# Should people neuter/spay their dogs?



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

This isn't a question about advice for me, it's just about opinions in general. I searched, but could not find a thread on this already. 

I've had intact pets and I've had neutered/spayed pets. I don't really have a preference. However, awhile ago when I was doing research for a report I came across something about neutering and how spaying/neutering your pets can cause more diseases than it supposedly "fixes". 

Now, whether or not that is true is up for debate. I've had perfectly healthy neutered pets and I've had neutered animals with neuter-related health problems that cost me thousands of dollars. 

I spoke to my vet about this, and the vet said that there's no reason to neuter your animal unless there are health concerns that are related to spaying/neutering. She doesn't condone it at all unless it's absolutely necessary. On the flip side, the people from the shelter I spoke to said that people who don't neuter/spay their animals are "fools" and are just asking for their pets to get cancer, pregnant, and be aggressive. 

I spoke to another vet at my facility, and they had a more in-between approach. He said that he did not believe in neutering purebreds unless there was a medical reason, but that rescue animals should be. 

*Interesting articles on the matter*:
http://leerburg.com/pdf/neutering.pdf
Spaying / Neutering
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf
AVMA: Mandatory spay/neuter a bad idea
BAD EFFECTS OF SPAY-NEUTER,IGNORED BY AR EXTREMISTS | Pet Defense

*
What is your opinion on the matter?*
Do you spay/neuter your pets? Why or why not?


----------



## KentuckyGSDLover (Nov 17, 2011)

I think you have to decide the circumstances and what is best for you and your dog as a unit. There are going to be pros and cons. I've found while searching for a new dog that a lot of people give a lot of absolutes, and some of those "experts" have proved to be wrong. I am getting a papered dog spayed, because I don't want puppies, I don't want to deal with heat and she is a small specimen for her breed anyway. I've had two neutered German Shepherds whose lives exceeded their usual life expectancy. In a world where millions of dogs are euthanized each year because there are too many of them, unless I planned to breed a specific line, I personally would spay or neuter. But that's me.


----------



## CookieTN (Sep 14, 2008)

I think the main reason to speuter is population control. (Although it does help some with behaviors like marking if done early enough in my (very limited) experience.) My pets are all spayed/neutered because I don't have any business breeding them and I do not want the chance of them reproducing. (Though I may with future pets, *after* finding a mentor and all.)
I think it should stay the way it is--people can speuter if they want, or not. I encourage people informing themselves and making their own decisions. Maybe a bit more public education on the matter, though?

I do not think it's a good idea to speuter a puppy younger than six months. (Older for large breeds.) If it's a rescue dog and part of the shelter/rescue's policy, fine. If not, I'd hold off on it.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

ladyfreckles said:


> I spoke to my vet about this, and the vet said that there's no reason to neuter your animal unless there are health concerns that are related to spaying/neutering. She doesn't condone it at all unless it's absolutely necessary. On the flip side, the people from the shelter I spoke to said that people who don't neuter/spay their animals are "fools" and are just asking for their pets to get cancer, pregnant, and be aggressive.
> 
> I spoke to another vet at my facility, and they had a more in-between approach. He said that he did not believe in neutering purebreds unless there was a medical reason, but that rescue animals should be.
> 
> ...


 Largely the opinion that all dogs should be S/N comes from years and years of Animal Rights movement propaganda, which has become common knowledge. By common knowledge, I mean most people don't consider where this view came from but most know you should S/N if you want to be good owner. Part of AR's agenda is to have a "No Birth Nation", meaning no further generations of domestic animals. While that sounds far fetched, their use of propaganda over years has drastically altered the public's opinion about animals and breeding. And in that time, we've seen more and more restrictive laws concerning animals: mandatory S/N laws, BSL, limit laws, anti-tethering laws, laws concerning where and how animals can be bought/sold, stricter and stricter laws concerning breeding, etc. And the change in thinking has had a very negative impact on lower number breeds. Since it's also common knowledge that "all good breeder sell pet puppies on S/N contracts and limited registration", the number of litters of low number breeds is on a steady decline. Quality dogs in these breeds are S/N because their owners don't have an interest in showing and no one wants to be the breeder who doesn't sell pet puppies on a S/N contract and limited registration.

