It's just that they lie about! Facts of S/N (long read but interesting)

[shandoggy1]

I found this info while searching the net for some info about neutering and testosterone and found it interesting so I thought I would share and see what your thoughts are on it

It's Just That They LIE ABOUT IT


I have this deep-seated aversion to being lied to and manipulated for my own or the common good. I also am allergic to lying to and manipulating other people unless they buy a puppy from me in which case I do whatever it takes to get them to do what I want.

So let me be crystal clear. Like everything else, be it diet or vaccinations or drugs or herbs, there are risks and benefits to altering dogs and cats. I think we need to make informed decisions on all aspects of how to care for our animals, and you can't make an informed decision when you're being lied to. Lied to over and over and over, explicitly. Not metaphorically, not by omission, but actually told big fat lies.

Pick up any number of dog, cat, or general consumer magazines, and you'll be assured that not only are there no adverse effects of spaying and neutering, but altering will make your pets healthier and better behaved. They'll be less likely to soil in the house, to roam, to fight, and they won't get testicular, uterine, or ovarian cancer or infections (well duh), and will greatly reduce their chances of getting mammary cancer. You'll be spared messy heats and the risk of unwanted puppies or kittens. It's enough to make you rush right out and get spayed or neutered yourself.

But is it true?

Sure, some of those things are true. You can't get cancer or an infection in an organ that you no longer possess, so yeah, your dog or cat won't get ovarian, uterine, or testicular cancer or infections. And in females, there is an increased incidence of mammary cancer in intact animals, and a pretty high rate of uterine infection as well.

But is there a downside?

Are you listening? Good. Because I'm about to tell you the truth. You may have never heard it before. There are risks to altering your cat or dog.

Neutered and spayed dogs appear to have a greater .... not lower, GREATER ... risk of some cancers, including osteosarcoma, a painful and basically fatal cancer to which I lost my spayed deerhound Raven last September, than intact animals. (1, 1b) Neutered males have a greater chance of getting prostate cancer than intact males (although the incidence of prostate cancer in dogs is very low). (2) Neutered dogs have a four times greater chance of getting transitional cell carcinoma in their bladder than intact dogs. (3)

Spayed females have a greater incidence of urinary incontinence (actually called "spay incontinence," often by the same vets who assure you there are no adverse effects to spaying and neutering) than intact females. (4) They may also have a higher risk of bladder infections. (4b)

Spayed female and neutered male dogs have a significantly greater incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injuries than intact dogs. (5)


And yes, no matter what you've been told, study after study has shown that spayed and neutered dogs and cats weigh more when fed the same amount of calories as intact animals. Altering won't "make" them fat, but it reduces the amount of food they can eat. For most dogs and cats that's actually no big deal - just feed them a little less, exercise them a little more, and they'll be fine. But how do you do that when you're having it beaten into your brain every time you turn around that spaying and neutering does not, cannot, make your dog or cat fat, or have any adverse effects on your animals at all? (6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

So what's the justification for this massive campaign of bullshit? That people are idiots, basically, and can't be trusted to prevent unwanted pregnancies or keep proper control of their intact animals. And this is the problem. Because one thing that working for more than fifteen years in online pet communities has taught me is that a scary number of people are, in fact, idiots. (I don't mean you.) Most people, frankly, don't appear to know enough to come in out of the rain let alone manage a house full of sexually intact dogs and/or cats. Do I have an answer for this problem? If only. I just know lying is not the answer.

So, are there health benefits to altering dogs and cats? I think that will vary from animal to animal. If you want my "big picture" opinion, I'd say that for most females the benefits of spaying outweigh the risks, as long as the owner pays attention to any signs of weight gain, but for males, the risks probably outweigh the benefits. Breed, lifestyle, and other considerations will affect this analysis, but the bottom line is, to make the analysis in the first place, you have to have some facts, and not just propaganda. Are my footnotes, below, enough "facts" for that analysis? Absolutely not. They're meant only to suggest that this issue, like most issues, really does have two sides, and that a statement that there are no risks, only benefits, to altering dogs and cats can't be supported with the evidence. But that's probably more than you had before.

Footnotes, you want footnotes? After the jump.

1. Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ. Endogenous gonadal hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk. Cancer Epidemiological Biomarkers Prev 11[11]:1434-40 2002 Nov.

1b. Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998;156(1):31-39.

2. Bell FW, Klausner JS, Hayden DW, Feeney DA, Johnston SD. Clinical and pathologic features of prostatic adenocarcinoma in sexually intact and castrated dogs: 31 cases (1970-1987). JAVMA 1991;199 (11):1623-1630.

