Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes we all know about those unwanted pets. It is beyond tragic. I work with organized rescue and we have three rescued companions...one snatched from a high kill shelter, one from a county shelter and one confiscated from an animal hoarder as a neglect/abuse case.
The author is not suggesting that people who cannot control their pets keep them intact nor is he even trying to convince those who cannot control their pets to start controlling them so they can avoid spay/neuter. <sigh> So your "too many pets get put to sleep" as a counter has no basis. There is no argument there.
From your link: "Another contributor to the increased longevity of altered pets involves the reduced risk of certain types of cancers. Unspayed female cats and dogs have a far greater chance of developing pyrometra (a fatal uterine infection), uterine cancer, and other cancers of the reproductive system. Medical evidence indicates that females spayed before their first heat are typically healthier. (Many veterinarians now sterilize dogs and cats as young as eight weeks of age.)
Male pets who are neutered eliminate their chances of getting testicular cancer, and it is thought they they have lowered rates of prostate cancer, as well."
But I digress. Pyometra is a valid concern. Heck, any cancer of the reproductive organs is a valid concern. No one said that spay/neuter has no benefits. It does. As would the yanking of any organ that might become cancerous. But spay/neuter also likely has serious side effects that are recently coming to light. Turns out the yanking of the organs that produce those sex hormones is not as simple as we thought.
I suspect your strong emotional feelings about our country's pet overpopulation problem are getting in the way of your ability to cognitively assess the information in the article. But really, there is no need to try and convince me or anyone else on this thread that we have a serious pet overpopulation problem in this country. That is a known fact. And I am certain that the author of the article would agree with you on that point.
sorry that last rep point was me trying to quote your reply. this is the 3rd time you have suggested that because some of us posters disagree with the article we either have not read it or our overwhelmed with our "strong emotional feelings". no we just disagree. why are you so strident about not neutering?
sure cancers are a horrible thing, as with any illness your pet may get. however for me it still does not overweigh the 6 to 8 million unwanted pets a year with over half being PTS. we do not get health guarantees with our pets when we get them. I will continue to alter my pets, as none of the things mentioned in your article has overridden my concerns with not altering my pet.
HD is a disease with likely many causative variables. Certainly what we know about the genetics behind HD is pretty murky at this point. The UC Davis study did not in any way claim that spay/neuter is the only cause for HD or any of the other diseases monitored so anecdotal personal comments that one knows of intact dogs with HD or that one's dog had HD diagnosed before being spayed/neutered really has no merit to the study discussion.
I've come to know many, many breeders of many different breeds after my 20+ years in competitive agility and yes, oops litters do occur. I think about half to two thirds of the breeders I know have had one oops litter. But breeders often have what most folks would consider excessively multiple dog households so the increased number of intact dogs would naturally increase the risk of having an oops litter. And every dog is an individual when it comes to sex drive. Some are crazed. Some are easily manageable. Most fall in between.
If a reader of this article decides to keep their dog intact without answering the questions the author poses in order to assist them with the decision, or answers them dishonestly, then that reader was already irresponsible and the article didn't cause that.
Regarding those who already spay/neuter their pets...do you really think that they will all of a sudden welcome the downsides to keeping intact animals? Probably not. It ain't easy. But for those owners who would appreciate the potential health benefits of keeping their dogs intact, the management issues may be tolerable. That's a personal decision and people have the right to the information required in order to make the best possible decision for their circumstances.
I am definitely getting the feeling that most on this thread would rather keep new information away from dog/cat owners instead of viewing new information as an opportunity for these owners to make an informed decision. It reminds me of the vets who were/are adamantly against dropping annual vaccinations because then their clients may not bring their dogs in for an annual exam..."let's keep the client in the dark about vaccinosis so that they can't make the wrong decision!"
I understand the angst over our country's pet overpopulation problem. I work with three national breed rescues and have friends who work in shelters doing the unimaginable. But I do not feel that withholding information to effect a result is ethical. YMMV.
How do you guys handle the Tuesday following the first Monday in November?
breeders are supposed to be responsible pet owners and here you just mentioned in all that you know half to two thirds had an opps liter. that really isn't being responsible and shows a good reason why even pet owners with the best intentions don't get it right.
you should reexamine your stubbornness in thinking that when people don't agree with you or change their view point that they want to keep the information away from people, are too emotionally attached or just ignorant and didn't look into the information. people can and do come to different conclusions even when reading and understanding the information. to suggest otherwise is a bit pretensions.
sorry that last rep point was me trying to quote your reply. this is the 3rd time you have suggested that because some of us posters disagree with the article we either have not read it or our overwhelmed with our "strong emotional feelings". no we just disagree. why are you so strident about not neutering?
sure cancers are a horrible thing, as with any illness your pet may get. however for me it still does not overweigh the 6 to 8 million unwanted pets a year with over half being PTS. we do not get health guarantees with our pets when we get them. I will continue to alter my pets, as none of the things mentioned in your article has overridden my concerns with not altering my pet.