So, basically the widespread opinion that most dogs should be S/N is a political one. Yes certain health problems can be prevented by altering but other health problems can be caused by it. There's plenty of S/N aggressive dog. IMO behavior isn't a strong reason to S/N, unless you have intermale aggression involving an intact male (which may be solved by neutering or may not be). Spaying can actually make some forms of same sex aggression worse in females. There are good reasons for some people to alter their animals for sure but there's also good reasons for others not to. I have some altered dogs and some are intact. If they develop a health issue requiring altering I would have it done but I see no compelling reason to neuter male dogs otherwise. My girls will all likely remain intact until they are at least middle aged.

Here's another two-part article for you to read, not directly relating to S/N pros/cons but very much related to the issue:

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_1.pdf

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_2.pdf


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

I used to spay/neuter my dogs but don't anymore. I just don't feel the need to risk their lives to MAYBE prevent a health issue sometime down the road. (Unless it were medically necessary of course.) 

I've had intact dogs of both genders and never had any litters, nor have any of my males ever bred a female that belonged to someone else.

I also live alone and don't have a husband nor children that can accidentally (or intentionally.) leave intact dogs together when a female is in heat.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

the dogs i bought were never neutered and there was
never a problem. the rescues i've own have been
neutered and spayed. i think you can use the word
neutered when talking about males or females.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Should people? Only if they feel it is the best idea for themselves and their dogs. 

I have 2 spayed older females, 3 intact females and an intact male. I am thinking about spaying Vala since I won't breed her again and pyometritis scares me, but then again I am fighting with myself about whether to do it. Donovan won't be done unless it becomes necessary for medical reasons.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

You have some time to really think about it. OF those people who do a large proportion of them advocate waiting until the animal has had a chance to complete all skeletal growth. I would probably still spay a female after 2-3 years of age just because I keep intact males but it will be 5-6 years before I get a female so plenty of time to rethink it all. My male puppy will be left intact. I did neuter my current male at 8 due to enlarged prostate --


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I agree it's a personal choice and what you feel is a good idea for you.

Me personally, I do not want to deal with intact females, I just don't, so all my females have been spayed. My males eventually ended up being neutered but some weren't until they were aound 3-4 years old.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

My opinion is to leave them and not interfere with the hormonal systems that nature provided them. Behavioral issues are due to leadership, genetics and training, they can be handled with training, management, and containment. Unwanted pregnancy is a management/containment issue. As for cancer, there seems to be a higher incidents of cancers that often take dogs younger and have a terrible prognosis in animals spayed or neutered young. Mammary cancer in females is a risk, just like pyometra, but so is osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma. By reducing the risk of mammary and testicular, you increase the risk of osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma -- one needs to weigh the risks and make the decision they feel is best.

Other negatives to early spay/neuter is interfering with the growth of the dog, possible complications of surgery such as problems with anesthetic up to and including death, and poor surgical practices causing infections and incontinence.

Positives is the elimination of the heat cycle twice yearly which many people would rather not deal with, training and titling the dog can be affected by untimely heats, boarding facilities sometimes do not want to take an animal in heat. Occasionally other types of dog-related businesses are closed to intact animals. 

In the end, it is a personal decision. A person who chooses to keep their animals intact is no more or less responsible than the person who chooses to spay or neuter.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

For most of the population I think spay/neuter before sexual maturity is a good thing. They should probably alter their pets too.

:tongue:

But seriously, if the question is about the general population at large, yes I think they should. _Most people_ don't keep their dog in the house and only let him outside under supervision. _Most people don't know when their bitch is in heat or bother to appropriately contain their male. 

If the question is about most of the members on this forum, who do keep their dogs in the house or in secure kennels and who are adept at preventing canine pregnancy, I think it's completely up to the owner.

I will be neutering my dog, but it will be after maturity, probably between 18 months and two years._


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Maybe I read it wrong, but the leerburg link said you need to neuter between 6 - 9 months to possibly head off dominance and aggression issues.? Why only that time frame? I'm confused.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

chelle said:


> Maybe I read it wrong, but the leerburg link said you need to neuter between 6 - 9 months to possibly head off dominance and aggression issues.? Why only that time frame? I'm confused.


I don't think he meant you need to neuter during that time frame, I think he meant that neutering during that time frame is the only time that will have an effect on dominance issues. However, most that are raised and trained correctly will not have dominance aggression issues anyway, neutered or not. Personally I've never owned a dog that had dominance issues and only had 2 fosters (out of nearly 30) that did. 