3. Knapp DW, Glickman NW, DeNicola DB, Bonney PL, Lin TL, Glickman LT. Naturally-occurring canine transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder. A relevant model of human invasive bladder cancer. Urolo Oncol 2000;5:47-59/

4. Blendinger C ; Blendinger K . Urinary incontinence in spayed bitches. 1. Pathogenesis, incidence and disposition. Tierarztl Prax 23[3]:291-9 1995 Jun

4b. Mulholland SG, Qureshi SM, Fritz RW, Silverman H. Effect of hormonal deprivation on the bladder defense mechanism.

5. Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clinical Orthopedics [429]:301-5 2004 Dec.

6. Houpt KA, Coren B, Hintz HF et al. Effect of sex and reproductive status on sucrose preference, food intake and body weight of dogs. JAVMA 1979;174: 1083-1085.

7. Root M. Early spay-neuter in the cat. Vet Clin Nutr 1995;2; 132-134.

8. Duch DS, Chow FHC, Hamar DW et al. The effect of castration and body weight on the occurrence of the feline urological syndrome. Fel Pract 1978;8: 35-40.

9. Fettman MJ, Stanton CA, Banks LL et al. Effects of neutering on body weight, metabolic rate and glucose tolerance of domestic cats. Res Vet Sci 1997;62: 131-136.

10. Flynn MF, Hardie EM and Armstrong PJ. Effect of ovariohysterectomy on maintenance energy requirement of cats. JAVMA 1996;209: 1572-1581.


24 May 2006 in Creatures | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4957078

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's Just That They LIE ABOUT IT:
Comments
Christie, what about the behavioral differences? Sometimes those are a big part of the decision. I am thinking of those who depend on dog parks or other public spaces to exercise or walk their dogs. I noticed that encounters with intact dogs got a lot calmer when all of my dogs were neutered. My two Deerhounds had to be - both were cryptorchid - but my Whippet was neutered purely for behavioral reasons and the main one was that other, much larger dogs kept challenging him. It was stressful for him (and me) although not too stressful for the inattentive owners of the other dogs until Moose reacted. Then he & I were yelled and cursed at, or worse. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that sometimes the quality of the life over the long term has to be weighed against the odds of the bad things happening at the end.
Cate

Posted by: Cate | 24 May 2006 at 03:14 PM

EVERYTHING has to be weighed. That's my point, though: How do you weigh things out, when half the story is being withheld from you?

Posted by: Christie Keith | 24 May 2006 at 03:46 PM

I see your points on the benefit/risk analysis for the health of any particular dog, but I think you do didn't give enough weight to the behavior issues, and you need to factor in the societal advantages to widespread neutering of pet dogs.

Unneutered male dogs, typically those just coming into adulthood, are most often the animals involved in severe or lethal attacks on people. Yes, you can train and socialize a dog to be a better, safer companion, but many people won't or can't. The behavior advantage for male dogs, in particular, argue strongly for widespread neutering.

As for the females, the health advantages are as you state. But I also would argue that having just come through this, the management of a female in standing heat is a serious pain in the ***.

If I didn't have to keep the two younger dogs intact for competition and (possibly) breeding, I simply could not get them neutered quickly enough. Which is why the older two have been neutered for years. Neither has had weight problems for the simple fact that they are fed and exercised properly to maintain correct weight, even though that does mean paying attention and making corrections to the equation now and then, especially with the older bitch.

Posted by: gina | 24 May 2006 at 05:55 PM

Actually, I don't think I came out for or against neutering or spaying for any given dog. I said we have to take everything into account, and stop looking at only part of the picture. That is't not about our ultimate decision but about HOW WE REACH the decision, and with what facts.

Posted by: Christie Keith | 24 May 2006 at 06:06 PM

I have been told that if females are not fixed that they get cancer in their ovaries? That seems pretty wild, but the vets are always pushing spaying/neutering. It is kind of obnoxious.

Posted by: Roly Poly Man | 24 May 2006 at 06:07 PM

Females dogs can be MORE not less aggresive after spaying. Intersting blog...