Hmmm. Please quote any post of mine where I have been "strident about not neutering". I have written in many posts that it is a personal choice. I could quote them for you but that would be tiresome and you can easily find them for yourself.
I don't care what choices other people make. I do care that they make informed choices.
What I may be insistent about...and I don't consider myself strident since the use of that word implies harsh...is acknowledging the documented results of a well designed study (the best thus far among several) carried out by qualified veterinary medicine researchers using a large sample size that postulated and corroborated substantially significant increased incidence of occurrence in five debilitating diseases among altered GRs with somewhat similar results in Labs.
I truly don't understand how anyone could disagree with the gist of the article since the author explains that spay/neuter is a personal decision, that there is no one-size-fits-all answer and addresses the pet overpopulation issue.
From the article: "My newer recommendation goes something like this now:
If you can prevent unplanned pregnancies, (and if you have a female and don’t mind living through heat cycles) you may want to keep your animal intact and not neuter.
Emphasis on “if” on the pregnancy question — I’m not wanting unplanned pups or kitties any more than those on the front lines in shelters and rescue groups who see way too many of them. Oops is not an option."
So people who disagree with the article disagree with the author on the above "unplanned pups or kitties" point? Or do they think he is lying?
Or does the person reading the article believe that spay/neuter should *not* be a personal decision and that *all* pets should be spayed/neutered *regardless* of the consequences/circumstances and that any article that recommends a thoughtful evaluation of the pros and cons of spay/neuter followed by a personal decision is wrong no matter what because people are just too stupid? And that vets, most of whom care deeply about animals and the pet overpopulation issue as well, will not continue to gauge the responsibility of their client and adjust their spay/neuter discussion accordingly? Like they do already?
These are sorta rhetorical questions so no need to answer unless you really want to. It just explains why I am having trouble understanding how people can disagree with the author when he clearly addresses the pet overpopulation issue and promotes responsibility. If people have a problem with the human race in general I can understand that. But then those people must have problems with everything in this life since humans mess up everything.
breeders are supposed to be responsible pet owners and here you just mentioned in all that you know half to two thirds had an opps liter. that really isn't being responsible and shows a good reason why even pet owners with the best intentions don't get it right.
Nobody can get things right 100% of the time. I can't. Everyone I know can't. There is only one Person I know who can.
Can you? Should that stop you from engaging in any activity you desire simply because you can't get that activity right 100% of the time?
My 2 older females were spayed at around 2 years, I wanted to wait until they were done growing. I recently adopted a new Corso that is a little over 2 years old, just came out of heat, I will have her spayed because I do worry about pyometra.
I'm not worried about an "oops" litter, I can manage my dogs.
If I ever have another male, I most likely would not neuter.
Thanks for the article, Jumpingdogs. Doing research and getting info before deciding on our pet's surgery is a good thing.
I am definitely getting the feeling that most on this thread would rather keep new information away from dog/cat owners instead of viewing new information as an opportunity for these owners to make an informed decision.
My big problem with the article is that he or she *does* mention some benefits of spay and neuter as if they were being even handed, but leaves out the most important health benefits- protection from mammary and testicular cancer, and other health benefits. They are basically saying, everything you think you know is wrong. It's an unbalanced way to present this information..as if they don't want people to make an informed decision.
My 2 older females were spayed at around 2 years, I wanted to wait until they were done growing. I recently adopted a new Corso that is a little over 2 years old, just came out of heat, I will have her spayed because I do worry about pyometra.
I'm not worried about an "oops" litter, I can manage my dogs.
If I ever have another male, I most likely would not neuter.
Thanks for the article, Jumpingdogs. Doing research and getting info before deciding on our pet's surgery is a good thing.
You're welcome!
Waiting until two years of age to spay/neuter is a good option since the sex hormones have had a better opportunity to do their adolescent thing.
We tend to end up with boys at our house...although we adore our girls...and I think intact males are easier to manage plus no pyometra and no messy heat cycles.
Some intact males are testy with other boys...and I know that's nearly always the case with cats...but my many performance and breeder friends with intact males have few to no issues (with the exception of the terriers) and that's over a pretty broad range of breeds. Now the intact *******...that can be another story.
Hmmm. Please quote any post of mine where I have been "strident about not neutering". I have written in many posts that it is a personal choice. I could quote them for you but that would be tiresome and you can easily find them for yourself.
