that knew a person, that ran into someone in a convenience store, that used to be married to someone, whose mother, knew a lady, that did manicures for someone that verified this actually happened.... " 

But by all means.... Keep digging...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL. I feel no need to justify myself. I KNOW that spay/neuter saves lives. I just like to provide an opposing viewpoint for lurkers, because, jeez, if anyone stumbles on these arguments they'd be awfully one-sided otherwise.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> LOL. I feel no need to justify myself. I KNOW that spay/neuter saves lives. I just like to provide an opposing viewpoint for lurkers, because, jeez, if anyone stumbles on these arguments they'd be awfully one-sided otherwise.


Funny.... For someone that has no need to justify themselves, you have been working awful hard on it... Including all your vague stories..... Your putting yourself down as someone that is probably not competent enough to own pets and all the masses on this forum that have dogs from oops litters from responsible breeders... 

If you were trying to justify or strengthen your position.... It did not work... You weakened it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I like debating . 

Hmm, Molly is an accidental mix from a breeder some would consider responsible (working not showing) and I'm pretty sure there are a few that came from pairings the breeder did not intend, although they're still purebred. . .there was a thread once, I'll see if I can find it. There was a breeder here a long time ago who vehemently defended breeders who had oopses as not irresponsible as long as they took care of the pups and so there was a lot of discussion back then.

The difference being, breeders who have oopses still have purebred or half-purebred pups and a lot of resources to find good homes for them. For a pet owner it's very different.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I like debating .
> 
> .


That is not what you are doing.. But okay....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Let's see. . .I didn't read all 7 pages but in the first 3 there are quite a few mentions of oopses from show breeders and defending of same: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/37158-accidental-litters.html

(adding more later)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Let's see. . .I didn't read all 7 pages but in the first 3 there are quite a few mentions of oopses from show breeders and defending of same: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/37158-accidental-litters.html
> 
> (adding more later)


Ummm... No... In the first three pages.... Xeph started a thread about a dog that became pregnant in the care of a handler... And that is a whole other argument... But not a breeder.
Then two mentions of oops litters.... 

And I took the time to read all seven pages..... 

Your assertion that.... 


> but in the first 3 there are quite a few mentions of oopses from show breeders


NEVER happened.... And beyond page 3 the thread becomes a big argument with no additional mention of an oops litter....

So now you are going from "cousin brother's girfriend's co worker's hairdresser comments... To false statements.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Wow. I'm not getting in a cut-and-paste war but there are several mentions of this happening to other people. But meh. Everyone knows how to use the search function.

Seriously. Label me as irresponsible as you like. It doesn't change anything---I'll always have pets and people like me will always have pets. And spay/neuter will always be available, thank goodness. I hope not too many people jump on the "don't alter" bandwagon.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Wow. I'm not getting in a cut-and-paste war but there are several mentions of this happening to other people. But meh. Everyone knows how to use the search function.


No... There are two.... But you said.... Quite a few..... In the first three pages....

And now you are calling it a cut and paste battle.... LOL




Willowy said:


> Seriously. Label me as irresponsible as you like.


I did NOT label you as irresponsible..... Quite the opposite.... I stated that I felt you were quite capable of taking care of your dogs.....

You on the other hand have spent several pages attempting to paint yourself as irresponsible.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

You don't know me. You don't know my circumstances at all. If I were someone who believed you and the anti-speuter propaganda, to the point where I attempted to keep an intact dog. . .well, I'd send YOU the puppies so you could find homes for them . You have the resources and I decidedly do not. Encouraging people you don't know to keep their dogs intact is irresponsible, IMO.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> You don't know me. You don't know my circumstances at all. If I were someone who believed you and the anti-speuter propaganda, to the point where I attempted to keep an intact dog. . .well, I'd send YOU the puppies so you could find homes for them . You have the resources and I decidedly do not. Encouraging people you don't know to keep their dogs intact is irresponsible, IMO.


So you are saying all of your assertions that you are not a capable dog owner are correct? 


And by the way.... I am not anti speuter.... I have never said that I was.... Again.... You like to put words into peoples mouths where they do not exist... 

And I spew no propaganda.... Just reality.....


You however.... love propaganda.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Look, you can say that anyone who needs to alter their dog for birth control is irresponsible or incapable all you want. Knock yerself out. But we'll still have dogs, and thankfully we'll always have the option of altering. 

And LOL, not propaganda. There was a link posted early in this thread that was the most one-sided, cherry-picked thing I've ever read on any subject. OMG, my dogs are gonna diiiiiieeeee!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Look, you can say that anyone who needs to alter their dog for birth control is irresponsible or incapable all you want.


I NEVER said that...

You did.....


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

For most suburbanites, keeping a single-sex pack of intact dogs is literally as easy as fixing any broken doors, having the habit of latching every door/gate/fence, training the dogs door manners, and reinforcing a semi-decent recall. The chances of the dog getting loose and blowing the owner off would be so slim, the stars would have to perfectly align for a female to get impregnated during one of those rare moments.

I'm very absent-minded myself, to the point where mu dad and I squabble over it. Every time the dogs have gotten loose on my watch was from pure laziness, not forgetfulness. Even then, the dogs came back every time. I think you are selling yourself short, Willowy.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Where I lived by a colonia in South Texas there were packs of stray street dogs and they definitely got up to congregating and making a ruckus from time to time over bitches in heat. Not 30-50 of them, but at least a dozen at a time if I had to guesstimate. It came as a surprise to me because I had never seen a pack of strays before moving there, or really seen much of stray dogs at all. My elderly dog is from an accidental litter down there...her dam was a junkyard dog and a male got in through the fence somehow, knocked her up.

Keeping intact dogs contained is a very realistic thing IF you have the right home setup for it AND if everyone in the household is responsible and on board AND if you don't have a dog that's talented at escaping. Not always so realistic if there are young kids, certain elders, no 'airlocking' between the outside world and the part of the house where the dogs live (i.e. no fences or mudrooms), dogs that are houdinis, etc. IDK, I've heard plenty of people who talk about how easy it is to manage an intact dog, talking in a later conversation about how the dog got away from them or went missing or whatever. If the dog is really "sticky" and the owners are actually consistent at keeping it contained, super. But desexing is a legit responsible option for the rest of the world. Are traffic and predators and the like a bigger concern to a loose dog? Sure. But if you do get the dog back safely, no reason to add pregnancy and a bunch of unwanted pups to the list of problems.

I had a dog who once opened a closed window, popped out the screen, climbed outside, then climbed the chainlink fence and went on a walkabout. Taking his balls off was a smart choice for everyone.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Sure! Molly is (though not a show breeder). 

She didn't have to let the pregnancy go. She chose to, because she knew she could find homes that would keep the dogs forever and she was confident in the health and working ability of both dogs. No big deal, there. She didn't have to let the pregnancy carry on. She had the option to the shots as easily as anyone else.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

parus said:


> Where I lived by a colonia in South Texas there were packs of stray street dogs and they definitely got up to congregating and making a ruckus from time to time over bitches in heat. Not 30-50 of them, but at least a dozen at a time if I had to guesstimate. It came as a surprise to me because I had never seen a pack of strays before moving there, or really seen much of stray dogs at all. My elderly dog is from an accidental litter down there...her dam was a junkyard dog and a male got in through the fence somehow, knocked her up.
> 
> Keeping intact dogs contained is a very realistic thing IF you have the right home setup for it AND if everyone in the household is responsible and on board AND if you don't have a dog that's talented at escaping. Not always so realistic if there are young kids, certain elders, no 'airlocking' between the outside world and the part of the house where the dogs live (i.e. no fences or mudrooms), dogs that are houdinis, etc. IDK, I've heard plenty of people who talk about how easy it is to manage an intact dog, talking in a later conversation about how the dog got away from them or went missing or whatever. If the dog is really "sticky" and the owners are actually consistent at keeping it contained, super. But desexing is a legit responsible option for the rest of the world. Are traffic and predators and the like a bigger concern to a loose dog? Sure. But if you do get the dog back safely, no reason to add pregnancy and a bunch of unwanted pups to the list of problems.
> 
> I had a dog who once opened a closed window, popped out the screen, climbed outside, then climbed the chainlink fence and went on a walkabout. Taking his balls off was a smart choice for everyone.


I suppose I'm just confused about who all of these people are who are losing their dogs? An escape artist pup like yours is one thing, but I have to imagine that not many dogs are capable of that kind of thing. 

To me, there are surefire ways to not lose your dog and therefore to be able to keep them intact without a problem, and they should be things that every pet owner is doing regardless of whether the dog is intact or not. Make sure fencing is adequate and there are no holes, make sure doors and gates are latched, provide careful supervision to a dog when it is in the yard and even more careful supervision if the dog is an "escape artist". 

I've owned dogs since I was 5 years old; I was not then and am not now perfect or perfectly responsible by any means. To me, it is simply an obligation that *every* owner has to their pet - to keep them safe and out of harm's way, whether they be intact or not. I suppose, since I was raised around horses, and horses (especially studs) can be a really big problem if something 'happens' and they break loose, I've had it ingrained in me that things like open gates, holes in fences, etc, can't happen. Not should not, but *cannot*. If I didn't have that background, perhaps I'd feel differently.

I have recently made the decision to leave my dogs intact from here on out in my life, and the question "what if they escape and impregnate a female or get pregnant?" never crossed my mind. My dogs escaping and being put in danger of traffic, other animals, etc, is simply not an option.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I live in an area that a loose dog could very well end up being a dead dog with the non stop traffic one street over. Not to mention that people tend to have a much different attitude about a Rottweiler running amok in a neighborhood than a lab mix or smaller dog. I have a responsibility to my breed to not be so forgetful about basic containment that my rottweilers are running at large. I live by mantra of "never give my neighbors a reason to hate my rottweilers." I guess when you have one of "those breeds" you **should** take things like remembering to close a gate more seriously when it's your breed the BSL nuts love to hate. 



> I've had it ingrained in me that things like open gates, holes in fences, etc, can't happen. Not should not, but *cannot*. If I didn't have that background, perhaps I'd feel differently.


I grew up with horses, cows, sheep, and dogs...I fully agree with the above. Open gates, stall doors, etc. could not happen. I took that programming from childhood into adulthood with me.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> I suppose I'm just confused about who all of these people are who are losing their dogs? An escape artist pup like yours is one thing, but I have to imagine that not many dogs are capable of that kind of thing.


Agreed. And Willowy has a snake, which are far greater escape artists than any dog, lol. If she can keep her snake contained, she can absolutely keep a dog contained. 

I spoke to my co-worker with family in the Philippines. His brother has six dogs currently, has always had multiple dogs, including intact females, and they are all outside dogs, kept in their large fenced in yard. My co-worker grew up there, and his family also had outside dogs growing up, including intact females. He confirmed that they do have a large stray dog population, that females in heat roaming loose will definitely be bred, but that he has NEVER had an issue with male dogs congregating outside his fence, trying to get at females in heat, and in fact, despite having intact females, kept OUTSIDE, has never had a single pregnancy.

Still waiting to hear from my former co-worker, but I expect he'll say the same.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Just spoke to my former co-worker, he has lived in both the Caribbean and the Philippines and has family still living in the Philippines. He's actually going out to visit them next week. I asked him about his experiences, and he said that he has never seen the scenario that Willowy described in either the Philippines or the Caribbean in all his time living there, nor has he ever seen it in any of the numerous other third world countries he has traveled through. I pretty much read Willowy's post about what her mother said she experienced in Panama verbatim, and he laughed and said that absolutely nothing like that ever happened, and went on to say it sounded more like something you'd see in a werewolf movie, lol.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Kuma'sMom said:


> Just spoke to my former co-worker, he has lived in both the Caribbean and the Philippines and has family still living in the Philippines. He's actually going out to visit them next week. I asked him about his experiences, and he said that he has never seen the scenario that Willowy described in either the Philippines or the Caribbean in all his time living there, nor has he ever seen it in any of the numerous other third world countries he has traveled through. I pretty much read Willowy's post about what her mother said she experienced in Panama verbatim, and he laughed and said that absolutely nothing like that ever happened, and went on to say it sounded more like something you'd see in a werewolf movie, lol.


Can't say that I'm not that surprised... LOL


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> Can't say that I'm not that surprised... LOL


Oh me neither, but since Willowy challenged us to ask anyone from countries like the Philippines, and I happened to know people from there, I figured I'd oblige her.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I don't have a problem with dog savvy people handling an intact dog. I think the difficulty is blown out of proportion. 

That being said.. Joe Schmoe public has NO clue what they are doing. They can't even brush their Goldendoodles and then yell at the groomer when their dog had to be shaved bald since it was matted to the skin (they had no idea!). They can't house train their dogs correctly. They don't know anything about training in general (a well trained intact dog is one thing.. but not trained..). I don't know anyone who is very good at or okay with the idea of crate and rotate. Families with kids are way more at risk for doors/gates etc being open. They LOVE their dogs. They make sure they are fed and loved, and treated like family. But they are clueless. No. I don't encourage joe schmoe public to keep their dogs intact. Definitely not the average family pet. They aren't careful enough.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, at least parus has seen it. I know it's not entirely wrong . 



> the dogs came back every time


Of course they come back. It's what they get up to in the time they're gone. 

When I first got Moose (he wasn't neutered yet) he disappeared overnight (I do not know how the gate got open). I have no idea if he fathered a litter or not. Of course at the time I was more worried about him being shot or run over but once he was back safe I could consider the other possibilities. And, if he did get killed that would be only one dog's life but if he fathered an unwanted litter that could be 10-15 dogs' lives lost. I'm not comfortable with that risk at all.

My snake doesn't try to escape. Do they usually do that? I mean, he presses on the screen top sometimes but he doesn't make a mad dash for freedom when I open the top or try to get away when I hold him. I did accidentally leave his top unlatched once but he didn't get out, thankfully. I hope he doesn't get more motivated to get out later in life :/. 

I guess I must know a lot of flamingly irresponsible people or something because I don't think this is unusual. I don't know anyone who hasn't lost track of their pet at least once. One friend's housecat got out and was missing for 3 weeks (!), and I didn't consider her irresponsible for that. Stuff happens.


----------



## GHill762 (Jul 13, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I don't have a problem with dog savvy people handling an intact dog. I think the difficulty is blown out of proportion.
> 
> That being said.. Joe Schmoe public has NO clue what they are doing. They can't even brush their Goldendoodles and then yell at the groomer when their dog had to be shaved bald since it was matted to the skin (they had no idea!). They can't house train their dogs correctly. They don't know anything about training in general (a well trained intact dog is one thing.. but not trained..). I don't know anyone who is very good at or okay with the idea of crate and rotate. Families with kids are way more at risk for doors/gates etc being open. They LOVE their dogs. They make sure they are fed and loved, and treated like family. But they are clueless. No. I don't encourage joe schmoe public to keep their dogs intact. Definitely not the average family pet. They aren't careful enough.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> I don't have a problem with dog savvy people handling an intact dog. I think the difficulty is blown out of proportion.
> 
> That being said.. Joe Schmoe public has NO clue what they are doing. They can't even brush their Goldendoodles and then yell at the groomer when their dog had to be shaved bald since it was matted to the skin (they had no idea!). They can't house train their dogs correctly. They don't know anything about training in general (a well trained intact dog is one thing.. but not trained..). I don't know anyone who is very good at or okay with the idea of crate and rotate. Families with kids are way more at risk for doors/gates etc being open. They LOVE their dogs. They make sure they are fed and loved, and treated like family. But they are clueless. No. I don't encourage joe schmoe public to keep their dogs intact. Definitely not the average family pet. They aren't careful enough.


I'd argue that if a family is incapable of making sure their dog is safe and contained, the dog is not treated like "family". I started horseback riding at the age of 7. Even at that age, it was impressed upon me that leaving gates/doors/stalls open was unacceptable. I'm not an exceptional animal owner nor do I have an exceptional memory (well, I do, but for numbers, not for stuff like this), it's just all about impressing upon everyone in the family the responsibility that comes with dog ownership. 



Willowy said:


> Well, at least parus has seen it. I know it's not entirely wrong .
> 
> 
> Of course they come back. It's what they get up to in the time they're gone.
> ...


On the other hand, I don't know anyone who has actually lost their dog for a period of time longer than about two minutes (which was me, when Little Dog ran into a stand of tall bushes about 30 yards from where I was standing and I couldn't see him digging a hole). And not all of the people I know are educated, fabulous dog owners. Actually, most of them fall in the realm of very "normal" dog owners who give their dogs human traits, believe in pack theory and think that their dogs understand the English language in its most basic form. 

Keeping a dog contained and out of harm's way, intact or not, is a rule that should be at the very basis of dog ownership, along with "feed it, exercise it, clean up after it and love it".


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

In a perfect world. 

Seriously.. I keep seeing those saying "well I was taught from a young age"! That doesn't mean that others were. I don't know all of these super responsible people that can always keep their dogs contained. Invisible fences, leaving dogs in fenced in back yards to exercise themselves and dogs that just stay in the yard are all normal things here. Each of which could end up in a dog pregnancy. AKA dogs are generally "contained" but not the best.

Edit - Also, different areas may or may not be more responsible. My experience is different than yours.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I think we all need to remember that MOST dog owners are not like members of this forum in the sense that their dogs aren't a (or -the-) high priority in their life. Most people have dogs, the dogs are around, maybe they get a daily walk, maybe they get played with, they're *there* but they're not one of the main focuses of their life. That doesn't mean they're not loved, or that they're neglected, they just don't approach dog ownership the same way many of us do.