Posted by: Nancy | 24 May 2006 at 06:33 PM

I think it's fine for the diligent pet owner to be informed of all sides of this issue. That said, I also think it's fine for the Average Joe/Jane to continue to be innundated with messages that spaying/neutering their pet is the right thing to do. There are too many people who are negligent and lazy, and who'd love any excuse to not spay/neuter. My brother-in-law is one -- he's a educated, successful guy who just "hasn't had time" to get his dog spayed, even though she's three years old. She's escaped from his yard a few times, too, but luckily hasn't become pregnant. If she did have puppies, they'd end up at the pound, because he'd brush the puppies off as "not his problem". There are too many people like him, and I think they're a big reason shelters are overcrowded and stray cats keep showing up on my doorstep with kittens in tow.

I just don't think most pet owners are responsible enough to make these choices for themselves -- most pet owners don't even read the labels on the food they feed their pets. Their pets (and unwanted offspring) are the ones who end up suffering for it.

Posted by: Leigh-Ann | 24 May 2006 at 11:02 PM

"Unneutered male dogs, typically those just coming into adulthood, are most often the animals involved in severe or lethal attacks on people."

I can't help wondering what kind of dogs you have that you'd say that. I have never had anything but intact dogs...never a bitch...and I have never had one that was remotely interested in attacking people unprovoked.

Posted by: Gil. | 24 May 2006 at 11:51 PM

I wonder whether the age at which neutering is done might contribute to the health problems being seen. I have 3 spayed bitches ranging from 7-15 years old, but I waited until they were about a year old to di the surgeries. I am instinctively leery of neutering young pups.

I do, sadly, think that most people are far too stupid to entrust with an intact pet. That stupidity is the reason that shelters are always full to bursting.

Posted by: Theresa | 25 May 2006 at 06:31 AM

Gil ... The Centers for Disease Control says the dog most likely to be involved in a severe or lethal attack in a young, unneutered male.

I'll find the cite and post it later.

Posted by: gina | 25 May 2006 at 07:01 AM

I appreciate your comments. The thing I like most about your blog is your intellectual honesty even when it goes counter to "politically correct" opinions. Being for spay/neuter generally doesn't mean being for glossing over or actively deceiving people about possible negatives.

A couple possible negatives I wish were discussed more:

Spaying is major surgery. There has to be some amount of serious complication and death just from the surgery itself, anesthesia or post-op infection. I think of this particularly when "mandatory spay/neuter" laws get passed, as they just were in LA County. Someone is going to be "incentivized" to take their dog in to avoid the high registration fees and they are going to come out with a dead dog and high vet bills. No one talks about it.

The other is from personal experience -- I spayed my dog at 5 years old. I was showing her for a while, and then I was ambivalent about changing her by removing a major organ. Finally I made the decision because managing her heat cycles got harder and I was worried about continuing to gamble that she wouldn't get pyo. Post-spay, on the same food she ate before, she gained weight, suffered more from allergies and got hot spots for the first time in her life. You hear a lot that the rise in allergies, coat and skin problems correlate with the rise in use of commercial dog food, but there has to be a correlation with the increase in spaying and neutering because they have increased over the same time period. I don't know if anyone has researched a possible causal relationship between spaying and coat/skin problems, but I would be interested in the results. I know my hair and skin are affected by hormonal changes, why wouldn't the dog's be?

I feel like a lot of the comments above aren't getting your point - and maybe there are people who are too uninformed and irresponsible to be entitled to the whole story - they are essentially society's puppy people and they are being manipulated for the greater good (not sure I buy that, but its a point of view) - but those same people are not going to necessarily understand that all surgery carries some risk or that your spayed/neutered dog is going to need special attention to stay healthy and happy that it wouldn't have needed if you hadn't had their reproductive organs removed.

For the record, I have always spayed or neutered my animals at about a year before this dog at 5 years and I've never bred or had an accidental litter. I'm not against altering, I'm in favor of information.




Posted by: LABitch | 25 May 2006 at 07:50 AM

Once again, you've hit the mark with your frank and [thankfully] politically incorrect post. Yes, agreed. Far too many people go along eating up the propaganda, never bothing to question or investigate the facts for themselves. Instead, like cattle following the water trail, they plod along, head down, never thinking to consider whether what they're being told is written on a $3 dollar bill.

All too often pet owners will use these lies to justify making their own life easier -- after all, it's more inconvenient to deal with an intact female during a heat than one that has been spayed or "fixed" (good word for most folks isn't it?).

Thanks for saying it like it really is!