At a guess, I think he's saying that because 6-9 months is the time when the dog is developing his social "personality"? It's kind of the first transition to adulthood, so neutering then will keep them in more of a juvenile state? But I don't know why he thinks neutering at, say, 3 or 4 months wouldn't have the same effect.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Emoore said:


> I don't think he meant you need to neuter during that time frame, I think he meant that neutering during that time frame is the only time that will have an effect on dominance issues. However, most that are raised and trained correctly will not have dominance aggression issues anyway, neutered or not. Personally I've never owned a dog that had dominance issues and only had 2 fosters (out of nearly 30) that did.
> 
> At a guess, I think he's saying that because 6-9 months is the time when the dog is developing his social "personality"? It's kind of the first transition to adulthood, so neutering then will keep them in more of a juvenile state? But I don't know why he thinks neutering at, say, 3 or 4 months wouldn't have the same effect.


So if we don't have dominance/aggression issues at nearly seven months, it's not likely to develop later? Or more specifically, it isn't *more* likely to develop by leaving him intact? I enjoy his personality now, he's playful and hasn't shown any dominance/aggression/DA. Some fear issues, but that's another story... I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying! I have decided to wait on the neuter til 18 months - 2 yrs, but still want to know every pro and con I possibly can.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

chelle said:


> So if we don't have dominance/aggression issues at nearly seven months, it's not likely to develop later? Or more specifically, it isn't *more* likely to develop by leaving him intact?


*I* don't think so. I mean, you're going to see that general adolescent crapheadedness that comes up in months around the 1-year birthday, and I think a lot of people mistake that for dominance and aggression and neuter to get rid of it. . . coincidentally shortly after being neutered the dog grows out of the phase, so people think neutering solved it. 

IMHO, if you've got a sweet-tempered dog that's not dominant or aggressive at 7 months, you'll have a sweet tempered dog who's not dominant or aggressive at 18 months and beyond, whether you neuter or not. It's just that time in between where you have a bit of a brat. :crazy: Even that's not true dominance, it's just adolescent boundary-testing.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Dominance issues probably won't rear their heads until beyond the 6-9 month stage. Beyond that point, neutering will probably not prevent issues or remedy issues. So if you have a real dominant issue rearing his ugly head at say 15 months old, nicking his nads will not cool his jets. I think though that true dominance, aggressive behavior is not that prevalent, and practicing good leadership, training, and mental and physical exercise should prevent much of that from ever being any kind of issue.


----------



## nitemares (Dec 15, 2005)

I only ever have one dog at a time, I live in an apartment, my dog is never off leash outside. never needed to neuter. Cats on the other hand i would and will neuter my male. I hate the marking and i will not breed. Never owned a female cat so I don't know about that.

Put here the general mentality is no speutering pure breeds only mixed and mutts.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

selzer said:


> Dominance issues probably won't rear their heads until beyond the 6-9 month stage. Beyond that point, neutering will probably not prevent issues or remedy issues. So if you have a real dominant issue rearing his ugly head at say 15 months old, *nicking his nads will not cool his jets. * I think though that true dominance, aggressive behavior is not that prevalent, and practicing good leadership, training, and mental and physical exercise should prevent much of that from ever being any kind of issue.


That said, it probably wouldn't hurt and take hormones out of the equation as well.
I think all pet (not showing or working) animals ought to be altered.

They castrate horses and cattle (non breeding "bulls") and almost all other farm animals to make them less aggressive and more biddable and safer to work with. 

Our intact male goat turns into an ass (well not literally but you get the point) in the fall, when he goes into "rut". It's just disgusting. But he produces very pretty babies so we keep him intact...all the other boys are neutered so they aren't a problem.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

ladyfreckles said:


> I've had perfectly healthy neutered pets and I've had neutered animals with neuter-related health problems that cost me thousands of dollars.


What "neuter-related health problems" did you experience, and how did you determine that they were "neuter-related"?



> I spoke to another vet at my facility, and they had a more in-between approach. He said that he did not believe in neutering purebreds unless there was a medical reason, but that rescue animals should be.


That seems really odd... why is it that you should neuter rescue animals but not purebreds? There are only a small percentage of purebreds that should be bred, so why should the remainder stay intact just because they are purebred? Is there some neuter-related health concern that strikes only purebreds and not rescues?

All my dogs have been spayed/neutered. I just don't care to deal with females going through heat cycles and the worry of accidental pregnancy. Intact males can be total booger-heads at times, and if they're not going to be bred, I don't personally see a benefit for them to remain intact after physical maturity (or even before). I have grit my teeth and waited to spay my females until around 18 months to 2 years of age, which usually means I have to endure a heat cycle or two, and it's not something I recommend to the average pet owner.