I know we have neighbours who seem to think it's their kids' job to look after the dog. I've brought the dog back to them after it got loose and the mother made a comment about the kids forgetting they left him outside. I know as a kid we hardly ever took our dog for a walk. I've had a dog rush us in our neighbourhood that somehow got free from a leash, and the owner meandered over like it was so not a high concern to them. Hell, my -dad's- dog still isn't house trained at 2 years old.

So... no, not everyone is hyper vigilant with their dogs. Should they be? Of course! But that doesn't change reality.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> In a perfect world.
> 
> Seriously.. I keep seeing those saying "well I was taught from a young age"! That doesn't mean that others were. I don't know all of these super responsible people that can always keep their dogs contained. Invisible fences, leaving dogs in fenced in back yards to exercise themselves and dogs that just stay in the yard are all normal things here. Each of which could end up in a dog pregnancy. AKA dogs are generally "contained" but not the best.


But none of those things *should* result in a pregnancy... Containing a dog in "not the best" way, or in a way that allows for escape, is basically not containing the dog at all, isn't it?

If someone uses an invisible fence, they should be sure that the dog won't just charge through. Otherwise, again, an accidental pregnancy is a secondary concern to traffic and the safety of other people/animals.

If a dog is left in a fenced back yard to "exercise itself", the yard should be secure and provide no room for escape. If someone has an "escape artist" dog, then either improve the containment area or don't leave the dog unsupervised. 

I just come at it from a different point of view. It's generally acknowledged on this forum that if we don't want a puppy to do something "bad", it requires constant supervision or crating to prevent that behavior. Why does that go away when the dog hits a year old, or two? Why is it suddenly okay to leave a dog unsupervised or loose for hours at a time because it's older? Dogs require a lifetime of supervision, not just the initial 12 months (or however long) until they're full grown adults. In my opinion, of course.

I think that a lot of people are spaying and neutering their dogs too early in their lifetimes, and the dog's health is negatively effected as a result, because they think "what if it gets out and gets pregnant or impregnates a female"? The dog's health is taking a back seat to the owner's inability to safely contain it. There is a whole unnecessary kind of fear culture and weird propaganda about intact dogs and how "leaving your dog intact means future generations of puppies that will die". It's all a bit overblown.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There's no actual proof that early spay/neuter negatively affects a dog's health or that making that choice means you're making the choice to ruin your dog's health. The studies are extremely varied and inconsistent. There are pros and cons on both sides. So, yeah, make your own choices but please don't say that someone who chooses to speuter their dog young is deliberately trading their dog's health for convenience. Just because you chose a different set of risks doesn't make that choice clearly better for all dogs and owners.

And look: I'm pretty sure everyone was "taught from a young age" not to leave a candle burning or the stove on. And I'm pretty sure everyone is highly motivated to keep their house from burning down. But do those things happen? Absolutely. Because people forget things, get distracted, whatever. Stuff happens.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

ireth0 said:


> I think we all need to remember that MOST dog owners are not like members of this forum in the sense that their dogs aren't a (or -the-) high priority in their life. Most people have dogs, the dogs are around, maybe they get a daily walk, maybe they get played with, they're *there* but they're not one of the main focuses of their life. That doesn't mean they're not loved, or that they're neglected, they just don't approach dog ownership the same way many of us do.
> 
> I know we have neighbours who seem to think it's their kids' job to look after the dog. I've brought the dog back to them after it got loose and the mother made a comment about the kids forgetting they left him outside. I know as a kid we hardly ever took our dog for a walk. I've had a dog rush us in our neighbourhood that somehow got free from a leash, and the owner meandered over like it was so not a high concern to them. Hell, my -dad's- dog still isn't house trained at 2 years old.
> 
> So... no, not everyone is hyper vigilant with their dogs. Should they be? Of course! But that doesn't change reality.


This. So much this.

I watch a local re-home pets on FB. The number of oopsies that could have been prevented if someone just got their dog spayed...

Most of the time it's not even about containment either. It's generally two dogs of opposite sexes, both intact in the same household. I definitely don't encourage people to keep them intact because it is "healthier" and just say "Oh well JUST crate and rotate.. it's EASY!".


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> My snake doesn't try to escape. Do they usually do that? I mean, he presses on the screen top sometimes but he doesn't make a mad dash for freedom when I open the top or try to get away when I hold him. I did accidentally leave his top unlatched once but he didn't get out, thankfully. I hope he doesn't get more motivated to get out later in life :/.


I don't know a single snake keeper, myself included, that has not lost a snake at least once, so I'd count on it. You won't see them escape, but if there's any way to get out, they'll find it, and you'll wake up to an empty viv. The good news is that they rarely stay lost for long, but snakes are insane escape artists.



> I guess I must know a lot of flamingly irresponsible people or something because I don't think this is unusual. I don't know anyone who hasn't lost track of their pet at least once. One friend's housecat got out and was missing for 3 weeks (!), and I didn't consider her irresponsible for that. Stuff happens.


Most of my extended family and all of my closest friends are pet owners, and I can honestly say that not one of them has ever lost a pet beyond having a dog run out of an opened door and being corralled back into the house within minutes. And even then, after having it happen and discovering the dog in question was a door bolter, precautions were taken and there were no repeat escapes. And the majority of my friends/family are what you would consider average pet owners. It's just not that hard.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> There's no actual proof that early spay/neuter negatively affects a dog's health or that making that choice means you're making the choice to ruin your dog's health. The studies are extremely varied and inconsistent. There are pros and cons on both sides. So, yeah, make your own choices but please don't say that someone who chooses to speuter their dog young is deliberately trading their dog's health for convenience. Just because you chose a different set of risks doesn't make that choice clearly better for all dogs and owners.
> 
> And look: I'm pretty sure everyone was "taught from a young age" not to leave a candle burning or the stove on. And I'm pretty sure everyone is highly motivated to keep their house from burning down. But do those things happen? Absolutely. Because people forget things, get distracted, whatever. Stuff happens.


There is quite a lot of proof that early spay/neuter negatively effects a dog's health. Cardiac tumors are more likely to appear in altered dogs. Early spay/neuter can also lead to abnormal bone growth, a higher rate of ACL ruptures and hip dysplasia.

A study of Rotts in 2002 established the risk for bone cancer in dogs spayed/neutered at an early age was greatly increased, and that the risk for bone cancer was increased twofold in altered dogs. This one is close to my heart because I neutered my dog at 10 months and he passed from osteosarcoma recently at the age of six years. I'm not making the 'it happened to me and therefore it's true argument', but the article presents very convincing data collected from a large pool of dog owners. 

This article provides links to multiple scientific studies done and their outcomes: Here. (I also have various other information and studies saved, this article just happens to have links to a few relevant studies that I'm aware of.)

I've seen you make a lot of statements in this article about how 50 intact males showed up outside a house with an in heat female inside, etc. I'd urge you to make sure you have proof and have done research about things before saying them. This forum is a powerful tool for people who have a lot of dog knowledge to communicate with perhaps lesser informed dog owners who come here for guidance. If someone posts on this forum asking about spaying/neutering their dog at 8 months old and I see someone say "do it, you'll make sure that you don't produce litters of puppies that will die because they aren't wanted", I'll be incredibly disappointed. *Do the research* BEFORE giving advice or making statements that are merely repeating the propaganda that we have all been fed for years.

ETA: "Do the research" DOES NOT mean that you're going to read something and all of a sudden agree with me. Personally, I'm off to try to find some information about early spay/neuter and researchers arguing that it *doesn't* negatively effect a dog's health to see what evidence they present and see if it at all informs my opinion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Calculus isn't hard either, for people who know calculus well and like doing it. "Hard" and "easy" are extremely subjective and relative to the individual.

Mercola is an extremely propaganda-ish site. I take anything they say with a large grain of salt (even the stuff I personally agree with, LOL If someone actually reads the actual studies (instead of somebody else's interpretations of them), any increases in risk still end up with a very low total risk, and are mostly balanced out by the risks on the other side (having female reproductive organs is THE biggest cancer risk anyone can ever have :/).


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

As an adult there are lots of things I -should- do that are 'easy' but I just don't because they're not a high priority to me.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Also while I'm thinking of it; not everyone grew up having pets, or with family that had pets, so the day to day things people used to having pets think about don't necessarily occur to them. You don't know what you don't know, you know?

It's great that so many of you had it drilled into you at a young age to take these precautions, but many people don't have the benefit from that experience. 

It's not like there's a barrier to entry to pet ownership. I'm sure I could go online and take a puppy home with me tonight from some random kijiji litter if I wanted to.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Calculus isn't hard either, for people who know calculus well and like doing it. "Hard" and "easy" are extremely subjective and relative to the individual.
> 
> Mercola is an extremely propaganda-ish site. I take anything they say with a large grain of salt. If someone actually reads the actual studies (instead of somebody else's interpretations of them), any increases in risk still end up with a very low total risk, and are mostly balanced out by the risks on the other side (having female reproductive organs is THE biggest cancer risk anyone can ever have :/).


Yup, wasn't linking for the site, was linking for the links to the studies. 



> Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact [RR +/-95% CI = 3.8 (1.5-9.2) for males; RR +/-95% CI = 3.1 (1.1-8.3) for females]


Not sure what you consider a "low risk", but 25% for a cancer that will kill your dog in 10-18 months if you're lucky and less than that if you aren't is too much of a risk for me.

I will stick by what I said in my first post on this thread: If you're (general 'you' here) spaying/neutering because your dog is frequently running loose, then spaying/neutering shouldn't be on the top of your list of concerns. Do the research. Know your breed. Make the choice that makes most sense considering the research you've done and the breed you own, and don't ever spay/neuter before the dog is done developing, whether that be at 14 months or 24 months.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ireth0 said:


> As an adult there are lots of things I -should- do that are 'easy' but I just don't because they're not a high priority to me.


Yeah, but beyond that. . .like I said, I'm pretty sure not burning the house down is a high priority for, oh, everybody. And yet, house fires still happen, and not just because of bad wiring or whatever. Nobody MEANS to leave the stove on, but, well, stuff happens. A breach in containment can still happen to people who prioritize containing their pets.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> In a perfect world.
> 
> Seriously.. I keep seeing those saying "well I was taught from a young age"! That doesn't mean that others were. I don't know all of these super responsible people that can always keep their dogs contained. Invisible fences, leaving dogs in fenced in back yards to exercise themselves and dogs that just stay in the yard are all normal things here. Each of which could end up in a dog pregnancy. AKA dogs are generally "contained" but not the best.
> 
> Edit - Also, different areas may or may not be more responsible. My experience is different than yours.


I have to agree with this. Here's what I was taught from a young age:


1. Dogs are fun, but they live in the yard, not the house.

2. When they get out of the yard (not if), you chase them around the neighborhood till you catch them, if you catch them. If you don't, you get another dog.

3. Female dogs should be spayed, but not till they've had one litter.

4. Puppies are adorable, but when they're weaned you take them to the pound.

5. Don't even mention neutering males.


But I did eventually learn better. People can become educated, if they want to be. Trouble is, so few people want to be.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

The issue at hand in my mind is saying "Spay and neuter your pets or they WILL mate with another dog and fill the shelter up with oopsie litters" versus saying "Spay and neuter your pets if you are unwilling to keep them reliably contained or they could have an oopsie litter." (As a general statement. I am well aware of the rare canine houdinis)

The former is hysteria and the latter is caution.

I would put properly containing an intact dog up with potty training a dog. It's easy to do, it's mostly based on developing habits, and not every owner wants to do it. When we looked for a fixer for our previous house, the number of houses where owners just let their dogs pee wherever inside was horrifying. In fact, our last house was one of them before we moved in... For the uneducated dog owner, I agree S/N is a must. But it is not a must for someone who is capable enough as a dog owner. It is convenience (for the educated owner generally) and I have no problem as long as it is recognized as such.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, but beyond that. . .like I said, I'm pretty sure not burning the house down is a high priority for, oh, everybody. And yet, house fires still happen, and not just because of bad wiring or whatever. Nobody MEANS to leave the stove on, but, well, stuff happens. A breach in containment can still happen to people who prioritize containing their pets.


I think the point has been missed... Spaying or neutering your dog because they may escape once or twice in their lifetime is kind of overkill. If your dog is getting out and roaming around for hours every week, there are underlying problems there. The odds of an intact dog escaping once or twice in their lifetime, finding another intact dog and impregnating it or getting pregnant are just ridiculously low. 

If someone wants to spay because mammary carcinoma is the most common tumor in intact females, then great, that's a good reason. If they simply don't want to deal with the mess of a heat cycle, also a good reason. If there are other intact dogs in the house and no one wants to play ring-around-the-crate, then that's another good reason. But spaying/neutering because your dog may one day be roaming the streets and creating unwanted litters is (in my book) not a good reason.

*shrug* To each their own. Currently none of my dogs are intact, yet containing my pets isn't a "priority", because it's not an option to do anything else.



BigLittle said:


> I would put properly containing an intact dog up with potty training a dog. It's easy to do, it's mostly based on developing habits, and not every owner wants to do it. When we looked for a fixer for our previous house, the number of houses where owners just let their dogs pee wherever inside was horrifying. In fact, our last house was one of them before we moved in... *For the uneducated dog owner, I agree S/N is a must.* But it is not a must for someone who is capable enough as a dog owner. It is convenience (for the educated owner generally) and I have no problem as long as it is recognized as such.


ETA: Bolded section: The uneducated dog owner can still find themselves with a breed that shouldn't be spayed or neutered until several years into its life. Instead of saying "it's a must" and making dog owners think that they should just do it "as soon as humanly possible", some form of communication needs to happen that tells people that "as soon as humanly possible" can have a lot of negative side effects. Because of the hysteria that you mentioned earlier in your post, a lot of dog owners are running to the vet as soon as they can in order to spay/neuter. I'd like to promote education and research instead of hysteria if at all humanly possible. I feel like a few pages into this thread, the hysteria-promoting started. Which exactly contradicts what I feel like the goal of this forum is - to discuss and help educate others.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> The issue at hand in my mind is saying "Spay and neuter your pets or they WILL mate with another dog and fill the shelter up with oopsie litters" versus saying "Spay and neuter your pets if you are unwilling to keep them reliably contained or they could have an oopsie litter." (As a general statement. I am well aware of the rare canine houdinis)
> 
> The former is hysteria and the latter is caution.
> 
> I would put properly containing an intact dog up with potty training a dog. It's easy to do, it's mostly based on developing habits, and not every owner wants to do it. When we looked for a fixer for our previous house, the number of houses where owners just let their dogs pee wherever inside was horrifying. In fact, our last house was one of them before we moved in... For the uneducated dog owner, I agree S/N is a must. But it is not a must for someone who is capable enough as a dog owner. It is convenience (for the educated owner generally) and I have no problem as long as it is recognized as such.


VERY well said.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Just for funsies I calculated how likely it would be for Louie to sire an oopsie litter.

5.87% chance he could become a daddy on any given day if...

-Louie gets loose unsupervised once every 2 years
-There is one dog for every house on my street
-Nobody spays their females
-Females can be in heat any time of the year
-Every female on the street gets loose twice in a year


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

BigLittle said:


> The issue at hand in my mind is saying "Spay and neuter your pets or they WILL mate with another dog and fill the shelter up with oopsie litters" versus saying "Spay and neuter your pets if you are unwilling to keep them reliably contained or they could have an oopsie litter." (As a general statement. I am well aware of the rare canine houdinis)
> 
> The former is hysteria and the latter is caution.
> 
> I would put properly containing an intact dog up with potty training a dog. It's easy to do, it's mostly based on developing habits, and not every owner wants to do it. When we looked for a fixer for our previous house, the number of houses where owners just let their dogs pee wherever inside was horrifying. In fact, our last house was one of them before we moved in... For the uneducated dog owner, I agree S/N is a must. But it is not a must for someone who is capable enough as a dog owner. It is convenience (for the educated owner generally) and I have no problem as long as it is recognized as such.


I agree with this and what I was trying to say in the first place. I have no issues with what I called "dog savvy" (meant as educated) people keeping intact animals. If they are _willing_ to be educated and *follow* that education even. Most people are just.. not. 

If you are going to tell people not to spay and neuter.. you better take the time to teach them how to properly contain their dog and keep them away from other animals when appropriate. I've taught people a lot of things about dogs over the years. They usually only remember about half and follow even less.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

BigLittle said:


> Just for funsies I calculated how likely it would be for Louie to sire an oopsie litter.
> 
> 5.87% chance he could become a daddy on any given day if...
> 
> ...


 Hehe, I love math things like that! Did you only count the dogs on your street? Because when Moose got out he was found on the opposite side of town (well, it's only a mile wide ). So I'd have to add a lot more dogs if I were doing the figuring. I'm still sort of uncomfortable with a 5% risk though so even if it stayed the same I might not be willing.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

BigLittle said:


> Just for funsies I calculated how likely it would be for Louie to sire an oopsie litter.
> 
> 5.87% chance he could become a daddy on any given day if...
> 
> ...


Probability your dog is on the loose: 1/730
Probability a female on your street is on the loose (I guessed): 30/365

Probability those two situations will intersect is: 0.00011259148027135%

The probability that those situations will intersect and result in an unwanted litter is much less than that, considering I didn't even bother to calculate heat cycles in there and I also didn't account for the fact that some of the females on your street are probably of the size that Louie wouldn't be able to breed with them. It's also skewed because according to that math, Louie would have to be loose and unsupervised for a full 24 hours, as would the females, because it's calculated using days and not hours.