With appreciation,

Diane
http://www.dianeschuller.com
http://dogsnaturally.blogspot.com/


Posted by: Diane M. Schuller | 25 May 2006 at 09:08 AM

IMO, people are most often the reason behind severe or lethal dog attacks and I doubt the CDC has statistics on that, Gina. There are certainly dogs with loose screws, dogs which snap when pushed too far on some terrible occasion and dogs that are genetically predispositioned to attack anyone outside the immediate family (the Fila springs to mind) but ignorant and/or irresponsible owners are the main reason for dog attacks. By coming down hard on spay/neuter which affects only the dog, rather than educating dog owners on exactly what it is they have there, preferably before they get a pup, many of the experts on dogs, be they writing for magazines, vets or working in rescue, are doing dogs no service, certainly not the service they deserve.

No, they are not going to reach everyone, not everyone will listen, but rescue groups and "animal advocates" have made spay/neuter trendy. To take Christie's rant a little further, would it be too hard for them to make knowledge trendy? To educate people on what a dog is...a member of another species, not a placid toy, so they can work with his natural behavior to modify it if need be...as well as teach them what spay/neuter can mean? To make responsible dog ownership mean something more than feeding him, walking him once a day and removing the dog's ability to procreate?

Cryptorchidism is a legitimate reason for neutering, disease is a legitimate reason. Maybe once in a blue moon, behavior can be improved by neutering. But most of the time, the only reason for neutering is the owner's convenience and, to me, that is no reason at all. And to spay or neuter pups that are only weeks old, disrupting their development, preventing them from ever growing up, is criminal, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Gil. | 25 May 2006 at 09:10 AM

I won't even pretend to be able to comment intelligently on this debate, but I will say this, Christie. You really ARE the Warrior Princess, aren't you?

Posted by: ooogyfan2 | 25 May 2006 at 09:55 AM

The sad part, like others have mentioned, is that there are those pet owners don't take the time to educate themselves unless it's fast, easy, and they hear what they want to hear. For people like this, regardless of the risks associated with spay/neuter, it's probably the best choice. For example, I have a relative who at one point asked me 'how can you tell if a cat's pregnant?' When I asked why, she said her cat was in heat and she threw it outside so it could get pregnant. She wanted her kids to see the miracle of birth!! When I tried to talk to her about it she refused to listen. For somebody like this, who obviously isn't interested in educating herself, I'd much rather see her with a spayed or neutered pet. (Whether or not this person should even OWN a pet is yet another story!!)

Posted by: Therese | 25 May 2006 at 10:09 AM

I'd also like to respond to Gina's comment:

"The Centers for Disease Control says the dog most likely to be involved in a severe or lethal attack in a young, unneutered male."

I have no doubt that's true, but that says "if dog bites, dog is probably unneutered male". It does not says "if dog is unneutered male, dog will probably bite". That is a totally different logical proposition which does not follow from the first one and to push neutering of male dogs on the grounds of aggression is like taking a sledgehammer to the problem. It is the equivalent of saying "if most gang members are young black men, we should lock up all young black men to end gang violence". Hopefully we are all politically correct enough to recoil in horror from that statement.

I'd also like to throw into the mix that it is my understanding (and I don't have a study or source I can cite, this is based on conversations with individuals from the countries I'm talking about, that in Scandinavia it is considered unethical to spay / neuter without a medical reason, vets won't do it, and there is a lower incidence of homeless dogs there than here. People are simply familiar enough with handling dogs and responsible/educated/capable enough to prevent unintentional matings. A very high percentage of all their dogs are also purebred dogs, not surprisingly. So, I have a purebred dog, but I also love the beauty and variety of random bred dogs, I'm not sure what the most desirable outcome is. But I think recognizing the huge sociological component to dog overpopulation is important.

Posted by: LABitch | 25 May 2006 at 10:15 AM

Great comment, LAbitch, both the logic and the reminder that in Scandinavia they look at things differently...and with success. I've heard and read that, too.

Posted by: Gil. | 25 May 2006 at 10:25 AM

I forgot to add that I'm spayed, and my life has been quite nice since the experience

Would there be a way to do a less radical spay on animals to make the procedure a bit safer, or would it just be a draw? If vets left just the ovaries in I guess it would eliminate all the anti-cancer benefits of spaying?

Btw, looking at the feline female reproductive tract, it's no wonder there are problems with urinary incontinence after some surgeries. The bladder and bladder nerves are right in the area being removed, so I'd imagine they are occasionally traumatized. I know incontinence is supposed to be a hormonal issue, but even in humans many women suffer similar problems after a hysterectomy because the surgery is in an area extremely close to the bladder. Many gynecologists in Europe only do a supracervical hysterectomy on women, leaving in the cervix, out of a desire to not harm the bladder.