I've worked professionally with animals for over 20 years, and in my experience, I have noticed that intact males tend to be more aggressive, stubborn and uncooperative, and more concerned with establishing social dominance, than neutered males. Females left intact by the average pet owner are almost always accidentally bred at some point in their lives. None of those things are a benefit for the average dog owner in the general public. 

The average pet owner that I see aren't expert trainers, in fact, few even have basic knowledge of dog psychology and behavior. And few are responsible and diligent enough to prevent an intact female from getting pregnant.

For that reason, and in light of the fact that shelters and rescues are full of unwanted dogs, I think spay/neuter ought to be the default for most pet owners. It's just easier and safer for everyone involved. 

Now, if the owner has a bit more experience, knowledge, and understanding of dogs, and can be responsible enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies and deal with hormone-related issues, the decision to spay/neuter is a personal one. 

My main issue with spay/neuter is about population control, because having worked with shelters and rescues, I have an up-close perspective on the unwanted pet situation in this country. But I must say, as a groomer, I definitely prefer to work with spayed/neutered animals. They are generally a bit more tractable and easygoing than their intact counterparts, and I HATE grooming females in season. Yuck. So in that sense I have a selfish preference for spay/neuter.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I really think this entire article should be required reading.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

And then when done, skip on over to this one 

http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> And then when done, skip on over to this one
> 
> http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf


Hadn't seen that one. Excellent, it's always good to have two sides to an issue. Somewhere in between we might even find the truth.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

IMO (as an ACO turned rescuer) s/n is always best. And that's for purebreds as well as mutts. LOL I mean does that vet think quality purebreds get sold at petstores? They have faux registries that will register Shih-Poos and Peke-a-Poms. That they have papers makes them breed(ing) worthy?
I'm glad people who research and come to forums are responsible but the general public just isn't...which is why shelters remain overcrowded and mass euthanasia is so common across the country. For those who don't think there's even a pet overpopulation problem, add to today's totals for alive pets, the total of pets euthanized over the past year and then ask yourself, where will we put them all??


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

There have actually been numerous threads on speutering, it's a popular and much debated topic on the board. Here's a sticky thread in Polls: http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...o-you-spay-neuter-do-you-not-spay-neuter.html

And you can also find some in the Basic Care forum too. For me, I'm convinced that there are good reasons for delaying spays/neuters, but it's still something that I'm going to do. Keefer was neutered at 15 months old, Halo was spayed at 13 months old.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

Msvette,

But most intact male dogs don't go after the owner or handler just because they CAN. And dogs are less likely to kill you than a stallion or a bull if they get nasty. I have/had both. (Stallions and bulls.) An intact male canine is a piece of cake compared too most bucking bulls and a lot of stallions!!!


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

The above said, I too think it IS best if John Q. Public has ALTERED pets.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I do agree that it's best if the "national default" is to spay/neuter. However, for the thoughtful, conscientious dog owner (the type who is likely to read several multi-page scholarly articles on the subject) the prevention of unwanted litters becomes less and less of an issue. People who have these kinds of debates aren't the people who's dogs are out mating in the streets. If I can't supervise my dogs, they're in the house with doors and windows locked. 

Reading the article you posted, many of Dr. Howe's rebuttals to Dr. Zink come down to the fact that while Dr. Zink found adverse effects of spay/neuter, he didn't know the age at which the dogs were altered, so it can't be taken as an indictment of pediatric speuter. She also showed that Dr. Zink's findings of detrimental effects were over-inflated, but the detrimental effects were there. 

I will admit I skimmed over the parts about spaying. I don't own a bitch and have no plans to acquire one, so I don't worry much about the effects of spaying. 

After reading both articles, it still seems to me that the evidence is in favor of leaving males intact provided the owner is capable of dealing with an intact male and is committed to responsible containment, which of course may be a tall order over the course of 12-14 years. 

I just can't find evidence that neuter is overwhelmingly advantageous to the male dog's health, behavioral and contraceptive issues aside.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

selzer said:


> "nicking his nads will not cool his jets."


:rofl: Funniest quote I've heard in awhile on here.  I shall leave his jets and nads alone for awhile.