The odds are astronomically low. Which is why if someone is neutering/spaying solely because their dog gets loose, they should be much more concerned about their dog getting hit by a car, or stolen, or attacked by another dog. It's probably actually more likely that Louie would get stolen, attacked by another dog and then hit by a car than it would be for him to produce a litter while loose.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Hehe, I love math things like that! Did you only count the dogs on your street? Because when Moose got out he was found on the opposite side of town (well, it's only a mile wide ). So I'd have to add a lot more dogs if I were doing the figuring. I'm still sort of uncomfortable with a 5% risk though so even if it stayed the same I might not be willing.


5% is actually a very very absurd number.

I put up what would have to happen to cause that number:

_-Louie gets loose unsupervised once every 2 years_
Fairly realistic but high
_-There is one dog for every house on my street_
Fairly realistic but very high. I know the real number is more like 0.5 dogs for every house.
_-Nobody spays their females_
That is absurdly unrealistic in most of the USA
_-Females can be in heat any time of the year_
As far as I know, this is not possible
_-Every female on the street gets loose twice in a year_
IME that is extremely unrealistic

Also, we have never had a dog get loose and leave our neighborhood, let alone our city in 22 years I've been alive, and there has always been at least one dog in our posession at any given time.

Edit to add: You are twice as likely to die in a car accident in your lifetime as Louie is likely to ne a daddy according to my absurdly high calculations...


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I didn't read this whole thread, and barely got through the first post of one long run-on sentence... but my gut reaction is that unless you're breeding, spay/neuter is the responsible path. From skimming, I'm surprised that I seem to be in the minority with that opinion. In the end, whatever floats your boat as long as you manage your pets appropriately, but I still believe that there is no reason to keep your animals intact if you're not breeding them. I went 10 years with my previous bitch without getting her fixed, never intended to breed her (never had an accident either), but I really wish I had done it MUCH sooner. It's such a mess, and I believe one reason she ended up with mammary cancer. With males, it DOES curb some negative behavior (but it's not a catch-all fixit for numerous problems either).

A lot depends on your levels of socialization, too. We are a very active household - we are constantly on the go, whether it's camping or hiking or whatever. All of our friends have dogs. We have a large social circle with LOTS of dogs, and it's just SO MUCH EASIER to not have to worry about your babies or being "that person".


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And yet. . .there are an awful lot of oops litters. I guess I feel like if the odds are so astronomically low that a loose male finds an available female in heat, there wouldn't be so many.



> Spaying or neutering your dog because they may escape once or twice in their lifetime is kind of overkill


But if they got pregnant/sired a litter once or twice in their lifetime, it could mean 10-30 more dogs existing/killed for being unwanted. If dogs had small litters I suppose the risk wouldn't be as concerning.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

> But if they got pregnant/sired a litter once or twice in their lifetime


And probability has already shown is FAR from 100% a dog will breed even if it does get loose on a rare occasion...chances of it travelling outside the general area and getting lost for 2 weeks is even rarer.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Probability is low in a fairly responsible neighborhood and especially in one where most dogs are neutered. 

Probability gets higher as uneducated owners don't neuter.

My parents could love a dog and take care of one fairly well. Due to their situation, they should not own an intact animal. Their child leaves doors open all the time. If most dogs in my neighborhood weren't spayed I can guarantee we'd have Golden Bernese Mountain Retrievers. Not because the owners are bad owners.. but because they believe that their dogs will never leave the yard. 

And like I said earlier.. most oopsies I've seen usually happen at home with dogs they, relatives or close neighbors own. My husbands co worker was laughing about how his male intact Yorkie was trying to mate but was too small to reach the neighbor German Shepherd who was in heat. Both of those dogs should be spayed/neutered.. because they had no concern. From what I know, the dogs are otherwise fairly well taken care of.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm not going to reply post by post but two things:
1. Yes, at present in the more developed parts of the US if one's unaltered male gets out, he has a fairly low but non-zero chance of impregnating a bitch on any given runabout. But this is due largely to how prevalent the desexing of dogs is, and how effective improved containment and population-decreasing measures have been in curbing the stray dog population. It's similar to vaccination and the principle of herd immunity. One can get away with being lazy about an unaltered male because of _other people_'s responsibility, not because it's an okay thing to do. 

2. The "but I don't know anyone who's ever lost their dog or had an oops pregnancy" bit is not a meaningful line of argument. Go to the shelter. Look at a lost dog listing. Whatever. Clearly it is happening fairly frequently even if your illustrious circle of acquaintances lives in dog-proof reinforced bunkers and is amazing at preventing their intact males from jumping their intact females.

3. I too grew up with horses, and we routinely ruthlessly lopped the studs' balls off for our convenience and safety, and didn't think twice about the morality of it. Can we play this horse-related card as well?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Probability is low in a fairly responsible neighborhood and especially in one where most dogs are neutered.


Yep. That's what I meant by needing to maintain a fairly high percentage of altered dogs to keep "herd immunity". If 80% of pet dogs are neutered, it's fairly unlikely that a roaming intact male will find a ready and willing female (although, again, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of unwanted litters even with that high of a percentage). If the percentage of altered dogs drops dramatically (if it becomes the cool thing not to alter), the chances of him finding one will go up accordingly.


----------



## Sandakat (Mar 7, 2015)

Both of my dogs were neutered for two reasons. 1) they were both cryptorchid and were neutered to prevent testicular cancer of the undescended testicle, 2) the breeder required it.

But even if that hadn't been the case, I would have neutered them. I live in a rural, wooded area, in a HOA that does not allow a fenced yard. Of course, I could take them out on leashes, but sometimes I just don't have my brain functioning early in the morning or in the middle of the night. On occasion I open the door before leashing and the dog scoots out. I don't want to have to worry about a pregnancy because I worked the graveyard shift and I was tired. Also, I hike a lot on the trails in the local mountains. On those occasions, my dogs are off leash. It's one of my great joys to be able to hike with them off leash and I don't intend to change that, but I feel that part of my responsibility for this privilege is to have a neutered animal. 

I don't have a problem with responsible people keeping intact dogs, but my lifestyle does not support it. The next dog I get will probably be a female. She will probably be spayed somewhere between 1-2 years old depending on what the breeder requires.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Hehe, I love math things like that! Did you only count the dogs on your street? Because when Moose got out he was found on the opposite side of town (well, it's only a mile wide ). So I'd have to add a lot more dogs if I were doing the figuring. I'm still sort of uncomfortable with a 5% risk though so even if it stayed the same I might not be willing.


IF you love math things.....

Wrap your head around this.....

A bitch comes into heat the first time around 9 months to a year in age...

A heat cycle is 21 days... BUT only five of those days is a bitch capable of coming in heat. 

Bitches.... Somewhere around 8-9 years of age... Or as early as seven... They heat cycles slow down...

A bitch is lucky to have 17 heat cycles in her life.... Capable of becoming pregnant about 5 days each heat cycle....

That translates to about 85 days in a bitches life that she is capable of becoming pregnant...

Given a 12 year life span (no point in bothering to calculate past that) a bitch as best.... Can become pregnant a whopping 2 percent of her life.... Good responsible breeders... Miss standing heat all the time. 

This cannot be escaped, talked around, etc....

As far as a dog escaping.... Dog or Bitch..... There are many things more concerning and MORE likely to happen than a pregnancy.... Some of those include... Getting hit by a car... Being shot... Becoming lost.... Being stolen...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> My snake doesn't try to escape.
> 
> .


You mean you have not seen him try..... 

Snakes = the great escape artists....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> There's no actual proof that early spay/neuter negatively affects a dog's health or that making that choice means you're making the choice to ruin your dog's health.


Correction..... There is no actual proof that you accept...

The Purdue study and the UC Davis study are quite conclusive....

But they do not match your agenda.... So you use cute phrases like.. 


> The studies are extremely varied and inconsistent.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I mean... have all the oops litters we've had at our shelter alone (never mind the other shelters and rescues just in our local area) not actually existed? If it's such an astronomically low chance for dogs to get loose and breed? We even have a bylaw here that females in heat can't leave their own property.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how responsible YOU may be, the majority of the dog owning population is -not-. If everyone was as responsible as the core group of users on this forum, there would be no unwanted puppies, no need for shelters. 

But the reality is that routinely dogs are killed for space. The reality is that most areas have a lost dog service because dogs are lost so regularly. 

I would rather someone be honest with themselves and spay/neuter after thoughtful consideration at an appropriate age than leave intact and risk unwanted litters because that's the thing to do these days.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> I mean... have all the oops litters we've had at our shelter alone (never mind the other shelters and rescues just in our local area) not actually existed? If it's such an astronomically low chance for dogs to get loose and breed? We even have a bylaw here that females in heat can't leave their own property.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that no matter how responsible YOU may be, the majority of the dog owning population is -not-. If everyone was as responsible as the core group of users on this forum, there would be no unwanted puppies, no need for shelters.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone on this entire thread has said "spaying/neutering your dog is unacceptable and cruel". I think the argument has been that because of "omg, unwanted litters who will all die!" hysteria, many people are spaying/neutering too early and risking the health of their dogs.

I'm an advocate of doing the research, knowing the health risks associated with keeping a dog intact versus spaying or neutering and making the decision to spay/neuter at an appropriate age with those risks in mind. People who say there aren't health risks with altering a dog too early are uninformed (either passively or willingly) and this "alter as young as possible" attitude NEEDS to be halted.

Shelters aren't just overloaded with "oops" litters, you know. In fact, I think a majority of shelter dogs are there because they proved to be too troublesome for their previous owners to care for. Instead of trying to reduce the population of shelter dogs by creating unnecessary propaganda that scares people into spaying/neutering, I think the goal should be to educate future dog owners and prepare them for the journey of dog ownership so they are less likely to abandon their pets when they can no longer be bothered to care for them.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> I don't think anyone on this entire thread has said "spaying/neutering your dog is unacceptable and cruel". I think the argument has been that because of "omg, unwanted litters who will all die!" hysteria, many people are spaying/neutering too early and risking the health of their dogs.
> 
> I'm an advocate of doing the research, knowing the health risks associated with keeping a dog intact versus spaying or neutering and making the decision to spay/neuter at an appropriate age with those risks in mind. People who say there aren't health risks with altering a dog too early are uninformed (either passively or willingly) and this "alter as young as possible" attitude NEEDS to be halted.
> 
> Shelters aren't just overloaded with "oops" litters, you know. In fact, I think a majority of shelter dogs are there because they proved to be too troublesome for their previous owners to care for. Instead of trying to reduce the population of shelter dogs by creating unnecessary propaganda that scares people into spaying/neutering, I think the goal should be to educate future dog owners and prepare them for the journey of dog ownership so they are less likely to abandon their pets when they can no longer be bothered to care for them.


No, I was talking about just litters of puppies in shelters when I was referencing unwanted litters in shelters, not that all dogs in shelters are from unwanted litters.

We've had I believe 3 in the last month or so.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> No, I was talking about just litters of puppies in shelters when I was referencing unwanted litters in shelters, not that all dogs in shelters are from unwanted litters.
> 
> We've had I believe 3 in the last month or so.


That part wasn't targeted at your comment so much as previous posters who indicated that shelter populations are drastically increased by unwanted litters. They do increase populations, no doubt, but a MUCH bigger problem is people abandoning their pets because they don't want them any more. If I went to my local shelter, which has about 50 adult dogs, I'd bet less than 10% of them are in the shelter because they're from an unwanted litter, and a *vast* majority are there because the owner gave them up.

Unwanted litters *are* a problem, I'm not trying to deny that. I am just tired of all of the propaganda that tells people the only responsible pet owner is one who alters and that unaltered dogs are a risk to the dog population as a whole.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> That part wasn't targeted at your comment so much as previous posters who indicated that shelter populations are drastically increased by unwanted litters. They do increase populations, no doubt, but a MUCH bigger problem is people abandoning their pets because they don't want them any more. If I went to my local shelter, which has about 50 adult dogs, I'd bet less than 10% of them are in the shelter because they're from an unwanted litter, and a *vast* majority are there because the owner gave them up.
> 
> Unwanted litters *are* a problem, I'm not trying to deny that. I am just tired of all of the propaganda that tells people the only responsible pet owner is one who alters and that unaltered dogs are a risk to the dog population as a whole.


I think you would be very surprised about how few dogs are surrendered for behavioural problems compared to the overall shelter population, but of course it depends on your area. Some areas are much more overrun with strays than others.

I don't think anyone in this thread has supported propaganda about spay/neutering as early as possible? But it's impossible to say that altered dogs are adding additional dogs to the shelter population, particularly in areas where dogs are being killed for space on a routine basis. Those dogs are coming from SOMEWHERE, you know? The population doesn't magically increase by divine intervention. My dog was left loose outside intact and had several litters before she came to the shelter. Now those dogs will also have litters, and so on. If she had been fixed, this exponential growth rate of dogs wouldn't have happened at all.

Which goes back to what I was actually saying, where are all the unwanted litters at my shelter coming from if there's such an astronomically low chance (less than 1% per the previous post) of intact dogs getting loose and breeding?

I don't think everyone should have to have their dog fixed, I think some people are responsible enough to keep intact animals. I do -not- think the majority of the dog owning public fall into that category and so for them, I think fixing at an appropriate age is also a responsible choice.


----------



## GHill762 (Jul 13, 2015)

I would also venture to guess that a lot of the pups that end up there are unsold BYB pups. there are a lot of folks that think they'll just "try their hand" at breeding, not knowing what they're truly getting in to. 

unless there is a large stray pop. in your area, I find it hard to believe that an unaltered male getting out for even a couple hours once in a while is going to come upon that one female who happens to be unaltered _and _in heat _and _is outside also free to roam (or cabled out). the odds are just too slim. even breeders TRYING to breed have difficulty with timing, interest, etc. I know it can be difficult at times because my grandmother was a breeder for years (and to my knowledge she never had any "oopsie" litters with unaltered boys and girls living under the same roof).


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

GHill762 said:


> I would also venture to guess that a lot of the pups that end up there are unsold BYB pups. there are a lot of folks that think they'll just "try their hand" at breeding, not knowing what they're truly getting in to.
> 
> unless there is a large stray pop. in your area, I find it hard to believe that an unaltered male getting out for even a couple hours once in a while is going to come upon that one female who happens to be unaltered _and _in heat _and _is outside also free to roam (or cabled out). the odds are just too slim. even breeders TRYING to breed have difficulty with timing, interest, etc. I know it can be difficult at times because my grandmother was a breeder for years (and to my knowledge she never had any "oopsie" litters with unaltered boys and girls living under the same roof).


No, in many cases we will also get pregnant females who give birth at the shelter (or moms that come in with the babies). We do not have a large stray population in my area. I guess I should just tell all those puppies they don't actually exist because the odds are just too slim.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> I think you would be very surprised about how few dogs are surrendered for behavioural problems compared to the overall shelter population, but of course it depends on your area. Some areas are much more overrun with strays than others.
> 
> I don't think anyone in this thread has supported propaganda about spay/neutering as early as possible? But it's impossible to say that altered dogs are adding additional dogs to the shelter population, particularly in areas where dogs are being killed for space on a routine basis. Those dogs are coming from SOMEWHERE, you know? The population doesn't magically increase by divine intervention. My dog was left loose outside intact and had several litters before she came to the shelter. Now those dogs will also have litters, and so on. If she had been fixed, this exponential growth rate of dogs wouldn't have happened at all.
> 
> ...


When I posted my concerns about the "as soon as possible" approach, someone said that there's no link between early altering and health problems. When I posted the studies to prove that early altering causes health problems, the response was 'those studies are inaccurate and inconclusive'. Which leads me to believe that some people think that there are no negative side effects from early altering, which just isn't the case.

I think, in my area at least, unwanted litters are not the problem. I think litters wanted by uneducated owners is the problem. People think "oh, I have this female, let's breed her because puppies are fun!" and then the puppies end up in the hands of people who think "oh, puppies are fun!" and then the puppies make their way to the shelter. Spaying/neutering doesn't solve that problem - educating owners does. 

Again, I agree with you on the bolded part. I think altering at an acceptable age for the appropriate reasons is perfectly okay. Altering because '50 intact males will show up outside your house wanting to breed with your in heat female' is not a good reason, nor is 'my dog is loose and roaming and could produce unwanted litters'. 

ETA: I altered my Dane/Shep mix at 10 months because I was 21 years old and listened to the ridiculous propaganda that altering prevents marking, mounting and aggression and that not altering your dogs is irresponsible. I greatly increased his odds for developing numerous diseases with this decision and he developed osteosarcoma at the age of six. Maybe he would have developed bone cancer anyways. Maybe he would not have. I will never have the chance to know.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> When I People think "oh, I have this female, let's breed her because puppies are fun!" and then the puppies end up in the hands of people who think "oh, puppies are fun!" and then the puppies make their way to the shelter. Spaying/neutering doesn't solve that problem - educating owners does.


Please tell me about how spaying and neutering doesn't prevent dogs from making puppies.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Hiraeth said:


> Shelters aren't just overloaded with "oops" litters, you know. In fact, I think a majority of shelter dogs are there because they proved to be too troublesome for their previous owners to care for. Instead of trying to reduce the population of shelter dogs by creating unnecessary propaganda that scares people into spaying/neutering, I think the goal should be to educate future dog owners and prepare them for the journey of dog ownership so they are less likely to abandon their pets when they can no longer be bothered to care for them.


I have to agree with this....the vast majority of dogs in the municipal shelters in Rhode Island are dogs over the age of 6 months. There are hardly ever baby puppies available. When I was very active in Rottweiler rescue...the New England wide organization I volunteered with had just 1 litter of Rottweiler mix puppies come into our rescue in the 5 years I was active with them.