Posted by: Leigh-Ann | 25 May 2006 at 11:39 AM

I know how it feels to want to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get people or society to do what you think they should do, about dogs and yeah, about other stuff too. I'm a control freak and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

But to me this issue crosses a line, because it's not just about slanting the facts to support the outcome you desire. Hell, most of us do that, even if only to the extent that we use whatever debating skills we possess to make our point. No, this is about a literal lie, the lie that there are no adverse health effects from spay/neuter. To me, that crosses the line into something beyond persuasion or even manipulation and into actual, well... lying.

I won't say that every word that leaves my fingertips or lips is the truth. I suppose like everyone else I've called in sick when I wasn't, or told a friend I loved her new haircut (Ok, I actually never lie about hair), or even lied to hide some dark embarrassing secret about my life such as ... gack, did you actually think I'd tell you?

But the pattern of saying black is white and down is up on this issue in the pet media is too pervasive to be called anything other than propaganda. The fear that if you say one single negative word about spay neuter, that some idiot somewhere will say, "Hell, Martha, spaying and neutering will make our dog get cancer, I read it on the Internet!"

The things is, those people already believe all kinds of moronic ****, like that if you alter your dog your own balls will fall off, or whatever it is they believe. Gina Spadafori and Christie Keith aren't going to reach those folks one way or the other.

Second, the correlation of dogs biting and attacking humans with not being neutered? I think it's because we've framed responsible pet ownership in this country as including almost universal spay/neutering, so most people with intact animals (other than the tiny minority who breed and show) are by definition going to fall outside that definition. In other words, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. With me so far?

And chopping a dog's balls off doesn't make those people into good dog owners, because I don't really think most of those attacks are caused by the dog's testosterone, they're caused by the owner's testosterone, and the reason the dog still HAS his testosterone is the owner's testosterone. Which possibly makes no sense but I'm on a roll here.

But really, all that aside and all my blathering stopped, the bottom line is this: Do what you think you should do. Alter your animals or don't. I don't care. But make your decision with facts, and if you're in the media or the veterinary profession, please stop actually lying or misleading people. Stick with being persuasive and manipulative.

Posted by: Christie Keith | 25 May 2006 at 02:35 PM

"...because I don't really think most of those attacks are caused by the dog's testosterone, they're caused by the owner's testosterone, and the reason the dog still HAS his testosterone is the owner's testosterone. Which possibly makes no sense..."

Well, you are blathering but you've made sense to this point so I won't swat you with a bullystick. (g)

Posted by: Gil. | 25 May 2006 at 02:43 PM

"Stick with being persuasive and manipulative."

So ... does this mean you DON'T like my hair?

Posted by: gina | 25 May 2006 at 05:39 PM

I like your hair, I never lie about hair.

Posted by: Christie Keith | 25 May 2006 at 05:42 PM

Thank you, Christie, for speaking the truth about this specious lie! I do now live with 3 spayed females and one intact male. I've always had intact males, except when one of the males developed scrotal cancer, which he survived with surgery.

I have not found any of the myths about spaying and neutering to be true, and I have found my dogs seem to live longer than the average if they are intact, or are sterilized after adulthood.

In all the years I have been "into dogs," all but one of the bites I have received have been from castrated males.

I have not experienced neutering to reduce aggressive behavior, and only recommend neutering aggressive dogs to prevent them reproducing.

One of my intact males, a retired show champion, became my trained service dog to assist with a disability. He accompanied me to work daily, in kennels and vet hospitals, and we traveled extensively, and his reproductive status as an intact male never once caused a problem. He had serviced females as a stud, and it did not have an adverse effect on his performance assisting me.

I agree that a lot of people are stupid. But they do deserve the truth. I think most pet owners would still opt to sterilize, based on the breeding ramifications alone. They don't deserve to be lied to about the health issues, just to persuade them to sterilize.

Posted by: ScotteeM | 25 May 2006 at 07:04 PM

Thank the Gods!

Someone with some common sense on the subject!

I'm an herbalist & I specialize in animal care & products...

You have no idea what I will do to the next person who tries to tell me that because something is all natural, it's absolutely safe with no side effects...

Cocaine is all natural, that hardly makes it safe... so is arsenic & anthrax.

I'm also old school... being raised on a farm, it was common practice for a female to bear younge at least one... we believed they never fully matured until doing so...

The only time and animal was fixed was if there was a problem... & I can only even recal 1 dog even having a problem & a number of outside factors could have instigated it... hunting dog... could have injured the area in the feild & it was undetected until there was a visable problem.