----------



## CeCe (Jun 1, 2011)

It's a personal decision that should be discussed with your vet and your breeder. My two adult dogs are spayed and neutered and my 8 month old pup is getting spayed next week. I am not an experienced dog owner and my dogs are family pets rather then working dogs so neutering was the right decision for me.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

What gets to me about the spay/neuter issue is that people cannot just have an opinion. Everyone is either right or wrong. If we all give our opinions, and some of those are different than other people's opinions, then that person MUST come on and reinforce their position, and say over and again their position. 

It is a choice. 

I will fight that it remain a choice. 

What people choose depends on their situation, personality, etc.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

CeCe said:


> It's a personal decision that should be discussed with your vet and your breeder. My two adult dogs are spayed and neutered and my 8 month old pup is getting spayed next week. I am not an experienced dog owner and my dogs are family pets rather then working dogs so neutering was the right decision for me.


Hear hear!


or is it


Here here!

:toasting:


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Freestep said:


> What "neuter-related health problems" did you experience, and how did you determine that they were "neuter-related"?


Immediately after we brought him (he was a cat) home he had a bladder problems and just kept rubbing his butt on the carpet. It seemed... weird but we didn't know any better at the time so it took months to take him in. Turns out he'd gotten a bladder stone. This was directly related to the neutering, as said by the vet. It's not a common occurrence but it does happen. He got several more stones and had to have them surgically removed. One almost killed him because his system got so backed up. We had to feed him special food for the rest of his life. He's still alive almost 10 years later and going well, though.




> That seems really odd... why is it that you should neuter rescue animals but not purebreds? There are only a small percentage of purebreds that should be bred, so why should the remainder stay intact just because they are purebred? Is there some neuter-related health concern that strikes only purebreds and not rescues?


He didn't explain it like that, but to be honest, I didn't agree with him which is why I didn't go into it further. His reasoning didn't make much sense to me. It was just another opinion to provide.

If I had to guess, it would have something to do with how easy it apparently can be to adopt. An intact animal in the wrong hands can go badly, badly wrong. Most people I know who are looking into breeders or got their pets from breeders have done enough research on animals to know what behavior to expect. That's not to say that people who adopt don't do research, though. They do as well.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I spay/neuter my pets as I volunteer with an animal shelter and rescue. Also I just don't want to deal with a female in heat, and also neuter my males just to prevent any unwanted litters. I plan on owning more dogs or both sexes in the future. I will wait until the dog is fully mature.

But in the end its a personal decision.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> What gets to me about the spay/neuter issue is that people cannot just have an opinion. Everyone is either right or wrong. If we all give our opinions, and some of those are different than other people's opinions, then that person MUST come on and reinforce their position, and say over and again their position.


Actually it appears to me that this thread (as most such threads on this board) is pretty civil about the matter, opinions given, but no absoutes. I don't think anyone here is saying right or wrong, black or white, there's a definite gray area especially for people who are knowledgable and responsible owners.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

me said:


> If I had to guess, it would have something to do with how easy it apparently can be to adopt. An intact animal in the wrong hands can go badly, badly wrong. Most people I know who are looking into breeders or got their pets from breeders have done enough research on animals to know what behavior to expect. That's not to say that people who adopt don't do research, though. They do as well.



Oops, forgot to mention. Most of the babies that end up in shelters are not from breeders. He might have just been trying to point out that neutering those babies helps prevent that from becoming a cycle of irresponsible pet owners who let their pets get pregnant.



Freestep said:


> Actually it appears to me that this thread (as most such threads on this board) is pretty civil about the matter, opinions given, but no absoutes. I don't think anyone here is saying right or wrong, black or white, there's a definite gray area especially for people who are knowledgable and responsible owners.


Nothing is ever really black or white.

I'm torn about males, but with females it's a bit different. I knew a white female GSD who would try to run away every time she went into heat to get pregnant. She had to be on leash at all times when in heat. She was spayed at 6 years but kept going into heat because it was just habit by then. 

If I had a female I'd probably spay her, just because that kind of stuff is way too risky, especially if I like doing off-leash hikes. 

With males, I don't see any obvious benefit to doing so, though I'm not entirely opposed to it. 

However I'm very firm in my opinion when it comes to laws. I think requiring, by law, people to de-sex their pets without a breeder's license is sick and twisted. It would be like making circumcision required by law. It's up to the owner.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

ladyfreckles said:


> Turns out he'd gotten a bladder stone. This was directly related to the neutering, as said by the vet. It's not a common occurrence but it does happen. He got several more stones and had to have them surgically removed. One almost killed him because his system got so backed up. We had to feed him special food for the rest of his life.