I don't care what choices other people make. I do care that they make informed choices.
What I may be insistent about...and I don't consider myself strident since the use of that word implies harsh...is acknowledging the documented results of a well designed study (the best thus far among several) carried out by qualified veterinary medicine researchers using a large sample size that postulated and corroborated substantially significant increased incidence of occurrence in five debilitating diseases among altered GRs with somewhat similar results in Labs.
I truly don't understand how anyone could disagree with the gist of the article since the author explains that spay/neuter is a personal decision, that there is no one-size-fits-all answer and addresses the pet overpopulation issue.
From the article: "My newer recommendation goes something like this now:
If you can prevent unplanned pregnancies, (and if you have a female and don’t mind living through heat cycles) you may want to keep your animal intact and not neuter.
Emphasis on “if” on the pregnancy question — I’m not wanting unplanned pups or kitties any more than those on the front lines in shelters and rescue groups who see way too many of them. Oops is not an option."
So people who disagree with the article disagree with the author on the above "unplanned pups or kitties" point? Or do they think he is lying?
Or does the person reading the article believe that spay/neuter should *not* be a personal decision and that *all* pets should be spayed/neutered *regardless* of the consequences/circumstances and that any article that recommends a thoughtful evaluation of the pros and cons of spay/neuter followed by a personal decision is wrong no matter what because people are just too stupid? And that vets, most of whom care deeply about animals and the pet overpopulation issue as well, will not continue to gauge the responsibility of their client and adjust their spay/neuter discussion accordingly? Like they do already?
These are sorta rhetorical questions so no need to answer unless you really want to. It just explains why I am having trouble understanding how people can disagree with the author when he clearly addresses the pet overpopulation issue and promotes responsibility. If people have a problem with the human race in general I can understand that. But then those people must have problems with everything in this life since humans mess up everything.
perhaps not strident in not neutering but strident in your insistence that this information is groundbreaking or so important as to change the way people who spay their pets think.
it isn't necessarily that people disagree with the article, it is that the information presented does not negate what they think about the need to neutering/spay. for some reason you don't seem to want to acknowledge that but instead when you use phrases like "do they think he is lying" "emotionally attached" "trying to keep the info from people" "didn't bother to read" all seem to imply people who don't agree and don't find the info as important as you do are foolish, emotional, lazy and stupid. your points are better served by leaving out the personal expression of disbelief.
it is a huge tell for me that breeders continue to have 1/2 to 2/3rds opps litters. as I said they are supposed to be the most responsible. trying to maintain the standards for the breed, both conformational and health. opps litter should not be happening from a breeder.
if breeders don't have a better average in stopping unwanted litters why would anyone think the average pet owner would.
My big problem with the article is that he or she *does* mention some benefits of spay and neuter as if they were being even handed, but leaves out the most important health benefits- protection from mammary and testicular cancer, and other health benefits. They are basically saying, everything you think you know is wrong. It's an unbalanced way to present this information..as if they don't want people to make an informed decision.
Understood. Thanks for posting.
I am not trying to argue with you but I must point out that he actually does address mammary cancer. He writes, in part: "These animals with breast cancer were likely multiply vaccinated, for years if not for life. They were likely fed kibble, a very species inappropriate diet, full of toxic byproducts, preservatives, and starches. They may also have been treated with the ever present flea pesticides. Add in the risky heartworm drugs given monthly, and you can imagine spaying was perhaps one small reason for their disease."
One can certainly take issue with his holistic stance...which I happen to agree with...but it's not fair to say that he leaves it out since he does address it.
And testicular cancer, although the most common tumor in older intact male dogs, is easily detected and treated so it's not nearly as serious as the other cancers mentioned. Maybe that's why he didn't address that. Don't know.
I personally would never worry about testicular cancer in my intact male dog cause I'd be handling his boys daily when I check for ticks and other stuff.
I didn't get the impression that he was saying that everything we think we know is wrong. But maybe that's because I've already read much of what he wrote about. I tend combo holistic/traditional and my science brain naturally seeks out, inhales and critically processes lots of information without even trying. I was titering for Parvo and Distemper in the mid 1990s, many years before people were talking much about it. Thankfully my vet respected my immunohematology background and we were able to discuss the pros and cons, easily coming to a mutually agreeable informed decision.
Nobody can get things right 100% of the time. I can't. Everyone I know can't. There is only one Person I know who can.
Can you? Should that stop you from engaging in any activity you desire simply because you can't get that activity right 100% of the time?
not getting something right 100% or even 90% is far different that the 1/2 to 2/3rds you quoted. if I got it wrong that often I would stop.
seriously I am glad you are a well informed dog owner and take great care of your pets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no we just disagree. why are you so strident about not neutering?