I also wonder how many litters of puppies that actually do make their way to a shelter were actually intentional and someone thought they could make a profit. When the puppies don't sell or there are too many vet bills that start to drop that profit significantly....off to the shelter they all go under the guise of "Whoops! I had an 'Oops' litter" or "I 'found' this female dog with puppies." Or, if a bitch does become pregnant in someone's house who doesn't have the money to alter their dogs....or abort a future litter of puppies. It's a lot cheaper to dump her than do an emergency spay.

Editing to add: I didn't read the posts after this one I quoted. Some of you guys think the same things as I mentioned above.


----------



## GHill762 (Jul 13, 2015)

MrsBoats said:


> I have to agree with this....the vast majority of dogs in the municipal shelters in Rhode Island are dogs over the age of 6 months. There are hardly ever baby puppies available. When I was very active in Rottweiler rescue...the New England wide organization I volunteered with had just 1 litter of Rottweiler mix puppies come into our rescue in the 5 years I was active with them.
> 
> I also wonder how many litters of puppies that actually do make their way to a shelter were actually intentional and someone thought they could make a profit. When the puppies don't sell or there are too many vet bills that start to drop that profit significantly....off to the shelter they all go under the guise of "Whoops! I had an 'Oops' litter" or "I 'found' this female dog with puppies."
> 
> Editing to add: I didn't read the posts after this one I quoted. Some of you guys think the same things as I mentioned above.


+1, that was exactly what I was trying to say. same situation here though, not many young pups, most are 6-8 months or older. a lot of re-homing in this area from people who think they want a puppy and then decide they don't have the time or want the responibility. I don't think there are honestly that many oopsie litters in this area.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Now, in Rhode Island....cats are a different story. Holy crap....the municipal shelters are LOADED with kittens at any given time. But....hardly ever young puppies.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Please tell me about how spaying and neutering doesn't prevent dogs from making puppies.


It does, but that's a rather vague question that avoids all of the difficulties of the situation. Where do you draw the line? Do you insist that anyone who adopts an eight week old female be forced to spay her before adoption to avoid being able to breed her? Do you force someone who rescues an 8 week old Mastiff to neuter him at that age? That's compromising the health of the dog. 

There are no "good" answers here. I am just fiercely against spaying/neutering dogs that young.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

This is why I say it depends on your area. Here we regularly have puppies, based on the rate of 3 litters/month that's 36/year. Figure 6 pups per litter on average, that's over 200 puppies in one year at our shelter alone. Add in the other shelters and rescue groups and people that just get rid of them by other means (give away, try to sell, throw away in garbage bags- which yea has happened).. that's a lot of puppies.

And yes, I'm talking baby puppies 8 weeks or under, not older 5-6 month pups.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> This is why I say it depends on your area. Here we regularly have puppies, based on the rate of 3 litters/month that's 36/year. Figure 6 pups per litter on average, that's over 200 puppies in one year at our shelter alone. Add in the other shelters and rescue groups and people that just get rid of them by other means (give away, try to sell, throw away in garbage bags- which yea has happened).. that's a lot of puppies.
> 
> And yes, I'm talking baby puppies 8 weeks or under, not older 5-6 month pups.


I live near Detroit and there aren't even that many "oops" litters in an area full of stray dogs and 'irresponsible' dog owners. So I guess just different perspectives and geographic locations. 

No matter where, though, I am against altering an 8 week old puppy.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> No matter where, though, I am against altering an 8 week old puppy.


Me too! Are people advocating for altering 8 week old puppies?


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Me too! Are people advocating for altering 8 week old puppies?





> *While the traditional age for spaying is six to nine months, puppies as young as eight weeks old can be spayed as long as they’re healthy.*


You know where that's posted? The ASPCA website. Link here. First paragraph. 

People and rescue associations are SO up in arms about preventing future unwanted puppies that they're forgetting that they're compromising the health of the living dogs in the process. And they're spreading this information to all sorts of potential dog owners, who automatically think it's true because 'the ASPCA said it'. 

Which is why I am so strongly against this thread spreading those rumors (that's it's okay to alter "as soon as possible") to people who come here looking for advice. Instead, I'd like to promote the idea of dog owners doing their own research and being provided with a multitude of viewpoints so they come to an educated and individual choice about what's best for them and their dog. Preferably without the worry that they will be villified for keeping their dog intact if that is the choice they make


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Hiraeth said:


> People and rescue associations are SO up in arms about preventing future unwanted puppies that they're forgetting that they're compromising the health of the living dogs in the process.


Well, if as you claim, rescues and shelters are getting next-to-no young puppies or pregnant bitches, what are you worried about? They don't have any 8-week-old puppies to compromise the health of, do they?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> You know where that's posted? The ASPCA website. Link here. First paragraph.
> 
> People and rescue associations are SO up in arms about preventing future unwanted puppies that they're forgetting that they're compromising the health of the living dogs in the process. And they're spreading this information to all sorts of potential dog owners, who automatically think it's true because 'the ASPCA said it'.
> 
> Which is why I am so strongly against this thread spreading those rumors (that's it's okay to alter "as soon as possible") to people who come here looking for advice. Instead, I'd like to promote the idea of dog owners doing their own research and being provided with a multitude of viewpoints so they come to an educated and individual choice about what's best for them and their dog. Preferably without the worry that they will be villified for keeping their dog intact if that is the choice they make


Okay, cool, I also think that's stupid.

However, I don't think spreading the message that everyone should just be responsible and keep their dog intact because it's 'easy' to prevent unwanted litters is a good alternative.

Happy mediums, eh?


----------



## GHill762 (Jul 13, 2015)

Someone told me the other day that it's "really hard on the dog" for them to keep their testes.. :doh:

Unfortunately there's so much nonsense and propaganda out there now that it's become harder for people to make a real honest educated decision. Even the vets are biased a lot of the time.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

parus said:


> Well, if as you claim, rescues and shelters are getting next-to-no young puppies or pregnant bitches, what are you worried about? They don't have any 8-week-old puppies to compromise the health of, do they?


That's not just an article about what people should do with the dogs they adopt from the ASPCA. That's an article about dog ownership in general.

Also, I never claimed that rescues are shelters aren't getting next to no puppies or pregnant bitches. That would be ridiculous. A quick search in my area shows that there are 16,913 puppies and 138,820 dogs available to adopt. So approximately 10% of dogs in shelters are puppies.

I claimed that very few of them are "oops" litters consummated 'on the streets' by someone's pet that got loose, and many of them are 'oh, let's breed our dog to have fun puppies and make money' and then it doesn't work out and the pups are handed over to a shelter. 

People are *actively* breeding dogs irresponsibly. It's not just someone's dog getting loose and going 'oops, puppies!'. 

How do you prevent *active* irresponsible breeding? I don't know. I don't have an answer for that one. But altering at 8 weeks (or even before a year of age) is definitely NOT an acceptable answer, to me.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

GHill762 said:


> Someone told me the other day that it's "really hard on the dog" for them to keep their testes.. :doh:
> 
> Unfortunately there's so much nonsense and propaganda out there now that it's become harder for people to make a real honest educated decision. Even the vets are biased a lot of the time.


But that exists on both sides of the spectrum. I know of a situation where a vet told a friend's dad (yes, an actual vet) that his male dog might stop having SA if he had a litter.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Hiraeth said:


> I claimed that very few of them are "oops" litters consummated 'on the streets' by someone's pet that got loose, and many of them are 'oh, let's breed our dog to have fun puppies and make money' and then it doesn't work out and the pups are handed over to a shelter.


That doesn't even logically follow. First of all, you're leaving out what is probably the most common scenario for "oops" litters, a dog getting pregnant off another household dog inadvertently. Secondly, you're pretty much just making that up, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think shelters would be irresponsible to release an intact animal to the public. If that means an 8-week-old pup has to be altered, that's the way it is. The VAST majority of early-altered dogs will be fine. It's done all the time and the dogs are not dropping dead all over. I'm not in favor of pediatric spay/neuter for pet dogs, but if shelters had to be so picky as only adopt to people with the right circumstances to keep an intact dog they'd never get the dogs adopted out. Better for them to be altered young than to end up in the incinerator.

I guess 2% of a dog's life is plenty of time to get busy. Ditch puppies are a thing in the rurals. Dumpster puppies are a thing in town. There were 2 litters in the news last year in Sioux Falls but I know most cases do not get in the media (some are mentioned in the sheriff's report, though not all get reported to law enforcement either). Free puppies out of a truck in the Walmart parking lot. And those are just the ones "lucky" enough not to have been tossed in the stock tank right off. And they're baby puppies, not older puppies who didn't sell. If dog reproduction were such a rare and diffcult thing I don't think we'd be seeing that. I know New England has less of a problem with unwanted dogs so this doesn't apply everywhere. But it's definitely not rare around here.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

So....then what makes New England so different from other places? What is my locale doing right versus other places are obviously getting so wrong?? Education? Income? And believe me, there are low income areas in New England as well.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

parus said:


> That doesn't even logically follow. First of all, you're leaving out what is probably the most common scenario for "oops" litters, a dog getting pregnant off another household dog inadvertently. Secondly, you're pretty much just making that up, as far as I can tell.


It's an educated guess, having worked for and volunteered at 4 different shelters over the last 13 years. I don't think there are any statistics that could accurately track and represent how many litters are mistakes versus how many are intentional and misinformed breedings. 

Not sure how it doesn't logically follow. I did the probability math based on a scenario posted a few pages ago - the likelihood of someone's intact pet who escapes once every two years impregnating an in heat female in the neighborhood who escapes the house 30 days a year is less than .0001%, and even less than that considering I didn't factor in heat cycles. 

Again, I think the point is being missed. I'm not against altering. I'm against altering at 8 weeks old for the wrong reasons (propaganda), versus altering after the dog has reached full maturity for the right reasons (convenience, other intact dogs in the house). Are you arguing that altering at 8 weeks is an acceptable approach to prevent shelters from filling up with unwanted dogs?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Altering at 8 weeks is unnecessary for a pet dog. They only have to be altered before sexual maturity so 6 months would be fine. If it comes down to getting an 8-week-old puppy out of a shelter, then, yes, it has to be done, or an alternative method of sterilization needs to be popularized. 

It doesn't logically make any sense for people to deliberately let their dog get pregnant and then kill the puppies or dump them or give them away free.

And, well, yeah, I would argue that it's better to (maybe) expose a dog to a (possibly) higher chance of cancer than to doom his many offspring to being unwanted.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Altering at 8 weeks is unnecessary for a pet dog. They only have to be altered before sexual maturity so 6 months would be fine. If it comes down to getting an 8-week-old puppy out of a shelter, then, yes, it has to be done, or an alternative method of sterilization needs to be popularized.
> 
> It doesn't logically make any sense for people to deliberately let their dog get pregnant and then kill the puppies or dump them or give them away free.


It makes lots of sense. Think about how many people come onto this forum thinking "whee, puppies, this is going to be great and so much fun!" and then all of a sudden it turns out that puppies are hard work. They don't intentionally breed to dump - they breed to make money, realize how much of a pain puppies are and then dump when they can't sell or rehome the pups. 

Shelters could make adopters sign paperwork stating that they will neuter/spay the puppy at the age of between 1 year and 18 months, and also sign an agreement that if they do not provide proof of the spay or neuter at that time, they will be charged a $1,000 fine. 

The logistics are complicated, but that's just an example of something that could be done to prevent pediatric altering.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It doesn't logically make any sense for people to deliberately let their dog get pregnant and then kill the puppies or dump them or give them away free.


It actually makes a lot of sense. The poster above me did a good job of explaining why.
Just last week a man sat at my kitchen table and was telling a story to me and my dad about how he purposely tried to get one of his female dogs bred to one of his male dogs because "both are useless and I wanted to see if two bad dogs would make a good one.". He was talking about working cow dogs. This wasn't a case of "oops my dogs got together" it was a planned breeding. I guarantee if it would have worked that there'd be free puppies trying to find homes in the back of his truck at the local TSC.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> So....then what makes New England so different from other places? What is my locale doing right versus other places are obviously getting so wrong?? Education? Income? And believe me, there are low income areas in New England as well.


Well low income and lack of education do tend to go hand in hand. Someone who works for the pound that picks up strays here has told a friend that 90% of the strays they get are from one specific area in our city, which also happens to be low income neighbourhood. 

It's not just a matter of poor people not being responsible though (of course), there are so many socioeconomic factors that are intertwined with everything. 

But it's different to have low income areas/neighbourhoods vs just overall low income like a lot of areas in the US, particularly the south, are dealing with currently.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Hiraeth said:


> It makes lots of sense. Think about how many people come onto this forum thinking "whee, puppies, this is going to be great and so much fun!" and then all of a sudden it turns out that puppies are hard work. They don't intentionally breed to dump - they breed to make money, realize how much of a pain puppies are and then dump when they can't sell or rehome the pups.
> 
> Shelters could make adopters sign paperwork stating that they will neuter/spay the puppy at the age of between 1 year and 18 months, and also sign an agreement that if they do not provide proof of the spay or neuter at that time, they will be charged a $1,000 fine.
> 
> The logistics are complicated, but that's just an example of something that could be done to prevent pediatric altering.


Unfortunately shelters stopped doing this because it was almost impossible to enforce. When I adopted my first dog she was 8 weeks old. She was actually a BYB dump because "she was too old to be profitable" yep, 8week old puppies are no longer profitable I guess. Anyway, at that time the Humane Society did not advocate for 8week spay and we signed a contract and had her spayed at 6months. To be honest my vet is old school and I don't think he will spay before 6months even now. These days the shelter requires it to be done before you adopt the dog, it is part of your adoption fee. 

We don't have scores of puppies at our shelter either. I even live in an area with a high overpopulation rate. Most of the dogs are 9+ months. About twice a year we may get a pregnant dog (cats are a different story) and we get the occasional BYB drop off or people adopted a puppy and dump it a week later but mostly we get older puppies that aren't cute anymore and have poor manners. It is just really easy to give puppies away on CL so even if you do have an "oops" litter you don't have to dump them, you can give them away online. The bigger issue is how many people think their dog needs to have "just one litter" or thinks it would be super fun to breed dogs. I see more purposeful breeders than oops. I also see a lot of "oops" that were not so much "oops" as "I just couldn't be bothered to stop it" and people who probably shouldn't have pets in the first place.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> The logistics are complicated, but that's just an example of something that could be done to prevent pediatric altering.


And expensive and time-consuming. How much do think it costs to hire a lawyer to sue the people to enforce that kind of thing? And by then they could have had 2 litters out of a female or who-knows-how-many out of a male. Shelters don't have the time or money for that. They'd start killing puppies instead of dealing with the complications. 

Sure, there are some people who deliberately breed their dogs for dumb reasons. But I don't think it's the majority. Usually it "the kids left the door open" or "some male jumped the fence".


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Remaru said:


> Unfortunately shelters stopped doing this because it was almost impossible to enforce. When I adopted my first dog she was 8 weeks old. She was actually a BYB dump because "she was too old to be profitable" yep, 8week old puppies are no longer profitable I guess. Anyway, at that time the Humane Society did not advocate for 8week spay and we signed a contract and had her spayed at 6months. To be honest my vet is old school and I don't think he will spay before 6months even now. These days the shelter requires it to be done before you adopt the dog, it is part of your adoption fee.
> 
> We don't have scores of puppies at our shelter either. I even live in an area with a high overpopulation rate. Most of the dogs are 9+ months. About twice a year we may get a pregnant dog (cats are a different story) and we get the occasional BYB drop off or people adopted a puppy and dump it a week later but mostly we get older puppies that aren't cute anymore and have poor manners. It is just really easy to give puppies away on CL so even if you do have an "oops" litter you don't have to dump them, you can give them away online. The bigger issue is how many people think their dog needs to have "just one litter" or thinks it would be super fun to breed dogs. I see more purposeful breeders than oops. I also see a lot of "oops" that were not so much "oops" as "I just couldn't be bothered to stop it" and people who probably shouldn't have pets in the first place.


Yes, I can see how it would be impossible to enforce fines. I'm just generally not a person who likes to point out a problem without offering a solution. Altering at 8 weeks old is a problem for me, so I just naturally start thinking of ways shelters could adopt puppies out and work towards guaranteeing the puppy being altered when it has reached an acceptable age. 

That's also what I have experienced at the shelters I volunteered at - purposeful, misinformed breeding. How do we as a pet owning society stop that from happening? I'm not so sure.



Willowy said:


> And expensive and time-consuming. How much do think it costs to hire a lawyer to sue the people to enforce that kind of thing? And by then they could have had 2 litters out of a female or who-knows-how-many out of a male. Shelters don't have the time or money for that. They'd start killing puppies instead of dealing with the complications.
> 
> Sure, there are some people who deliberately breed their dogs for dumb reasons. But I don't think it's the majority. Usually it "the kids left the door open" or "some male jumped the fence".


*shrug* I'm attempting to come up with potential solutions to the issue, while your solution is 'who cares about the health of the dogs, pediatric altering is a necessity!'. 

You repeatedly state your opinions as if they are facts. On all manner of subjects. 

Your quote in your signature strikes me as ironic. Altering at 8 weeks old is cruel, in my opinion. It sets puppies up for a high likelihood of multiple lifelong debilities and early onset terminal diseases.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

MrsBoats said:


> So....then what makes New England so different from other places? What is my locale doing right versus other places are obviously getting so wrong?? Education? Income? And believe me, there are low income areas in New England as well.