If the cat was neutered very young, he may have a narrow urethra as the hormones that allow the reproductive/urinary development were taken away too early. Stones themselves are not that uncommon in cats; stones have more to do with genetics and diet than hormones as far as I know. However, a narrow urethra will not allow stones to pass as easily and can cause a life-threatening blockage. So that is EARLY-neuter related, not neuter-related per se, if that makes sense. If he'd been older when neutered, it might not have caused a problem. Then again, narrow urethra can be genetic too. I always wait until about 5 months to neuter my cats, and haven't had any problems. 



> Most people I know who are looking into breeders or got their pets from breeders have done enough research on animals to know what behavior to expect.


In my experience, people who get purebred dogs have done little to no research. They wanted a dog, saw an ad in the paper for purebred puppies $350, sounded like a good deal, and the puppy is oh so cute, so they took it home. Then they come to me and can't figure out why on Earth their Jack Russell terrier barks and goes crazy when there's a squirrel in the yard, or why their Cocker Spaniel has ear problems. 

THESE are the people that should be spaying/neutering their pets, and thankfully, most of the people I see do. 

For those folks who have done some work in educating themselves, and have knowledge and experience with dogs, and the dog is more than just a whim or afterthought, spay/neuter ought to be more of a personal choice.

I don't think spay/neuter should be required by law, but I do agree with the mandate that all animals coming into shelters or rescue ought to be altered before being adopted out.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Freestep said:


> I don't think spay/neuter should be required by law, but I do agree with the mandate that all animals coming into shelters or rescue ought to be altered before being adopted out.


I agree with you there, mate.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

ladyfreckles said:


> Most of the babies that end up in shelters are not from breeders.


I don't think that's true at all.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

The babies that end up in shelters do come from backyard breeders, at least in my area. Most of them are pit bulls; it seems that everyone who owns a pit bull thinks they MUST breed it.


----------



## Pepper311 (Sep 11, 2011)

Yes get your pets fix. Till they make doggie birth control dogs that are not in good breeding programs should be fixed.

I think there are some people that should get fixed too.

Fact intacted female dogs are high risk of mammary cancer.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

We have turned to removing the reproductive organs from our dogs to compensate for lazy irresponsible owners. Spaying and neutering our dogs is so indoctrinated into our society that there are people who actually freak out at the sight of testicles on a male. They want to know why the dog isn't "fixed" as though reproductive organs are a disease. Very sad.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Freestep said:


> What "neuter-related health problems" did you experience, and how did you determine that they were "neuter-related"?


One of my dogs had a reaction to the sutures and had to have a second operation because of it. I have also heard of dogs dying during spays. No surgery is without risk. 



Pepper311 said:


> Fact intacted female dogs are high risk of mammary cancer.


 Except that it isn't quite that simple. Mammary cancer isn't the only consideration and while spaying may prevent mammary cancer in some dogs, it can increase bone cancer in some dogs which is probably more likely to kill the dog. 



msvette2u said:


> That said, it probably wouldn't hurt and take hormones out of the equation as well.
> I think all pet (not showing or working) animals ought to be altered.
> 
> They castrate horses and cattle (non breeding "bulls") and almost all other farm animals to make them less aggressive and more biddable and safer to work with.
> ...


 I'm not sure dogs can behaviorally compared to livestock type animals, especially not animals in which males go into "rut". 



Pepper311 said:


> Fact intacted female dogs are high risk of mammary cancer.


 Except that it isn't quite that simple. Mammary cancer isn't the only consideration and while spaying may prevent mammary cancer in some dogs, it can increase bone cancer in some dogs which is probably more likely to kill the dog. 



msvette2u said:


> Our intact male goat turns into an ass (well not literally but you get the point) in the fall, when he goes into "rut". It's just disgusting. But he produces very pretty babies so we keep him intact...all the other boys are neutered so they aren't a problem.


 I'm not sure dogs can behaviorally compared to livestock type animals, especially not animals in which males go into "rut".


----------



## VonKromeHaus (Jun 17, 2009)

lhczth said:


> We have turned to removing the reproductive organs from our dogs to compensate for lazy irresponsible owners. Spaying and neutering our dogs is so indoctrinated into our society that there are people who actually freak out at the sight of testicles on a male. They want to know why the dog isn't "fixed" as though reproductive organs are a disease. Very sad.