Any way... I agree whole hearted with you... I think altering ANYTHING or ANYONE from it's natural state should only be done under circumstances that are not natural.

BTW... I got to you post today due to a post by the Dane Addict...

And for your honesty, your getting a link put on my blogs tomorrow.

Aidana
HORSES:
http://www.blogcharm.com/ShuvaniStab...ndProductBlog/
PETS:
http://www.blogcharm.com/KenderKennelPetCare/
EXOTICS:
http://www.blogcharm.com/shuvanimals/

Posted by: Aidana | 25 May 2006 at 08:15 PM

I always enjoy reading anything you write, Christie, thanks so much for another thought provoking message!

It is true many things we are told about spaying and neutering is not true. And people do need the facts. But let me say this..

Every day thousands of pets are put down in the U.S., and in not very humane conditions, due to the sheer volume. 50 to 500 Rottweilers alone are euthanized in shelters daily. On Petfinders.com between 3,100 and 3,500 Rottweilers are listed daily as needed to be adopted.

After Hurricane Katrina, over 10,000 dogs were rescued. Of the 138 Rottweilers our group recovered, one was neutered (later we found out this was due to police order due to a bite incident). Almost every female has droopy breasts with evidence of being bred multiple times.

In Pit Bulls, it was much worse. I saw every breed of dog at Lamar Dixon, from Chinese Cresteds, to French Bulldogs to Fila's.

I also work with fighting BSL daily. And Gil, the highest number of dog bites are from unneutered males, bar none. Unneutered males are more prone to roam (ah, love!) and more prone to portray prey drive and more prone to go with the actions of a pack.

And yes, this about people, the owners. But in order to protect our dogs, our breeds, we need to spay and neuter.

If you don't spay and neuter, then give money to rescue and BSL funds. Give at least a day a week to rescue and taking care of unwanted animals. Otherwise, you are just adding to the problem.

Yes, spay and neuter is surgery, it can be uncomfortable and is 'unnatural'. But the consequences of not doing so is also 'unnnatural'. Until this world is a better place, with smarter people, better leaders (don't let me go there) that provide caring and comfort for all... thoughtful and intelligent choices for pets aren't a priority.

While spaying and neutering may be seen as 'altering from it's natural state, having to do wholesale euthansia is also an 'unnatural state'. Dogs sitting in kennels, runs and crates, waiting to be claimed, waiting to be loved and just wanting a comfortable life is horrible to see, depressing for those fighting to find homes for these dogs and an 'unnatural' state for dogs.

Spaying and neutering is a small price to pay, when put like that. Just how valuable are your dog's testicles and your bitches uterus? More than their life? More than the hundreds of thousands of dogs that suffer a year in this world? Maybe we can debate altering pets when dogs and cats are seen as valuable and cherished in this world. In the meanwhile, if you doubt my word, go to a shelter, donate your time and hold a few dogs that need to be 'put down'. That is a life changing event that everyone needs to experience as least once to see things from the other side.

Lew

Posted by: Lew Olson | 27 May 2006 at 12:23 PM

"Just how valuable are your dog's testicles ...More than their life?"

Odd you should ask that, Lew, after Christie made the point that a neutered male is more likely to get some types of life-threatening cancer and be more prone to cruciate ligament injuries.

Mine has the right to live in the world as whole as he came into it. I will never deny him that right because other dogs suffer from the stupidity of ignorant or vicious people. He's got the right to live without being made more vulnerable to disease than he would otherwise have been. He's got the right to be treated with the respect due another species. And he's got the right to protection from me against my species, by my training him to live in this insane world, by standing up for him.

I don't put the good of many above the good of one. That's what it comes down to. It makes no difference to me at all that my vet learned enough about TBD from my Thunder to save other dogs from dying of it. You want blunt? That is not the slightest consolation to me. Their lives are nothing in the scale against his.

I do value my dogs, I do cherish them and I see no reason to alter my dogs or my behavior, to subject them to being castrated because everyone else thinks I should. When I say that mine are never bred, they're all the more adamant that I should whack them. That makes a difference? What it actually means is that they see dogs as, above all, puppy-making machines and me as too stupid or too irresponsible to prevent unwanted breeding.

Do you see a whole bunch of evidence that spaying and neutering is emptying the shelters? You couldn't prove it by me, not while I get bombarded by the anguish of caring people who are up to their hips in unwanted dogs despite all the spay/neuter propaganda.