My personal opinion (which will probably not be so popular in this discussion, LOL)? Those are the areas in which the pro-speuter message was pushed the hardest, and it worked.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Willowy said:


> And expensive and time-consuming. How much do think it costs to hire a lawyer to sue the people to enforce that kind of thing? And by then they could have had 2 litters out of a female or who-knows-how-many out of a male. Shelters don't have the time or money for that. They'd start killing puppies instead of dealing with the complications.
> 
> Sure, there are some people who deliberately breed their dogs for dumb reasons. But I don't think it's the majority. Usually it "the kids left the door open" or "some male jumped the fence".



This has really not been my experience. My experience has been that most litters come from either "I wanted him/her to have one litter", "I think puppies are cute", "I wanted to make money off of breeding", "they would make cute puppies" type, or the "oops" litters are actually "I left my in heat female alone with an intact male". In my time volunteering, fostering, and in my own pets I've seen far fewer of the dog got out/in, type oops compared to the accidents that weren't really accidents when you actually look at them. Freyja is an "oops" puppy except her mother was left to play with the owner's intact male and the neighbor's intact male the entire time she was in heat. Now what could possibly go wrong there? Is that really an "oops" or just poor management? The owners did intend to breed her, just not that cycle (to make money off of the puppies).


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

MrsBoats said:


> I have to agree with this....the vast majority of dogs in the municipal shelters in Rhode Island are dogs over the age of 6 months. There are hardly ever baby puppies available. When I was very active in Rottweiler rescue...the New England wide organization I volunteered with had just 1 litter of Rottweiler mix puppies come into our rescue in the 5 years I was active with them.


You are in new England though. The situation is VASTLY different in southern Texas (where I worked) and even worse for people I know working in areas like Mississippi. 

Even here only a few years ago the euth rate at the municipal shelter (where Hank is from) was over 70%. It's down to around 50% now but it's still a problem. Area is a huge factor. But yes in some parts of the country there is an overpopulation of at least certain types and breeds (usually large breed pits, labs, and mutts. Around here ACDs are also ridiculously common in shelters).

I had a foster stray not long ago. In heat and turned out to be pregnant (and infested with HWs). We got in pregnant females ALL the time when I worked in the shelter in Texas. Or full litters. Most are in fact oops litters. 

I don't care about the altering debate at all. For the record. We've had both altered and intact dogs. I do think there is potential for a lot of backsliding if not altering becomes 'too cool'. I'm probably cynical but I don't want most the dog park goers keeping their dogs intact. The sport people I'm around? Go for it. We've never had an accident or even near accident at my house. However I HAVE known people who show or sport and 'good breeders' that have had oops. Sometimes multiple oops. I don't think that's a big deal usually because they tend to be decently bred dogs with breeders who can easily place dogs. I've seen some really nice dogs come out of oops litters. But they definitely aren't 'impossible'.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Agreed with a lot of the points about New England. The other thing is that it gets COLD. It's not easy for stray dog populations to survive and thrive long term when winters get as cold as they do up here.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Hiraeth said:


> That's not just an article about what people should do with the dogs they adopt from the ASPCA. That's an article about dog ownership in general.
> 
> Also, I never claimed that rescues are shelters aren't getting next to no puppies or pregnant bitches. That would be ridiculous. A quick search in my area shows that there are 16,913 puppies and 138,820 dogs available to adopt. So approximately 10% of dogs in shelters are puppies.
> 
> ...


How do you know the origins of the dogs?

When I worked in a shelter (2 years, south texas, high kill) I would bet most the dogs other than pit bulls (and yeah pit bulls are a huge portion of the problem) most dogs in the shelters were not dogs that I would have expected to be bred intentionally. As in what we had in the shelter was NOT the same as what was being sold on craigslist or newspapers. Most were indeterminate mixes. Large dogs generally. But very few purebreds and very few designer dog type mixes. 

I suspect many of the pits were bred on purpose but I doubt most of the others were.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> As in what we had in the shelter was NOT the same as what was being sold on craigslist or newspapers. Most were indeterminate mixes. Large dogs generally. But very few purebreds and very few designer dog type mixes.


Yea this. We've had 3 litters of small breed puppies in the over 3 years I've been at our shelter. 2 purebred litters, chi's and beagles.

Aside from that, random bully/lab/shep/random/collie/boxer/random mixes by and large. The dogs on the local kijiji are almost all designer mixes and are advertised as such.

I just took a look; goldendoodles, shihtzu/Lhasa apso, chi-doodle, and labradoodle are just on the 1st page.

2nd page has bea-tzu's which I haven't heard before. Apparently beagle/shih-tzus.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

elrohwen said:


> Agreed with a lot of the points about New England. The other thing is that it gets COLD. It's not easy for stray dog populations to survive and thrive long term when winters get as cold as they do up here.


I don't know if that has much to do with it? It gets super cold here for a really long time. There aren't large stray/feral populations in most areas because farmers generally object to such things and get shooty about it, but on the reservations there are large loose dog populations and they do OK. Late puppies and old/sick dogs don't survive but most do fine. Of course I'm pretty sure the loose dogs here would have, in general, thicker fur than a Southern population. But Northern reservations do in fact have surviving, sort-of-thriving stray/feral dog populations.

I'd say that a lot of Lab or pit litters were deliberately bred. The owners just underestimated the market for Lab or pit pups. But a large hairy mutt probably was not deliberately bred.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I don't know if that has much to do with it? It gets super cold here for a really long time. There aren't large stray/feral populations in most areas because farmers generally object to such things and get shooty about it, but on the reservations there are large loose dog populations and they do OK. Late puppies and old/sick dogs don't survive but most do fine. Of course I'm pretty sure the loose dogs here would have, in general, thicker fur than a Southern population. But Northern reservations do in fact have surviving, sort-of-thriving stray/feral dog populations.


How do they survive the winter? What do they eat? Where do they shelter? There may be other factors too. I still think it is far easier for a feral dog population to survive in a place that is fairly warm year round, independent of the cultural and economic issues.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

We got in a few here and there. Some purebreds more than others and some purebreds are barely represented despite being popular as pets in an area. Shelties for example. I saw them very often there and we got exactly 0 in the shelter. Goldens were another majorly underrepresented breed compared to how common they were. 

It's all actually very complicated once you look into it. 

That shelter and the one here both vastly improved their numbers through a combination of new policies and changes including pushing low cost spay and neuter. I don't particularly love pediatric spay/neuter but I understand why it is done with shelter pups. And I can't think up another economically viable solution.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh yea, doodles are hugely popular here and we've had exactly 1 at the shelter the whole time I've been there. Which was recently, and it was a cocker/poodle mix.

Any dogs that are desirable (purebreds, small, non shedding, etc) are typically nabbed up super quickly, usually before they ever get advertised to the general public on the shelter website or on petfinder, etc.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

elrohwen said:


> How do they survive the winter? What do they eat? Where do they shelter? There may be other factors too. I still think it is far easier for a feral dog population to survive in a place that is fairly warm year round, independent of the cultural and economic issues.


Same way coyotes and other wild things survive I guess. Shelter in tree trunks, badger holes, culverts, or (on the rez especially) under houses. Eat rabbits, mice, sick/starving/young/old deer, roadkill, garbage. And a lot of people on the rez probably throw scraps out for them. I'm sure survival (for all living things) is much easier in places without snow and cold but, well, lots of critters survive the winters up here and dogs aren't really any different.

Yeah, around here it seems like everybody and their mother has a little fluffy dog but you never see any in the shelters. I think they're pretty easily privately re-homed.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Same way coyotes survive I guess. Shelter in tree trunks, badger holes, culverts, or (on the rez especially) under houses. Eat rabbits, mice, sick/starving/young/old deer, roadkill, garbage. And a lot of people on the rez probably throw scraps out for them. I'm sure survival (for all living things) is much easier in places without snow and cold but, well, lots of critters survive the winters up here and dogs aren't really any different.


I didn't say they can't survive. Sure there are dogs who can scavenge and find a way to make a go of it. But on the whole, a cold climate is not going to support a large thriving feral population as easily as some place warm.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Oh, yeah, survival is definitely easier in warmer places. That's why tropical areas tend to have a problem with non-native invasive species of all types. Just too easy for a wide variety of animals to survive.

I just don't think that's an explanation for New England's lack of dog overpopulation. There are colder places that do have a lot of strays and unwanted dogs.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Oh, yeah, survival is definitely easier in warmer places. That's why tropical areas tend to have a problem with non-native invasive species of all types. Just too easy for a wide variety of animals to survive.
> 
> I just don't think that's an explanation for New England's lack of dog overpopulation. There are colder places that do have a lot of strays and unwanted dogs.


I didn't say it was the only reason. I said I agreed with the reasons others already posted (I didn't feel like typing them all out again) and wanted to add one more I didn't see mentioned. It's obviously a combination of a number of different factors.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> We got in a few here and there. Some purebreds more than others and some purebreds are barely represented despite being popular as pets in an area. Shelties for example. I saw them very often there and we got exactly 0 in the shelter. Goldens were another majorly underrepresented breed compared to how common they were.
> 
> It's all actually very complicated once you look into it.
> 
> That shelter an the one here both vastly improved their numbers through a combination of new policies and changes including pushing low cost spay an neuter. I don't particularly love pediatric spay/neuter but I understand why it is done with shelter pups. And I can't think up another economically viable solution.


I actually completely agree with this. Though I would say more than half of our shelter population were purposefully bred or at the very least were "carelessly" bred, they were not the result of strays breeding or of "Fifi" getting out while in heat or "Rover" jumping the neighbor's fence. Most are designer/working mixes or "hey your dog is cute lets breed them" or "I just want her/him to have one litter before I spay/neuter" or "I only left them alone for an hour, how did she get pregnant?" litters. Even then they don't come in as little puppies, they come in as 9month olds that have zero training. We rarely see puppies or pregnant moms, maybe one or two a year and a couple of dumps of single puppies. Unfortunately pediatric spay helps prevent the people who "just want one litter" or "only left them alone together for a minute" too. It shouldn't be necessary to spay puppies to prevent owners from doing something selfish but it clearly is. 

I can't tell you how many people I talk to who think it is perfectly ok to breed their dog just because "I want one just like her" or "she is cute" or "I love him" or "he will feel like he missed out" or any number of other really dumb reasons. The worst part is, they actually do breed their dogs for those reasons. They don't just think these things they act on them. I am not specifically against spay/neuter as birth control for the general dog population, I just don't think it is a "dog at large" problem so much as a "people are selfish and make bad decisions" problem. I also am terribly offended by the rest of the rhetoric that goes with it. Spay/neuter is not a cure all for behavioral issues and pediatric spay/neuter may cause behavioral problems. Spay/neuter is not necessarily the healthiest option and does not need to be done "as soon as possible" or you are dooming your dog to cancer. No my male dog's testicles are not going to cause puppies to die. It would be nice if a little less sensationalism were being spread and a little more accurate information were available. There are responsible pet owners out there who can handle intact dogs and they deserve to make that decision, with all of the information. 

Ireth0, there are tons of doodles, even tiny poodle mixes, at our shelter and other local shelters all of the time. That is the benefit of being in a high overpopulation area I guess. The doodles that wind up with wiry coats sit even longer. So many of them have behavioral problems so they just sit. We also get purebred dogs, GSDs and huskies are really popular. We had a Great Dane not long ago and have had Bull Terriers. Hunting Breeds are not uncommon, mixes and pure bred dogs (I doubt the mixes were accidental mixes).


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

One thing I have never understood is the thing about Europe (or parts of Europe anyway) having next to no homeless dog issues, in spite of the fact that hardly anyone spays/neuters. What is so different there? Don't kids ever leave the door open in Sweden? Does everyone have a degree in animal husbandry? In the US, people can't even figure out how long a heat period lasts or why it's not a great idea to breed the ten millionth pit-mix litter. What is the difference?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> How do they survive the winter? What do they eat? Where do they shelter? There may be other factors too. I still think it is far easier for a feral dog population to survive in a place that is fairly warm year round, independent of the cultural and economic issues.


You'd be surprised. There are BIG populations of feral stray dogs on the reservations up in Northern Canada, where it gets far, far colder than New England could ever get. It's a big problem there, and they have no trouble surviving. There are rescue groups solely devoted to catching and transporting them into the larger cities to rehabilitate and adopt out.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Kuma'sMom said:


> You'd be surprised. There are BIG populations of feral stray dogs on the reservations up in Northern Canada, where it gets far, far colder than New England could ever get. It's a big problem there, and they have no trouble surviving. There are rescue groups solely devoted to catching and transporting them into the larger cities to rehabilitate and adopt out.


Right, but reservations are plagued with the socioeconomic issues that we already discussed so it's not surprising that they have feral dog populations even in difficult climates. That's what I was getting at when I asked where they live. 

Socioeconomic factors being equal in two pretend towns, one up north and one down south, the stray dogs in the south are going to have a much easier time surviving and breeding.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Shep said:


> One thing I have never understood is the thing about Europe (or parts of Europe anyway) having next to no homeless dog issues, in spite of the fact that hardly anyone spays/neuters. What is so different there? Don't kids ever leave the door open in Sweden? Does everyone have a degree in animal husbandry? In the US, people can't even figure out how long a heat period lasts or why it's not a great idea to breed the ten millionth pit-mix litter. What is the difference?


Culture. I have friends in Sweden and they have many many more rules and regulations about dogs there. Dogs are generally viewed as being a bigger responsibility there IMO.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Remaru said:


> I actually completely agree with this. Though I would say more than half of our shelter population were purposefully bred or at the very least were "carelessly" bred, they were not the result of strays breeding or of "Fifi" getting out while in heat or "Rover" jumping the neighbor's fence. Most are designer/working mixes or "hey your dog is cute lets breed them" or "I just want her/him to have one litter before I spay/neuter" or "I only left them alone for an hour, how did she get pregnant?" litters. Even then they don't come in as little puppies, they come in as 9month olds that have zero training. We rarely see puppies or pregnant moms, maybe one or two a year and a couple of dumps of single puppies. Unfortunately pediatric spay helps prevent the people who "just want one litter" or "only left them alone together for a minute" too. It shouldn't be necessary to spay puppies to prevent owners from doing something selfish but it clearly is.
> 
> I can't tell you how many people I talk to who think it is perfectly ok to breed their dog just because "I want one just like her" or "she is cute" or "I love him" or "he will feel like he missed out" or any number of other really dumb reasons. The worst part is, they actually do breed their dogs for those reasons. They don't just think these things they act on them. I am not specifically against spay/neuter as birth control for the general dog population, I just don't think it is a "dog at large" problem so much as a "people are selfish and make bad decisions" problem. I also am terribly offended by the rest of the rhetoric that goes with it. *Spay/neuter is not a cure all for behavioral issues and pediatric spay/neuter may cause behavioral problems. Spay/neuter is not necessarily the healthiest option and does not need to be done "as soon as possible" or you are dooming your dog to cancer. No my male dog's testicles are not going to cause puppies to die. It would be nice if a little less sensationalism were being spread and a little more accurate information were available. There are responsible pet owners out there who can handle intact dogs and they deserve to make that decision, with all of the information. *
> 
> Ireth0, there are tons of doodles, even tiny poodle mixes, at our shelter and other local shelters all of the time. That is the benefit of being in a high overpopulation area I guess. The doodles that wind up with wiry coats sit even longer. So many of them have behavioral problems so they just sit. We also get purebred dogs, GSDs and huskies are really popular. We had a Great Dane not long ago and have had Bull Terriers. Hunting Breeds are not uncommon, mixes and pure bred dogs (I doubt the mixes were accidental mixes).


Bolded part: Very well said. :clap2:

Accurate information will continue to be widely unavailable so long as we allow sensationalism to 'rule the roost' when it comes to the pros and cons of spaying/neutering. Even when you google it, the first few pages are absolutely dominated by humane societies and the ASPCA saying that altered dogs lead longer, healthier lives and that pediatric spaying prevents hundreds of dead puppies in the future. 

Not until you dive a little into the depths of the search results do you come across the UC Davis study, or the VMD database findings, or the Cooley and Beranek "Endogenous Gonadal Hormone Exposure and Bone Sarcoma Risk" Rottweiler study. The information is hidden by multiple shelters repeatedly copying and pasting the ASPCA articles and ensuring that they're the first hit results when a Google search on pros and cons of spaying/neutering is done.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Culture. I have friends in Sweden and they have many many more rules and regulations about dogs there. Dogs are generally viewed as being a bigger responsibility there IMO.


Also, if you look up the numbers, Europeans in general (except Great Britain, and France maybe) have a much lower dog ownership rate. Like 3 times lower. So the people who DO have dogs are under more scrutiny and have tried harder to have a dog. Less casual dog ownership, I think.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

elrohwen said:


> Right, but reservations are plagued with the socioeconomic issues that we already discussed so it's not surprising that they have feral dog populations even in difficult climates. That's what I was getting at when I asked where they live.
> 
> Socioeconomic factors being equal in two pretend towns, one up north and one down south, the stray dogs in the south are going to have a much easier time surviving and breeding.


You questioned how large populations of stray dogs could survive in cold climates.


> I didn't say they can't survive. Sure there are dogs who can scavenge and find a way to make a go of it. But on the whole, a cold climate is not going to support a large thriving feral population as easily as some place warm.


I'm simply stating that that is not true, that large populations can and do survive, even in the harshest climates.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> humane societies and the ASPCA saying that altered dogs lead longer, healthier lives


The thing is, there's at least one study that says that altered dogs DO lead longer, healthier lives in general, so that's not entirely inaccurate, if somewhat unnuanced. The abstract discusses the different risks and whys and all that, too, which is nice:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061082


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Kuma'sMom said:


> You questioned how large populations of stray dogs could survive in cold climates.