This ^ should be repeated over and over and over! ^^^^^ 

It is a personal choice and as long as they are owned responsibly, there shouldn't be a problem. I will fight to keep it a choice and not a "have-to"!!!


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

*sigh* then all animals should be altered, because the irresponsible outweigh the responsible owners at least 40-1. There's oopsie litters all the time, especially in our area, or maybe I notice it way more due to being in rescue. Oh, no, all one has to do is look at Craiglist to see all the oopsie litters.




> I'm not sure dogs can behaviorally compared to livestock type animals, especially not animals in which males go into "rut".


Well, they were being compared to farm animals in another thread (about body shape/size), specifically steers vs. bulls, and even horses. If testosterone, or lack thereof, can affect body size, then certainly it can affect certain other developments. And, it is a proven fact that the highest bite incidents (in dogs) occur with intact adult males.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I don't think that's true at all.


x100 not true!
Just because they don't go straight from the breeder to the shelter (or rescue) doesn't mean they didn't come from one. Just how did the purebreds get to be in shelters??
And...at any given time, 60+% of the pets in shelters are indeed purebred.

Pet adoption: Want a dog or cat? Adopt a pet on Petfinder <--- do the research. When you search for any breed, it gives you an actual number of the dogs of that breed that are in shelters at this moment. 
That's not including the shelters or rescues who do not advertise on Petfinder.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

lhczth said:


> We have turned to removing the reproductive organs from our dogs to compensate for lazy irresponsible owners. Spaying and neutering our dogs is so indoctrinated into our society that there are people who actually freak out at the sight of testicles on a male. They want to know why the dog isn't "fixed" as though reproductive organs are a disease. Very sad.


I agree with you in a way, but if the only people who owned dogs were the ones responsible enough to own intact dogs, there'd be even more homeless dogs.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

msvette2u said:


> *sigh* then all animals should be altered, because the irresponsible outweigh the responsible owners at least 40-1. There's oopsie litters all the time, especially in our area, or maybe I notice it way more due to being in rescue. Oh, no, all one has to do is look at Craiglist to see all the oopsie litters.


 So you feel your pets should be altered because of irresponsible owners? That doesn't really make sense unless you think you are an irresponsible owner. Do you feel we should work towards a "No Birth Nation" in regards to dogs?





msvette2u said:


> Well, they were being compared to farm animals in another thread (about body shape/size), specifically steers vs. bulls, and even horses. If testosterone, or lack thereof, can affect body size, then certainly it can affect certain other developments. And, it is a proven fact that the highest bite incidents (in dogs) occur with intact adult males.


 Having owned intact animals that went into "rut" (ferrets) and intact dogs for many, many years I can tell you they are much different. Although, to be honest I always found the claims of aggression with intact male ferrets to also be over-exaggerated. Yes, the males are more likely to fight with each other when in rut but I never had any aggression issues towards me with the intact boys in rut or not. Haven't had hormone related aggression in my boy dogs either. 

Many serious bite incidents happen because the owners aren't responsible enough to prevent them. People keeping their dog chained to a doghouse 24/7 are unlikely to pay for neutering but IMO it doesn't prove much at all about intact males and aggression. Some of the most seriously aggressive dogs I have known have been neutered males. And the majority of dogs I've been bitten by have been altered but as is common with dog bites, they were minor and unreported so don't factor into the statistics.



msvette2u said:


> x100 not true!
> Just because they don't go straight from the breeder to the shelter (or rescue) doesn't mean they didn't come from one. Just how did the purebreds get to be in shelters??
> And...at any given time, 60+% of the pets in shelters are indeed purebred..


 Where are you getting this number from? 




msvette2u said:


> Pet adoption: Want a dog or cat? Adopt a pet on Petfinder





msvette2u said:


> <--- do the research. When you search for any breed, it gives you an actual number of the dogs of that breed that are in shelters at this moment.
> That's not including the shelters or rescues who do not advertise on Petfinder.


 Well it gives you an actual number of dogs ID'd as that breed which are in shelters at this moment. LOTS of those dogs are not purebred or are completely misID'd.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I got the number from 10yrs. work in animal shelters, doing walk throughs, observing and also in our own rescue...plus, if my own observations aren't good enough, you can research it yourself, the numbers are out there.


> Many serious bite incidents happen because the owners aren't responsible enough to prevent them.


That's pretty much my point.