I reject the judgment that I am part of the problem if I don't go along with it. I am not. I have always been someone who is responsible for and even over-protective of her dogs. And for their sake, I have no problem saying that it's not spay/neuter programs that are going to put an end to shelters, it's forcing a change in people. Social pressure and education are what's needed, not scalpels.

Posted by: Gil. | 27 May 2006 at 02:33 PM

You still haven't told me the value of the testicles. Why is being castrated something you see as a negative?

I will say the only dogs I have owned that have had prostate problems or cruciate tears were intact... and my feeling is that doesn't prove anything either.

Are you saying an unaltered dog is happier? Healthier? Better off for it? Emotional and physic well being is more stable?

I am an advocate for altering and I carry the message. I explain to people that their males will be better behaved around other dogs, and their females won't come into heat. I tell them it will stop their males from roaming and stop the risk of pyometra in their girls.

If my dogs don't pass health clearances, they are altered. Of my 19 dogs here, I have two unneutered males and two unspayed females. Some of these are rescues as well. Can you imagine what my place would be like if all were intact? Instead of large, grassed fenced yards an acre or more each, I am guessing I would have kennel runs to separate everyone. (not a kennel run on my place, I don't consider that 'natural' but that is another topic to debate)

What I am saying is if dogs were less numerous, if they were more valuable and cherished, if times weren't so hard so people could take an interest in dog welfare rather than making enough dough to feed the family and put a few gallons of gas in the car...then this conversation would be taking a different turn on my part.

And I can take this subject into a deeper turn.. It isn't natural to fence dogs either, or have them live indoors, choose what they eat and let them out at our convenience. Maybe the only people who should own dogs should live in outlaying areas, where dogs can run free, hunt for their own food and be able to live in a pack as nature intended...

By the way, the Bean was neutered Thursday... besides his renal problems, his prostate was becoming enlarged and harboring cysts and infection. I also know the rationale for neutering is emotional, as I had been putting it off even knowing that I was jeopardizing his health... I wanted to hang on to those darn balls for dear life.. even if it meant putting him in danger. Does Bean care? Nah. But people do, and they put a big emotional investment in it, that is more about us than them..

Lew

Posted by: Lew Olson | 27 May 2006 at 04:04 PM

"You still haven't told me the value of the testicles. Why is being castrated something you see as a negative?"

No? I believe I said it right up front. "He's got the right to live without being made more vulnerable to disease than he would otherwise have been."

And yes, I do believe he's "more likely" to be healthier with all his hormones available. Why would making him less than whole make him more stable? What it does, if it has any effect on his temperament at all, is make him a perpetual puppy since neutering is usually done before the dog is grown. If that's what people want...well, I can't say that's fine because I believe it's awful.

I don't believe I said a word about "natural". I didn't say a dog should live in "natural" conditions, whatever those are. Dogs cast their lot in with us a long time ago and I don't know that you can say it's not natural for them to live with us, companions instead of wild animals, getting food and shelter in return for what they give us.

Dogs can be trained to behave around other dogs; they don't need to be neutered.

Now if you're talking about running loose with other dogs they don't even know, at dog parks, say, "behaving" in a situation like that is about as natural to them as flying. Dogs are pack animals and pack animals can't be expected to be teddy bears, tolerant and accepting of all comers. Many people do, of course, but that's outright ignorance of the nature of the dog.

Your situation is way different from that of most people and you make your decisions based on criteria that apply in your situation. Neutering Bean was rational and kind, it was done for him, not to prevent his breeding but to keep him living. I have no quarrel with that.

But I don't see that it's even remotely fair to toss the charge of being "emotionally involved" in her dog's balls at someone simply because she doesn't agree that neutering is in her dog's best interest.

Posted by: | 27 May 2006 at 05:02 PM

Here are some other good articles on this topic:

http://www.littleriverlabs.com/neuter.htm
http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

I am holding off on neutering my 14 month old lab because he has mild elbow dysplasia. From the standpoint of joint and bone health, there is no upside to neutering, as far as I can tell. I want to get him neutered eventually for the sake of his social life, but I'm hoping to put it off until he's at least 2. I'm glad to see some sane discussion of this topic. I wish that s/n were a black-and-white issue, but unfortunately it's not.

Katie

Posted by: Katie McCormick | 28 May 2006 at 01:53 PM

Just as a dog shouldn't be altered on the premise of lies, nor should a dog be left intact by a fool.