I was asking Willowy for specifics about the situation where she lives since she responded. I didn't say I had no idea how a dog would survive somewhere cold.



> I'm simply stating that that is not true, that large populations can and do survive, even in the harshest climates.


And I'm still going to disagree that it's equally easy for animals to survive and breed in a very cold climate vs one with temperate winters and more plentiful food sources. I didn't say it doesn't happen. I never said that. I said it's likely a contributing factor (along with all of the other factors mentioned) to why there are fewer strays in New England.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> The thing is, there's at least one study that says that altered dogs DO lead longer, healthier lives in general, so that's not entirely inaccurate, if somewhat unnuanced. The abstract discusses the different risks and whys and all that, too, which is nice:
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0061082


The study is interesting, though I have to wonder what kinds of dogs they were studying if these were the average lifespans: 



> The mean age of death for intact dogs was 7.9 years versus 9.4 years for sterilized dogs.


You're telling me that the mean age of death for intact dogs of any breed is 7.9 years? I find that *incredibly* hard to believe.

Outside of that, I'm not arguing *against* spaying/neutering. I'm arguing against pediatric spay/neuter. Here is why:



> • 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
> ...


Link here. (Naiaonline.org has both pro- and anti- spay/neuter articles, so if they have an agenda, I'm not seeing it)

Altering a dog after they're fully developed should be at the discretion of the owner (and I believe that altering before the age of 8 greatly decreases the chances of a female developing mammory cancer). Altering one before puberty is setting the dog up for a shortened lifespan and increasing the odds of many terminal diseases.

ETA: I like to think about people's agendas while doing this type of research. Who is telling me what and why. The ASPCA and veterinarians around the country are telling people to alter "as soon as possible" because their agenda is to decrease the unwanted dog population by sterilizing a vast majority of privately owned dogs. 

What agenda would the people have who are saying that pediatric spay/neuter is very bad for a dog's health? I don't see any scientific studies saying that pediatric spay/neuter is GOOD for a dog. I see a lot of them saying that altered dogs tend to live longer, but not specifying WHEN the dog was altered. I can accept that a dog altered after puberty may live a longer, happier life. I can't accept that pushing pediatric spay/neuter on owners will lead to a healthy dog population.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Hiraeth said:


> Altering one before puberty is setting the dog up for a shortened lifespan and increasing the odds of many terminal diseases.


That is entirely sensational.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Laurelin said:


> That is entirely sensational.





> To determine whether there was an association between endogenous sex hormones and risk of bone sarcoma, relative risk (RR) of incidence rates and hazard ratios for bone sarcoma were calculated for dogs subdivided on the basis of lifetime gonadal hormone exposure. Bone sarcoma was diagnosed in 12.6% of dogs in this cohort during 71,004 dog-months follow-up. Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. *Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact [RR ±95% CI = 3.8 (1.5–9.2) for males; RR ±95% CI = 3.1 (1.1–8.3) for females].*


ETA: Osteosarcoma is terminal. Cardiac Hemangiosarcoma is terminal. Prostate cancer is often terminal. So what about my statement, backed up with multiple studies done by multiple people backed by multiple organizations, is sensational?

I've posted links to many of the studies the information is coming from, and an excerpt above your post. I can repost them, but I have a feeling if you haven't looked at them already, you probably aren't interested.

Edited again to add: This thread officially feels like beating a dead horse. The information is there, we're all running in circles about it. I hope if someone wants information about spaying/neutering their dog, they take the time to read through this, consider everyone's opinions, and then makes their own choice. No matter what, if an interested person has read the studies I posted, or the study willowy posted, and learned something from it or went on to do more research, then that's a good result.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> ETA: Osteosarcoma is terminal. Cardiac Hemangiosarcoma is terminal. Prostate cancer is often terminal. So what about my statement, backed up with multiple studies done by multiple people backed by multiple organizations, is sensational?
> 
> I've posted links to many of the studies the information is coming from, and an excerpt above your post. I can repost them, but I have a feeling if you haven't looked at them already, you probably aren't interested.
> 
> Edited again to add: This thread officially feels like beating a dead horse. The information is there, we're all running in circles about it. I hope if someone wants information about spaying/neutering their dog, they take the time to read through this, consider everyone's opinions, and then makes their own choice. No matter what, if an interested person has read the studies I posted, or the study willowy posted, and learned something from it or went on to do more research, then that's a good result.


I read your posts and I do agree with what you said on some level, and I do believe there is some weight to it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Saying someone who altered a dog early is 'setting the dog up for a shortened lifespan' is sensational. 

I am in the middle of a class right now so no, I haven't read every article posted yet. I have in the past read every article I could find and and of right now the data I've seen is somewhat of a wash. The percentages we are talking about in the studies I've seen are really small. And while some risks are increased others are lessened.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> The ASPCA and veterinarians around the country are telling people to alter "as soon as possible" because their agenda is to decrease the unwanted dog population


Gee, what a terrible agenda .

I'm sure if you have a better (realistic) way to decrease the unwanted dog population they'd be glad to hear it.

You know what else increases cancer risk for a dog? Smoking (even if the owner doesn't smoke around the dog. Thirdhand smoke and all). Lawn pesticides. Those probably increase cancer risk about as much as or more than neutering does but I rarely see anyone advising dog owners to quit smoking or cancel their Chemlawn account.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Saying someone who altered a dog early is 'setting the dog up for a shortened lifespan' is sensational.


That is an opinion.... And mine is different......


Folks can say that the studies are not all inclusive.... Coincidence...... Flawed..... Etc.... All they want......


And folks can say my personal experiences are anecdotal... And maybe they are.....

But as someone that has owned somewhere around 40 dogs (including hunting dogs ) over a now 41 year time span.....

And only four of those dogs were neutered or spayed.... All at a year or earlier.... 

Of those four dogs....

Bronson - Rottweiler - Liver cancer.... Died at four years of age.

Buc - Lab (mix?) - Osteo Sarcoma - Died at nine years of age.

Ginger - Catahoula - Cardiac Sarcoma - Died at seven years of age. 

Bandit - ACD - Rare Auto Immune disorder... Basically his white blood cells started attacking his red blood cells. - Died at 7.


And in all the dogs I have had... Those are the three cancers I have had... I have had some benign growths on old dogs...
But no other cancer....

What is even more telling to me... My sister and BIL and I bought Rotties from the same litter. I never kept up with the line, but my brother in law violated the breeder contract and never neutered his.... Their dog lived to 11.

Ginger was from a Litter I did with my Grandfather, Using my dog Catcher as stud... 
Catcher Died at 17. My pick from the litter was Doc which died at 16. Of the litter, I know two dogs were killed by hogs hog hunting and one was shot accidentally hog hunting. I lost track of a couple. But three I know for sure lived past 14. 

Buc... I know nothing about....


Bandit..... His sire.... died in his sleep at 17.. His mother lived to be 15.... There were four puppies in the litter. Two bitches, two dogs. One bitch was involved in a bite incident and was put down. The other bitch got out a window and struck by a car.... Bandit's brother Smoko, died at 14..... Bandit's sire and Dam out lived him by quite a while.... It is RARE for an ACD to die before its sire and dam.

So given my personal "anecdotal" experiences.... Then when these studies show up, with similar findings..... 

There is weight to it.... 

And I am NOT anti speuter....

I really do not care what someone does to their dog..... Crop it, dock it, dye it pink, pierce its ears, tattoo born to run on its hip...... As long as you feed it, water it, and provide for its needs. Do not neglect it or abuse it...... And...... I could care less. 
Spay them at 8 weeks.... Does not matter to me....

But do not ask me to believe for a second, that you are not increasing the chances of shortening the dogs life.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Gee, what a terrible agenda .
> 
> 
> .


It is a terrible agenda...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

That's only 4 dogs though.... Not a good sample size. 

I've known a good few bitches lately that died because they had pyo. One of my good good friends lost her bitch last year to pyo. 

Also know an intact dog at 8 to cancer (osteo).

Of my personal dogs, I've only had 14 dogs and so far no cancer. Knock on wood? I feel like I should. lol I've had orthopedic issues in 2 dogs- one intact large breed male, one altered toy breed female. My intact dogs have had a shorter life expectancy but it's not a fair comparison because that is going to include the puppies we lost far too young. But every dog that made it to old age lived to 12+ intact or not. Anecdotes are good but still just anecdotes.

Every study I've seen so far when talking about *life expectancy* alone shows altered dogs having a longer lifespan on average. Though I'd like to see more studies for sure. I also think they need to throw out accidental death statistics in these things. 

I have already said I don't like pediatric altering (I will always alter females at maturity though). But I do think it's sensational at this point in time to say you are setting your dog up for a shorter lifespan if you alter.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Hiraeth said:


> ETA: Osteosarcoma is terminal. Cardiac Hemangiosarcoma is terminal. Prostate cancer is often terminal. So what about my statement, backed up with multiple studies done by multiple people backed by multiple organizations, is sensational?
> 
> I've posted links to many of the studies the information is coming from, and an excerpt above your post. I can repost them, but I have a feeling if you haven't looked at them already, you probably aren't interested.
> 
> Edited again to add: This thread officially feels like beating a dead horse. The information is there, we're all running in circles about it. I hope if someone wants information about spaying/neutering their dog, they take the time to read through this, consider everyone's opinions, and then makes their own choice. No matter what, if an interested person has read the studies I posted, or the study willowy posted, and learned something from it or went on to do more research, then that's a good result.


You're pretty new, so I suggest doing a search; I'd say most frequent posters here are pretty familiar with these studies, and what conclusions one can and cannot draw from them. It's been discussed quite a bit. Some of the studies are more suggestive than others, some have serious limitations, but none of them are half as dramatic as the, say, Mercola interpretations of them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> That's only 4 dogs though.... Not a good sample size.
> 
> I've known a good few bitches lately that died because they had pyo. One of my good good friends lost her bitch last year to pyo.
> 
> ...


The sample size is NOT four dogs....

The sample size is around 40 dogs..... 

The only four that died far prematurely were altered....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

One thing I'd like to see is what age dogs are getting cancer at. The Rottweiler study I've only been able to read the abstract. Does it also detail life expectancy? Because if a group of dogs is living longer then that could also be why they are more likely to get cancer (in old age).

Now this is just from a blog but kind of explaining what I mean: http://www.petmd.com/blogs/thedailyvet/aobrien/2013/june/spayed-and-neutered-dogs-live-longer-30486



> Looking at a sample of 40,139 death records from the Veterinary Medical Database from 1984-2004, scientists from the University of Georgia determined the average age at death for dogs that had not been spayed or neutered was 7.9 years versus 9.4 years for sterilized dogs. Dogs that had been spayed or neutered were more likely to die from cancer or autoimmune diseases while those that were not were more likely to die from infectious disease and trauma.


I do think with that study the issue of accidental/traumatic type deaths is probably dragging the altered group down. Most dogs that die at a year or less aren't going to have been altered.

In short, I'd like to see more studies but I am a math person so...

I'd love to have results like these in a full spreadsheet for a bunch of different breeds:
http://www.pcagenetics.com/HEALTH-SURVEY/Papillon-Health-Survey-2010.pdf

But most breed health surveys don't separate out altered vs not to the extent its very useful.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> And I'm still going to disagree that it's equally easy for animals to survive and breed in a very cold climate vs one with temperate winters and more plentiful food sources. I didn't say it doesn't happen. I never said that. I said it's likely a contributing factor (along with all of the other factors mentioned) to why there are fewer strays in New England.


Yes. The low rate of spay/neuter, and the lack of limitations such as an active Animal Control on roaming dogs and strays, means that the population growth rate in many rez areas significantly outpaces the death rate among stray dogs. Add in that rez dogs are more often hardy breeds and multi-generational mixes thereof, and that canids in general do better in regions with lower population density than the sprawl of the NE, and it should not come as a surprise that rez dogs in similarly harsh or harsher climates have greater population growth. Harsh winter is a limiting factor, but the growth factors in these regions outweigh it where the developed NE they do not.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Show Goldens are a good example. Most show Golden Retriever breeders around here advise puppy buyers keep their dogs intact as long as possible. Males even for life. Why? Goldens are a breed very prone to Cancer. 

They are still dying like crazy of cancer in their later years and getting HD, intact or not. You can weigh the evidence which ever way you want, but really it is more than likely genetic. I know plenty of "backyard bred" spayed/neutered (6mo) Goldens who are older and still in great health. Those are just my anecdotes. 

I am convinced SN too early can increase risks.. but not to a ridiculous extent. Sometimes you still lose the lottery, even with good genetics. 

I am avidly against pediatric SN with all my heart.. but I get it for shelters that can't screen potential adopters. I absolutely believe all shelter dogs should be S/N before adoption. I get why private rescues do it too.. they just can't trust anyone. I'd much rather see them at least get to 6mo. I know quite a few people that deal with recessed vulva in their dogs and are completely infuriated to learn that if they would have waited out one heat cycle, they wouldn't have the issue.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> One thing I'd like to see is what age dogs are getting cancer at. The Rottweiler study I've only been able to read the abstract. Does it also detail life expectancy? Because if a group of dogs is living longer then that could also be why they are more likely to get cancer (in old age).
> 
> Now this is just from a blog but kind of explaining what I mean: http://www.petmd.com/blogs/thedailyvet/aobrien/2013/june/spayed-and-neutered-dogs-live-longer-30486
> 
> ...


Yeah. And moreover, IMO what's necessary for the studies to be conclusive rather than suggestive is a proper formal experiment, as opposed to relying on survey data. There are the factors you cite there that are problematic about the surveys, and then there's the issue of _which_ dogs get desexed - are subpar dogs more likely to be desexed? Those from lines with known genetic issues? Ones that are "pet quality" rather than breeding quality? Are there dietary and exercise differences between the desexed and intact populations, or other environmental factors? etc. etc...what's needed is a structured experiment with a proper control group. And with breeds that aren't already absurdly cancer-riddled, maybe. 

I think it's pretty apparent that pediatric altering is not ideal, all other things being equal, particularly when it comes to orthopedic health, but the data is not nearly as dramatic or conclusive as some people make it out to be.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Gee, what a terrible agenda .
> 
> I'm sure if you have a better (realistic) way to decrease the unwanted dog population they'd be glad to hear it.
> 
> You know what else increases cancer risk for a dog? Smoking (even if the owner doesn't smoke around the dog. Thirdhand smoke and all). Lawn pesticides. Those probably increase cancer risk about as much as or more than neutering does but I rarely see anyone advising dog owners to quit smoking or cancel their Chemlawn account.


So it's okay to manipulate and miseducate the public so that their goal is met? It's not a terrible agenda. It's simply not a great way to achieve the end goal. 

Also, point out a person who smokes or uses lawn pesticides and then lets their dog in the yard. I will *happily* tell them that they should quit smoking and not spray their lawn for the sake of the health of their dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The sample size is NOT four dogs....
> 
> The sample size is around 40 dogs.....
> 
> The only four that died far prematurely were altered....


A sample size of only 4 altered dogs is not a good sample size. 

I DO very much understand why individual experience is so important to people. What we experience shapes what our decisions are. I have personally had really ridiculously bad luck with show bred dogs. So that's a lot of the reason Hank was a mutt. I mean that's the honest truth. That's understandable. I understand why people experience bad things enough and decide to not do things the same way. Makes perfect sense. But it's still not a real thorough dataset. 

But correlation doesn't equal causation. It's definitely not insignificant to note that things correlate but well... take enough stat classes and you can see some hilariously bizarre correlations.

The issue with most (all?) the statistics I've seen on dog longevity is there's just so many factors. And they're factors that you can't really ignore. Breed plays a HUGE role in life expectancy and also what diseases/disorders are common. Purebred vs mixed (most studies show mixed dogs live longer). Food type. General care type. etc etc etc

I wish there was a large dataset out there to analyze. It would be fun. I wouldn't even think it'd be that hard to draw some rough conclusions on. Some of the programs I use at work are fantastic at analzying multiple variables and creating all sorts of displays and correlations. But I guess there's just no money in research? Most the breed surveys don't ask enough questions about the 'demographics' (lack of a better word) about the individual dogs. Or at least when they post results they don't analyze all the variables very thoroughly. Generally just split it up into male or female.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

parus said:


> You're pretty new, so I suggest doing a search; I'd say most frequent posters here are pretty familiar with these studies, and what conclusions one can and cannot draw from them. It's been discussed quite a bit. Some of the studies are more suggestive than others, some have serious limitations, but none of them are half as dramatic as the, say, Mercola interpretations of them.


Oh, the Mercola interpretations are quite drastic. I linked the site because it's a comprehensive list of the studies and has links TO the studies themselves, not so that anyone would draw conclusions by simply reading the excerpts. Everyone should read the studies themselves and draw their own conclusions. 

*My personal* conclusions are 'don't alter before sexual maturity to lessen the chances of multiple cancers and bone deformities, alter females at 7-8 years old to prevent mammary cancer, do a blood panel and alter an older male if the panel suggests it is necessary, or if he develops testicular cancer'.



Laurelin said:


> One thing I'd like to see is what age dogs are getting cancer at. The Rottweiler study I've only been able to read the abstract. Does it also detail life expectancy? Because if a group of dogs is living longer then that could also be why they are more likely to get cancer (in old age).
> 
> Now this is just from a blog but kind of explaining what I mean: http://www.petmd.com/blogs/thedailyvet/aobrien/2013/june/spayed-and-neutered-dogs-live-longer-30486
> 
> ...


The study details the ages the dogs were diagnosed along with a myriad of other factors, including height and weight, that may be associated with osteosarcoma. It's surprisingly thorough.