A person should be fully informed so that they can make the decision that fits them and their pet(s). Nobody should be manipulated into neutering. Not with guilt or lies. If a person wishes to leave their pet intact and are willing to make a commitment to socialization, training, mental stimulation and the prevention of unwanted offspring, then by all means...leave the nuts.

To the lot of them I'd really rather say, "look, you're an idiot. You don't know how to control your intact dog. You don't spend any time socializing your pet or teaching it obedience. You do nothing with your dog except tie it to a tree or let it roam the neighborhood. It would be in the best interest of you, your dog, your neighbors and your neighbor's pets to neuter your dog. While you're at it make an appointment with your own doctor." ;-)

Posted by: Nancy Campbell | 29 May 2006 at 10:32 PM

[dollface]

Great post

Still for leaving them with all their bits, and if you must alter then please allow them to fully mature and grow as god intended, because its for your sake not the animals... People chose to have a dog then they should be responsible as well, of course if you can't then I understand early altering - thats not for the dog but for you.

[Novel]

Love the article.. she tells it as she sees it, and back it up with informative research. I gotta love it.
I also agree with her that most people can't be trusted with intact animals, and for that reason alone, despite the risks that she points out, I will always be in favor of spay/neuter, the earlier the better!!
For all the non-idiots, do what you see best, but please, please, be careful, because even some of the best, greatest owners have "oops" litters and it all comes down to "intact" animals and our trying to interrupt or suspend the animal's natural urges... as a race we can barely control our own urges... let alone keep other species in check! LOL!!

[Dogsareme]

WOW

I would never of known. That is really intresting. But as it states, most people are not responsible enough to own dogs/cats that are not altered. There fore for them to know the truth might just add to the list of unwanted dogs/cats. Sometime the best thing to do is just not give the whole truth.

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

I'm really interested to see if the euthanasia rate in LA County shelters goes down because of the mandatory spay/nueter law they passed. We've mentioned in debates about BSL how making a breed illegal just sends it underground, and I wonder if it's possible for that to happen with unaltered dogs, too.

I think Katie said it best, "Just as a dog shouldn't be altered on the premise of lies, nor should a dog be left intact by a fool." The question is, how do you balance the fool's carelessness with the truth?

[fancychicken]

Very interesting article. Bottom line once again. Get as much information, from as many sources as you can. In the end it's up to you the owner. To be responsible for your animals, whether you decide to alter or keep intact.

Then again, if the whole premise of this is LIES. Then how do we as pet owners ultimately decide whats truth and whats fiction. It's a vicious circle. Do you go with the heath concerns, do you decide on safety issues, do you decide on what you think, what "they" think??

[shandoggy1]

Glad you guys actually read this article and enjoyed the info I posted it on another busier forum and had no takers Oh well, look what they miss. I am holding off neutering Cai hopefully until 2 0r 3 years. Can I be responsible? YES! He never goes out without me first off and when we are out he is ALWAYS on leash. Unless of course in my yard. So far he gets on great with other dogs at 14 months old and has played with other intact males with no problems and I hope it stays that way. I know that sometimes males at the age of 2 can really start feeling their oats so to speak. So hopefully Cai stays well mannered as he is now. I believe it is all in how you raise them and socialize them

[theGOOCH]

I agree totally. You hear a lot of downright lies about neutering/spaying. My favorite is that your intact male will be overly aggressive and will mark in the house. I don't think it makes any noticeable difference in personality or behavior. Even sexual behavior doesn't show up if your dog has never been permitted to breed and basically doesn't know what sex is.

I have to say...I thought you'd take a lot more heat on this site for posting that, but I'm glad you did.

[mulroony]

I would like to see the rates of the various cancers, and see which ones are more likely to occur. How would it matter if S/N makes you dog more likely to get one cancer (with really low odds) then prevent it from getting another cancer (with really high odds). Russian roulette with 2 or 3 bullets, I choose 2...

I have only meet one dog that was not neutered until later in life (I think he was around 1.5-2 years, and I did notice a BIG behavior change. (but that might have been other factors as well)

I still think S/N is the best option for a large majority of dog owners, I know I take comfort in the thought that there is absolutely no way that I will ever be dealing with a litter (or responsible for one)

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

Those of you with the opinion of waiting to nueter- how do you feel about not nuetering dogs with no known background? Take a shelter dog who's 6 years old, no known history. Socialization can still be done, as can training, but say some damage is already done. Do you leave the dog unaltered anyway? I can't analyze the CDC's statistics right now, but if they're correct that an unaltered dog is more likely to bite, what about that--with a dog of unknown history and parentage?