If you have time, you should read the whole thing


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> A sample size of only 4 altered dogs is not a good sample size.
> 
> .


Sample size is 40 dogs.... 

Speuter is the correlation between the number of dogs in the group that suffered from cancer....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> The study details the ages the dogs were diagnosed along with a myriad of other factors, including height and weight, that may be associated with osteosarcoma. It's surprisingly thorough.
> 
> If you have time, you should read the whole thing


Ok I did read the whole thing! It is interesting and definitely worth noting. However, I didn't see any real thorough numerical data overall about intact vs altered _life expectancy._ It did in a blip at the bottom actually state neutered dogs lived longer in this study group. 

Read from here: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434.full

I actually didn't see anything about age of diagnosis either? (I may have missed it so if you know where it is can you point me to it? lol)

The age I see referenced is age at spaying/neutering. And then they do state the average Rottweiler life expectancy in that study is 9.5 years.

Which is interesting because looking at the risk for male rotts to have osteo vs age shows these dogs that have osteo are pretty old for rottweilers. the high risk is past the median age of death of 9.5 years.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434/F1.large.jpg

Also worth noting is that rottweilers have an over 12% bone cancer rate total so they are already very prone to bone cancer. Earlier in the thread it sounded like people were insinuating 1 in 4 early neutered dogs get osteosarcoma and that was the only/main factor. 

Also from the study:



> Finally, yet to be identified confounding factors unique to dogs that undergo elective gonadectomy before 1 year of age may account for this association. *Gonadectomized female and male dogs lived longer than sexually intact dogs in this cohort* (Table 1)⇓ and in a previous study (32) , which might be expected to contribute to a higher overall cancer incidence associated with gonadectomy.


So they flat out say that the altered dogs in the study lived longer (and another previous study!) and that could be a contributing factor.

So yes, very interesting but still just a part of the picture. I would like to see more data over more breeds and sizes on spaying and neutering vs total life expectancy. 

I just don't like the 'sky is falling! If you neuter your dog it WILL get cancer!'


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah I'm pretty sure if Moose gets bone cancer at this age (12!) I'm not going to blame it on neutering . He's already outlived his 3 siblings I knew of in the area and I know at least 2 of them weren't neutered.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Ah I did find the age at diagnosis stuff:



> Most Rottweiler dogs are diagnosed with bone sarcoma at age 8–10 years, and no dogs in our study developed bone sarcoma before the age of 1.3 years.


So comparing that to average age of death at 9.5 years total.... it's still pretty well an older dog disease? 

And add in this:



> Gonadectomized female and male dogs lived longer than sexually intact dogs in this cohort (Table 1)⇓ and in a previous study (32)


I just don't think it's as dramatic a study as it has been pushed to be.

FTR if I had a rottweiler, I'd wait to alter for sure.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Ok data:

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434/T1.expansion.html

So it looks like to me that intact (9.3 years) vs castrated males (9.2 years) doesn't make much difference on life expectancy or age of diagnosis. However intact females (7.2 years) in the study live significantly shorter lives than spayed females (9.8 years). Which is definitely something but a different picture to me than what was painted earlier.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Ah I did find the age at diagnosis stuff:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But look at the difference in the cancer rates between the old intact Rottweilers and old altered Rottweilers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Are you talking about from this diagram?

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434/F1.large.jpg

Which yes, as they age it increases a lot. But If you look at average life expectancies the groups are essentially the same. Intact females have by far the shortest life expectancy.

Here it does show the more than double risk but it also doesn't show the age these individual dogs lived to be. 

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434/T4.expansion.html

Yeah from this data I would say don't alter a rottweiler before a year. 

However this idea that altered dogs are living shorter lifespans is not supported by this study at all.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> Are you talking about from this diagram?
> 
> http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/11/11/1434/F1.large.jpg
> 
> ...


I have to say, I always enjoy your data you post


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

So I quoted you mainly because you were in the last few pages and we've seen these threads a million times and everyone knows everyone else's stance. But you're relatively new 


Hiraeth said:


> *You're telling me that the mean age of death for intact dogs of any breed is 7.9 years? I find that *incredibly* hard to believe.
> *
> Outside of that, I'm not arguing *against* spaying/neutering. I'm arguing against pediatric spay/neuter. Here is why:
> 
> ...


Random thoughts as I’m reading through this thread.

Is speutering at 8 weeks old medically advisable or a great solution? No.

Is it the only 100% full proof way (barring vasectomy, etc.) of preventing pregnancy? Yes.

I’ve seen figures between 2-5% thrown around. Small numbers, but a zero is what will keep a dog from breeding, no matter who their owner is from dog savvy to shouldn’t own a pet rock.

Education is the best long term solution to problems in the pet population, I agree with that. But practically speaking, in the (hopefully) relative short term I’m OK if pediatric speutering is used as a stop-gap measure.

I suppose that does have a fallout of pediatric speutering becoming the norm and having to deal with that, but a dog that lives 11-15 years happy is better than a year or less because the shelter was full. 

Obviously context and personal bias come into play. Where I am located they are literally having a FREE adoption day, so there is no short supply of animals in my area.

I’m willing to bet that the intact dogs in the study had shortened life spans due to behavioral reasons and died in accidents from being loose or fights.

And if you are saying vets and shelters have monetary reasons to push pediatric speuter, go ahead and say it. (Because otherwise why is sterilization as a counter to irresponsible owners+overwhelming population a bad thing?)

I don’t think anyone here is arguing that pediatric speutering is great for health benefits, but rather for the dog population+accounting for stupid people lol.

A sample size of 40 dogs is still stupidly small. Get up to 1,000. And only 4 altered dogs is not a good sample size for altered dogs specifically. I’ve known more than 4 dogs in my life that I could use for anecdotal evidence.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I used to be very old school in the belief that it was either intact or neutered, but if my dog's tests don't clear I will be looking into getting him a vasectomy as a means of sterilization as opposed to full on neutering him.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Well John all of my family dogs which were spayed/neutered lived to 13+. None of which died of cancer. So I guess that changes the view on your personal experience statistics pretty dramatically.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> Yeah I'm pretty sure if Moose gets bone cancer at this age (12!) I'm not going to blame it on neutering . He's already outlived his 3 siblings I knew of in the area and I know at least 2 of them weren't neutered.


You're missing the point. Again. 

What if Moose got bone cancer at age 6 and he was a pediatric neuter? 

As dogs live longer, their chances of getting cancer increase greatly, there's no doubt about that. I'm specifically talking about dogs who die from cancer at an abnormally young age and were neutered before sexual maturity. Therefore, Moose likely has nothing to do with the demographic of dogs that I am speaking of, unless he was a pediatric neuter and has lived 12 long, healthy years, in which case, he's an example against my argument. 



CrimsonAccent said:


> I’m willing to bet that the intact dogs in the study had shortened life spans due to behavioral reasons and died in accidents from being loose or fights.


I find the rest of what you said agreeable, mostly, but this struck me as odd - are you suggesting that intact dogs are more aggressive and prone to fights, as well as more likely to get loose from their owners, hence the higher death rate? Or did I just read that incorrectly?

ETA:



ireth0 said:


> Well John all of my family dogs which were spayed/neutered lived to 13+. None of which died of cancer. So I guess that changes the view on your personal experience statistics pretty dramatically.


But at what age were they spayed/neutered? Everyone who is saying "oh, my altered dog lived to 13+ so you are wrong!"... Well, that's great, but age at altering greatly effects life expectancy. Neutering a female at the proper age can actually extend her life. _It is specifically pediatric altering that is thought to lessen a dog's lifespan and make them more prone to diseases, cancers and bone abnormalities._


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> You're missing the point. Again.
> 
> What if Moose got bone cancer at age 6 and he was a pediatric neuter?
> 
> ...


As a general rule, dogs that are kept intact TYPICALLY have different living circumstances than dogs who are altered. More likely to be kept exclusively outside, (loose or tied in a yard) for example. 

Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, it isn't -because- they are intact that they're kept outside, but rather that the demographic that typically keeps dogs exclusively outside also typically doesn't alter.

Of course not EVERYONE who doesn't alter falls into this category, I'm just talking about overall big picture trends.

Edit: and so because of this they could be more prone to accidental death.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> As a general rule, dogs that are kept intact TYPICALLY have different living circumstances than dogs who are altered. More likely to be kept exclusively outside, (loose or tied in a yard) for example.
> 
> Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, it isn't -because- they are intact that they're kept outside, but rather that the demographic that typically keeps dogs exclusively outside also typically doesn't alter.
> 
> ...


Okay, that is logical. 

I was thinking more along the lines of the whole silly argument that intact dogs are more likely to be aggressive and have behavioral issues, which to me is just another myth to convince people that altering is their only choice. 

I am pretty sure the Rott study ruled out accidental deaths, but I could be mistaken. I've read a lot these last few days.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Hiraeth said:


> But at what age were they spayed/neutered? Everyone who is saying "oh, my altered dog lived to 13+ so you are wrong!"... Well, that's great, but age at altering greatly effects life expectancy. Neutering a female at the proper age can actually extend her life. _It is specifically pediatric altering that is thought to lessen a dog's lifespan and make them more prone to diseases, cancers and bone abnormalities._


_


The problem is the study doesn't show that altering early lessens a dog's lifespan. At least I did not see that data. 

While they do show that the early alters have a higher rate of cancer they don't separate out neuters < 1 year vs neutered dogs over 1 year when it comes to life expectancy in particular. They just have data on neutered vs not neutered and life span. They also do state that the average age of diagnosis for dogs with osteosarcoma is 8-10 years. Which is very much in line with the average Rottweiler life expectancy (especially considering the dogs generally live a bit after diagnosis). So maybe the early alters are dying of cancer more often than the ones not altered but they are all dying at near the same time? 

So it is still jumping to conclusions that are not there to say 'age at altering greatly affects life expectancy'. That could be a hypothesis. But it's not proven. 

I think it's an interesting study for sure and it does bring up concerns. But there's a lot more questions to be asked.

- Does this play out across breeds and not just ones with astronomical cancer rates?
- what are the life expectancies of dogs that are altered before 6 months?
- 6 months - 1 year?
- after 1 year?
- never?
- how does the increase in osteosarcoma risk compare to the decrease in other risks brought about by neutering? (ex: pyometra)
- Why are the altered groups living longer even if they're more prone to cancer?

This is dangerous though:




What if Moose got bone cancer at age 6 and he was a pediatric neuter?

Click to expand...

We can't assume that Moose got cancer BECAUSE he was a pediatric neutered. 

For the record, I think one issue dragging down the intact dogs is the fact that most early deaths are going to be intact dogs just because people aren't going to be neutering prior to a year very often. So that will skew things._


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

My dog just turned one year old, has gone through her first heat, and likely going to have her second heat within the next two months. She has a recessed vulva, and we do not play to spay her until she's 2 - unless we decide to breed of course.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The study that said that altered dogs live longer said they think they ruled out "yard dogs" and other dogs who may not be well-cared-for because it was a teaching hospital, by referral only, and Not Cheap. Not a perfect way to screen for dogs who may have been neglected but it probably does rule out a lot of casual dog owners. I don't know if the other studies screened for lifestyle or not.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Laurelin said:


> The problem is the study doesn't show that altering early lessens a dog's lifespan. At least I did not see that data.
> 
> While they do show that the early alters have a higher rate of cancer they don't separate out neuters < 1 year vs neutered dogs over 1 year when it comes to _life expectancy_ in particular. They just have data on neutered vs not neutered and life span. They also do state that the average age of diagnosis for dogs with osteosarcoma is 8-10 years. Which is very much in line with the average Rottweiler life expectancy (especially considering the dogs generally live a bit after diagnosis). So maybe the early alters are dying of cancer more often than the ones not altered but they are all dying at near the same time?
> 
> ...


These are all reasonable questions. And of course we can't draw all of our conclusions from one study. Especially because the Rottweiler study only addresses the risks of osteosarcoma as related to altering, and the risks of pediatric spay/neuter go far past bone cancer. 

I keep bringing up the bone cancer because it hits close to home, but the UC Davis study is actually far more pertinent to multiple early spay/neuter risks. Again, it is a self-admitted breed specific study, and the only way to get data that is relevant to all dogs is to do more breed specific studies like this one. 

Anyone can look at Figures 1 and 2 in that study and tell me that early spay/neuter doesn't increase the risk of HD, CCL and LSA, then they don't know how to read a bar graph. Late spay increases the risks of HSA and MCT, clearly (odd that intact feamles have the lowest occurence of HSA and MCT). The trend here indicates what I've been arguing all along - do the research, alter your dog at the appropriate age to decrease the highest risks. 

This study isn't relevant to all breeds, of course - it's relevant to breeds who suffer from similar long-term ailments that Goldens suffer from. 



Laurelin said:


> This is dangerous though:
> 
> We can't assume that Moose got cancer BECAUSE he was a pediatric neutered.
> 
> For the record, I think one issue dragging down the intact dogs is the fact that most early deaths are going to be intact dogs just because people aren't going to be neutering prior to a year very often. So that will skew things.


I know that is a correlation without causation statement  

It was just to illustrate the fact that we're discussing pediatric neuter and someone comes along and says "Well, I own a 13 year old dog who doesn't have bone cancer and if he did I wouldn't blame it on neutering" (without even mentioning the age at which the dog was altered) is like someone showing up to a debate about marijuana use and adolescent brain development and saying "well, I smoked as a kid and I'm just fine and even if I wasn't, I wouldn't blame it on the weed!". 

It's just a statement that glosses over the entire point of the argument, as well as all of the nuances of the discussion at hand.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I guess my point was---at what age do you blame cancer on an earlier life event? If a dog gets cancer at an advanced age, was it caused by something earlier in life, or the usual drop in immune function that comes with advanced age? If the dog lives 13 years and dies of cancer, is that better or worse than if he lives to be 13 and dies of a heart attack (or whatever the non-cancer dogs died of in that study)? If it doesn't reduce lifespan, what's the difference if it's cancer or something else that gets them? 

Sort of like---even though tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen, not every smoker will get lung cancer. So, if a smoker lives to be 98 and gets lung cancer, was it the smoking or just being, y'know, 98 years old?


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> I find the rest of what you said agreeable, mostly, but this struck me as odd - are you suggesting that intact dogs are more aggressive and prone to fights, as well as more likely to get loose from their owners, hence the higher death rate? Or did I just read that incorrectly?


Basically what ireth0 said about it, sorry for not being clear 

Also, my understanding is that some (not all) of intact males are prone to wandering if say there is an intact, female in heat in the area. Loose=possibly hit by car, possibly gets in a fight with another dog (not that they are inherently more aggressive, just the opportunity is there). However, this could just be a myth that I've internalized as personal fact. If anyone has proof otherwise, I'm glad to see/hear it.

Working dogs seem to be intact more often and could also be killed in their line of work.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> I guess my point was---at what age do you blame cancer on an earlier life event? If a dog gets cancer at an advanced age, was it caused by something earlier in life, or the usual drop in immune function that comes with advanced age? If the dog lives 13 years and dies of cancer, is that better or worse than if he lives to be 13 and dies of a heart attack (or whatever the non-cancer dogs died of in that study)? If it doesn't reduce lifespan, what's the difference if it's cancer or something else that gets them?
> 
> Sort of like---even though tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen, not every smoker will get lung cancer. So, if a smoker lives to be 98 and gets lung cancer, was it the smoking or just being, y'know, 98 years old?


Right. My point is that you're discussing different points than everyone else and stating them like they're relevant. 

*We're talking about pediatric altering heightening the risk of osteosarcoma (and other issues). *_Thirteen years old is NOT early onset. For any disease._ So discussing a thirteen year old dog is literally not at all relevant to that discussion. Unless he was neutered before a year of age. Then he's relevant. But you have yet to mention when he was altered, so I have to think you are entirely missing the point.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

CrimsonAccent said:


> So I quoted you mainly because you were in the last few pages and we've seen these threads a million times and everyone knows everyone else's stance. But you're relatively new
> 
> 
> Random thoughts as I’m reading through this thread.
> ...


I just wanted to take a moment to point out that the Clear The Shelter event is actually a national event. Yes TX has a significant pet overpopulation issue, we also, as a state, have socioeconomic issues and educational issues as well as a view of animals that probably play a significant roll (as well as our weather which does allow for feral populations in some areas though farmers/ranchers are more than happy to shoot strays). 

http://www.cleartheshelters.com/ These are the states that participate in the Clear the Shelter event, several are not states that I would assume would need to. However remember it is not just about dogs, cats are also in shelters. I know my local shelter typically has 3 to 1 cats to dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hiraeth said:


> Right. My point is that you're discussing different points than everyone else and stating them like they're relevant.
> 
> *We're talking about pediatric altering heightening the risk of osteosarcoma (and other issues). *_Thirteen years old is NOT early onset. For any disease._ So discussing a thirteen year old dog is literally not at all relevant to that discussion. Unless he was neutered before a year of age. Then he's relevant. But you have yet to mention when he was altered, so I have to think you are entirely missing the point.


_But if neutered dogs have a longer average lifespan than an intact dog, then even pediatric neutering is obviously not making them keel over from early onset diseases_. I think that's the same point. Maybe . 

Anyway, since you're interested, Moose was (I just looked at his papers) born 7-19-2003 and neutered on 7-9-2007. So nearly 4 years old. Only because he didn't come live with me until he was 3 and his owner swore he'd come back for him. . .well, I gave him a year anyway . So he wasn't a pediatric neuter, no. Toby was also an adult when I got him from the shelter, so I haven't had an early-neutered male yet. All my females were spayed at 6-7 months though. For the record, I don't prefer early-neutered males because they don't mature to the manly shape I like  (smaller heads usually) but I don't think telling people their dogs are going to kick it at an early age if they are neutered young is terribly helpful. Or necessarily truthful, from the studies.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> _But if neutered dogs have a longer average lifespan than an intact dog, then even pediatric neutering is obviously not making them keel over from early onset diseases_. I think that's the same point. Maybe .


*head desk* That is again correlation without causation. And you're still missing the point. I'd really rather not repeat this again: *My argument is not that neutered dogs die sooner. My argument is that pediatric altering increases the risks of many diseases, cancers and bone deformities. *

Let's say the average lifespan of an unaltered dog is 11. Let's say the average lifespan of an altered dog is 12. However, the average lifespan of dogs altered before 1 year old could be 10, and dogs altered after three years old could be 14, which makes the average 12. 

These are all clearly hypothetical numbers, but there are many mathematical reasons altered dogs could come out ahead in overall life expectancy *as a group*, but dogs altered before 12 months old could fall well behind in life expectancy.

So again, you're not making the same points as me at all, you're simply making different points and presenting them like they're relevant to the discussion at hand. 




Willowy said:


> Anyway, since you're interested, Moose was (I just looked at his papers) born 7-19-2003 and neutered on 7-9-2007. So nearly 4 years old. Only because he didn't come live with me until he was 3 and his owner swore he'd come back for him. . .well, I gave him a year anyway . So he wasn't a pediatric neuter, no. Toby was also an adult when I got him from the shelter, so I haven't had an early-neutered male yet. All my females were spayed at 6-7 months though. _For the record, I don't prefer early-neutered males because they don't mature to the manly shape I like  (smaller heads usually)_ but I don't think telling people their dogs are going to kick it at an early age if they are neutered young is terribly helpful. Or necessarily truthful, from the studies.


You make a point (italicized) - altering young dogs literally changes their biology and physical characteristics and hormonal makeup. Why would anyone who has any knowledge of biology or medicine think that prematurely removing hormone-producing organs that influence a dog's growth would somehow not negatively effect them?


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

You keep just pulling guesses out of air and using them as a basis for argument. It's not sound.

The Rott study indicates that desexing a Rott increases risk of osteosarcoma. That is not sufficient basis on which to generalize that desexing causes an increased *net incidence* of cancers nor earlier mortality *across the board*, nor are other commonly cited studies at this time. It is suggestive and invites further study, but the data simply is not there to support your point, no matter how you try to wiggle around that.

Additionally, the risk/benefit analysis for female dogs in particular becomes more complex once you factor in the ailments that early (not necessarily pediatric, but early) spaying is known for certain to dramatically decrease the incidence of: mammary tumors, which are the most common tumor in intact bitches, and pyometra, which is a serious health concern.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

The resistance to the idea that neutering can impact male dogs' behavior in ways a pet owner can find helpful strikes me as odd. Changes in testosterone levels, including those caused by castration, can lead to behavioral changes pretty much across the board; why would dogs be exempt from this? There is a tendency for under-informed people to think of it as a panacea for training problems, which is obviously incorrect, but that doesn't mean the general concept of neutering affecting behavior is wrong. 

We routinely castrate other domesticated animals to make them more tractable.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

parus said:


> You keep just pulling guesses out of air and using them as a basis for argument. It's not sound.
> 
> The Rott study indicates that desexing a Rott increases risk of osteosarcoma. That is not sufficient basis on which to generalize that desexing causes an increased *net incidence* of cancers nor earlier mortality *across the board*, nor are other commonly cited studies at this time. It is suggestive and invites further study, but the data simply is not there to support your point, no matter how you try to wiggle around that.


This is getting a bit ridiculous. I'll just keep copying and pasting:

*"My argument is not that neutered dogs die sooner. My argument is that pediatric altering increases the risks of many diseases, cancers and bone deformities."*

"I keep bringing up the bone cancer because it hits close to home, but the UC Davis study is actually far more pertinent to multiple early spay/neuter risks. Again, it is a self-admitted breed specific study, and the only way to get data that is relevant to all dogs is to do more breed specific studies like this one. 

*If anyone can look at Figures 1 and 2 in that study and tell me that early spay/neuter doesn't increase the risk of HD, CCL and LSA, then they don't know how to read a bar graph. Late spay increases the risks of HSA and MCT, clearly (odd that intact females have the lowest occurence of HSA and MCT). The trend here indicates what I've been arguing all along - do the research, alter your dog at the appropriate age to decrease the highest risks.*"



parus said:


> Additionally, the risk/benefit analysis for female dogs in particular becomes more complex once you factor in the ailments that early (not necessarily pediatric, but early) spaying is known for certain to dramatically decrease the incidence of: mammary tumors, which are the most common tumor in intact bitches, and pyometra, which is a serious health concern.


Please read the italicized portion above and note that I altered the quote for spelling purposes.

Not sure what's not getting through here. The Rott study indicates that *early* desexing increases the risk of osteosarcoma, not desexing in general. The Golden Retriever study clearly indicates that early desexing leads to higher incidences of HD, CCL and LSA.

They're both widely credited studies that used large groups of dogs to present their data. Do I think someone can look at these studies and draw 100% rock solid conclusions about when to neuter their Chihuahua? No, I don't. Do I think that someone who owns a large breed who is prone to bone cancer, HD, CCL, LSA, HSA and MCT should be aware of these results? Yes. Do I think that early altering negatively effects a dog's development? Yes. I think everyone on both sides of the argument can acknowledge that early castration causes a male dog to physically develop differently than late castration.



parus said:


> The resistance to the idea that neutering can impact male dogs' behavior in ways a pet owner can find helpful strikes me as odd. Changes in testosterone levels, including those caused by castration, can lead to behavioral changes pretty much across the board; why would dogs be exempt from this? There is a tendency for under-informed people to think of it as a panacea for training problems, which is obviously incorrect, but that doesn't mean the general concept of neutering affecting behavior is wrong.
> 
> We routinely castrate other domesticated animals to make them more tractable.


When are domesticated animals like horses and cows routinely altered? In my experience, it's after sexual maturity. I rode stadium jumpers for 13 years. We *NEVER* castrated a colt before the age of two. It impacts muscular and skeletal development. If anyone is castrating before sexual maturity, then they are also impacting the physical development of their stock.

Altering is pushed on the general public as a panacea for all sorts of training problems, you are correct. I'd prefer to push education and work ethic on the public versus "just go castrate your dog and it will suddenly behave better!" That's just me, though.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> When are domesticated animals like horses and cows routinely altered? In my experience, it's after sexual maturity.


Eh, beef calves are castrated quite young. I mean, not like they're destined for longevity or anything, just trivia for you.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ireth0 said:


> Well John all of my family dogs which were spayed/neutered lived to 13+. None of which died of cancer. So I guess that changes the view on your personal experience statistics pretty dramatically.



Does not change my view at all.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Eh, beef calves are castrated quite young. I mean, not like they're destined for longevity or anything, just trivia for you.


Yes to make the muscles soft and weak... More palatable......


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

parus said:


> The resistance to the idea that neutering can impact male dogs' behavior in ways a pet owner can find helpful strikes me as odd. Changes in testosterone levels, including those caused by castration, can lead to behavioral changes pretty much across the board; why would dogs be exempt from this? There is a tendency for under-informed people to think of it as a panacea for training problems, which is obviously incorrect, but that doesn't mean the general concept of neutering affecting behavior is wrong.
> 
> We routinely castrate other domesticated animals to make them more tractable.


Oh it changes them.... 
Not always for the better.....

You get a lot of fear, anxiety issues, reactivity... 

Yes it can and usually does calm down a stallion when you geld them....

Other livestock.... Not so much... Steers are usually castrated young... Does it calm them down? Hard to say because you never get to see the individual animal as a bull. 


But in general terms....The reason livestock is castrated has to do with palatability of the meat, not temperament. 

You usually get squirrelly and unpredictable.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

By the way, Keely is my fifth speutered dog... Fourth that I have had done..

Had it done at 33 months.

And it has caused quite a bit of angst...
\


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

Should of taken the picture of the mammary tumor we removed from the 8 year old Gr pyr today. But I can not due to our hospital's privacy codes. All her mammary glands had tumors. We were able to take out the biggest one and some of the smaller ones. The kicker the owner did not want the dog spayed because he wanted to breed the dog just one more time. Surgeon had to explain that the nipples to nurse the pups that most of the nipples would no longer be there. He still did not get it.
Unless my plans are breeding the bitch, all my females will be spayed.

Males have their problem too. Usually it is not the cancer but hernias of the rectum.

To me, it is not a matter of the alteration of the animal as much as it seems to be the temperament of the animal. The nice ones seem to die young and the mean ones live forever.

Last week had to give an owner of a really nice 4 year old Cane Corso that the growth we removed from his ear was Spindle Cell Sarcoma (http://www.spindlecellsarcoma.info/spindle-cell-sarcoma-dogs/) He is going to go further and even will do chemo or whatever for the dog. The dog will probably have to have his ear removed at least most of it. His testosterone did not help this dog not get the cancer. 

CANCER sucks for any pet owner to have to face with their dog.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

luv mi pets said:


> Should of taken the picture of the mammary tumor we removed from the 8 year old Gr pyr today. But I can not due to our hospital's privacy codes. All her mammary glands had tumors. We were able to take out the biggest one and some of the smaller ones. The kicker the owner did not want the dog spayed because he wanted to breed the dog just one more time. Surgeon had to explain that the nipples to nurse the pups that most of the nipples would no longer be there. He still did not get it.
> Unless my plans are breeding the bitch, all my females will be spayed.


I think the dead horse has officially been beaten even deader when it comes to spaying females - *everyone* acknowledges that spaying females reduces the occurrence of mammory tumors. 

Spaying her after maturity but before "old age" means not increasing risks for HD and osteosarcoma and decreases mammory cancer. 



luv mi pets said:


> Males have their problem too. Usually it is not the cancer but hernias of the rectum.
> 
> To me, it is not a matter of the alteration of the animal as much as it seems to be the temperament of the animal. The nice ones seem to die young and the mean ones live forever.
> 
> ...


Bold - I had to laugh out loud. Not even the anti- pediatric altering people here are saying that testosterone decreases the risks of all cancers. That's ridiculous. It has been shown to have a direct correlation to *certain* types of cancers. One of which is NOT spindle cell sarcoma. 

I'm also confused about why chemotherapy would be a suggested option for the Cane Corso. Spindle cell sarcoma is acknowledged to not respond well to the chemotherapies available to dogs, especially if the growth is over 5cm, and surgical removal plus radiation therapy is generally the suggested course of treatment. Spindle cell sarcoma also has a really low metastasis rate. So it's basically either "you've caught it early and chemotherapy is unnecessary because amputation removes the affected area and metastasis has not occurred" or "you've caught it late, it's huge and won't respond to chemotherapy". Anyways, that's a different conversation. 

Yes, cancer sucks. Having recently lost a very young dog to osteosarcoma, I can say that from firsthand experience. So, since cancer sucks, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to reduce the potential risks for cancers in our dogs? Not smoking around them. Not having the yard sprayed with chemicals. Spaying females before the average age mammary cancer starts developing. Not altering young dogs whose hormones are great dictators of bone growth and overall physiology.... These all fall in the same "preventative" category that *increase* the chances of a dog to live a cancer-free life. Is there any guarantee? Absolutely not.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

*quietly backs out of this thread*


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

TGKvr said:


> *quietly backs out of this thread*


Thanks for setting a good example  I am going to follow it!


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

been around each different outcome happening to separate individual dogs.. (nothing happening they grow old healthy fully intact never bred) ( they grow old healthy intact get a testical tumor and altered and grow older) They grow old unhealthy intact, immune reaction to vaccine at 2.5 years old, but grow old intact) (They grow old intact get prostate problems at 10 years old, alter grow older) (They grow old healthy, altered at 10 years old no reason for alter, grow older) (they grow old healthy, altered by 2 years old) (They grow old healthy altered by 2 years old, cancer showed up at 11 years old) Don't feel there is exact defining base here.... genetics, really suspect chemicals, food additives , 

Everything that happens we read about is true ,, it did happen to individuals, but to blanket that information doesn't make sense to give one way or the other.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

If you want to neuter your dog, hey, it's your dog. If you don't, then don't, but be responsible for it's reproductive behavior. Nuff said. JMHO.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

I just get sick and tired of the talk about that intact animals are healthier than neutered animals. I see intact animals get sick and die, young, old, middle age. I see neutered animals have the same problems. 

The reason the chemotherapy was mentioned on the CC was because the owner will do anything for this dog. Yes, chemotherapy is not recommended for this type of cancer but I was just repeating what this owner said when he found out it was cancer. If it means the dog has to go and have his ear amputated, the owner will do this. He is one amazing owner. He brought the dog back into the clinic because the ear was bleeding. (He had taken the e-collar off and the dog scratched the surgery site.) It was his wedding day and he told the bride that the dog had to be taken care of first! The guy has an appointment with an oncologist. What type of treatment the dog will receive will be up to the oncologist and the owner. 

To answer the OP question. A boy dog probably nothing but paying higher rates for rabies tags during the dog's lifetime.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

luv mi pets said:


> I just get sick and tired of the talk about that intact animals are healthier than neutered animals. I see intact animals get sick and die, young, old, middle age. I see neutered animals have the same problems.
> 
> The reason the chemotherapy was mentioned on the CC was because the owner will do anything for this dog. Yes, chemotherapy is not recommended for this type of cancer but I was just repeating what this owner said when he found out it was cancer. If it means the dog has to go and have his ear amputated, the owner will do this. He is one amazing owner. He brought the dog back into the clinic because the ear was bleeding. (He had taken the e-collar off and the dog scratched the surgery site.) It was his wedding day and he told the bride that the dog had to be taken care of first! The guy has an appointment with an oncologist. What type of treatment the dog will receive will be up to the oncologist and the owner.
> 
> To answer the OP question. A boy dog probably nothing but paying higher rates for rabies tags during the dog's lifetime.


And I am sick and tired of the tirade..... that altered pets are more healthy.... And the myth that if you fail to alter your dog it will produce puppies.....


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And I am sick and tired of the tirade..... that altered pets are more healthy.... And the myth that if you fail to alter your dog it will produce puppies.....


Yep agree with ya! (another mark it in the book moment) I get tired of the "Oh no, you spayed/neutered your dog, IT IS GOING TO DIE!" or the your intact dog is a walking breeding machine and "IT IS GOING TO DIE"

I for right now just think what makes a dog more healthy is an owner who is responsible, provides medical care, good food, and just over all if the dog was just born with good genes!

This week it seems that what killed a lot of dogs was cars. Lots of HBCs this week. Most were already gone by the time they got to the clinic. Some were altered and some were not. Of course, the owner who brings in their dog 4 days post being HBC because the dog was not eating that well and food was spilling from his mouth seemed to have been spared from the numbers. The reason for the spillage, the lower jaw was broken.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I haven't seen anyone say that keeping your dog intact means it will produce puppies. They are simply saying that the public is not currently responsible enough for a no neuter revolution. Also, I agree that females when altered are healthier. Males are kind of a wash. Early altering can possibly lead to issues, especially pediatric. Most dogs, however, turn out alright. 

There needs to be a balance and we need to be realistic. There's an extreme on each side and the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Spaying females before the average age mammary cancer starts developing.


You do know that spaying her at age 8 won't reduce her risk of mammary cancer, right? You've said that several times andd that's not how it works. It appears that after 3 or 4 heat periods, that's as high as her risk will go. So spaying after 4 heats or at age 8 or never, no difference. It only makes a difference if you spay before 3rd or 4th heat. Ugh female parts are a pain .


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> You do know that spaying her at age 8 won't reduce her risk of mammary cancer, right? You've said that several times andd that's not how it works. It appears that after 3 or 4 heat periods, that's as high as her risk will go. So spaying after 4 heats or at age 8 or never, no difference. It only makes a difference if you spay before 3rd or 4th heat. Ugh female parts are a pain .


Sure, but it also increases the risk of bone cancers, spay incontinence, recessed vulvas and the issues that ensue with them etc ...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Sure, but it also increases the risk of bone cancers, spay incontinence, recessed vulvas and the issues that ensue with them etc ...


I believe a recessed vulva is generally cleared up after one heat, maybe 2 for a tough case. One study on spay incontinence showed that females spayed at an older age actually have a higher risk of it. And the bone cancers seem to be highly breed dependent. And then you have risk of pyo and other reproductive diseases. 

Basically, it's a "pick yer poison" situation. It just depends which risks you're most comfortable with.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

I guess seeing something show up at 13, 14, or 15 doesn't bother me so much in a breed of dog that is known life expectancy of 8 to 12.... they should be a life expectancy of 15 but the breed when I first came into it majority were lucky to reach 10...


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

My last dog developed mammary cancer at age 15, sooo... pretty much already toward the end of her life. Would we have gotten another year or two of life with her had that not happened? Perhaps, but not guaranteed of course. She was a pit, and 15 is a pretty good age. She wasn't spayed until she was 9. The cancer was terrible, and developed quickly, but at least we were fortunate to have had a good long life with her regardless. My current dog has a recessed vulva, and had her first heat already. She will likely have her second heat in the next month or two, then we're going to make the decision to either spay her or breed her. We won't be making the same mistake with this girl by not spaying her earlier.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

LOL, so it all comes down to what is best for the individual dog and owner, basically. I believe in the view that there is no cookie cutter umbrella regimen for this kind of thing, spay / neuter or dont spay / neuter, either way as long as the person is a responsible dog owner, I could care less whether or not their dog has testicles or a uterus.


----------