Curious where you guys think all the animals in shelters are coming from, if everyone is so responsible? Legitimate question. Where do they all come from? Puppies and kittens?
Purebreds, mutts, mixes, whatever.

PS. It is much fewer percentage of purebreds - reported - but again, it doesn't matter if it's a purebred so much or a mix of two purebred dogs, my question is still the same, where are they all coming from?


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> Curious where you guys think all the animals in shelters are coming from, if everyone is so responsible? Legitimate question. Where do they all come from? Puppies and kittens?
> Purebreds, mutts, mixes, whatever.


They come from irresponsible people. Many responsible people spay and neuter their pets. Many other responsible people are able to have intact pets and keep them from breeding. Irresponsible people don't speuter their pets and don't keep them from breeding.

I have respect for people who spay/neuter. They're responsible enough to realize that they don't want to deal with an intact dog, so they make the appointment and alter their dog. Nothing wrong with that. I don't have respect for people who say I'm irresponsible because my dog isn't neutered.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

The numbers are too overwhelming to insist that "most owners are responsible". In fact, a browse over our local CL just now saw many pit bulls, dozens of mixes and even a purebred litter of St. Bernards.
Wonder where they'll wind up?


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> The numbers are too overwhelming to insist that "most owners are responsible". ?


I don't think most owners are responsible. I never said they were. I said many are. Honestly, many people aren't responsible enough to have a hamster. If they are going to own a dog, the dog should be altered. However, even if we can agree that many pet owners are irresponsible, that doesn't give people the right to say the I, or Lisa, or Agile, or Freckles are irresponsible for having an intact pet. 

If we concede that most irresponsible owners own intact dogs, it does not logically follow that every owner of an intact dog is irresponsible.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

No...you're right, but I also know many so-called (or perhaps just self-proclaimed!) responsible people wind up with their share of oopsies...and just sell the pups at reduced fees.
Face it. All we know from the internet is what people say they are, or aren't.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

ladyfreckles said:


> Oops, forgot to mention. Most of the babies that end up in shelters are not from breeders. He might have just been trying to point out that neutering those babies helps prevent that from becoming a cycle of irresponsible pet owners who let their pets get pregnant.


Sorry, but ALL the "babies" in a shelter come from breeders. Anybody who has a dog that has a litter of puppies is a breeder. 
Sheilah


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Well, fortunately for all of us, people on the internet don't have the right to tell other people on the internet what to do. :thumbup:


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Telling people what to do (or not telling them) doesn't have anything to do with those who claim one thing and are actually another entirely


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

lhczth said:


> We have turned to removing the reproductive organs from our dogs to compensate for lazy irresponsible owners. Spaying and neutering our dogs is so indoctrinated into our society that there are people who actually freak out at the sight of testicles on a male. They want to know why the dog isn't "fixed" as though reproductive organs are a disease. Very sad.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :toasting:

I used to have people be shocked when they discovered Wrangler was intact. Because he was so well behaved, no dog aggression, never tried to mount someones dog, ect.....

One year I was at a horse sale and some people were there with a year old male cattle dog, they said he was friendly and asked if Wrangler could play with him. They played for quite a while UNTIL the other dog tried to mount Wrangler. After that it was game over and Wrangler went back to the truck. (He didn't believe in THAT.) We were walking later that day and they were shocked when they happened to notice testicles! They kept going on and on about the fact he was intact. Not in a bad way, just because he was so good. Told them it isn't testicles that make obnoxious dogs, it is a lack of training!!


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

i didnt read the other responses. This is just my feelings on the subject.

All of my cats, male or female, get fixed. Females in heat are annoying and usually stay in heat or have a week off before starting again and i just dont have the patience to deal with a yowling "wheres the guys!" female. Males, i've never had one that didnt start spraying after maturity so the cats are fixed. 

Dogs, females are fixed because i dont have the desire to deal with their periods or potential smell that comes with the heat cycle. And i have no desire to have a litter of puppies in the house either so the girls get spayed after a certain point unless they're rescued. My males, i'd prefer remain intact just because thats my personal preference. None of my dogs are ever out of my line of vision or in a position to become doggie parents. Riley is fixed because he was adopted. otherwise he would probably still be intact.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

sit said:


> Sorry, but ALL the "babies" in a shelter come from breeders. Anybody who has a dog that has a litter of puppies is a breeder.
> Sheilah


ASPCA | Pet Statistics



ASPCA Pet Statistics said:


> Twenty-five percent of dogs who enter local shelters are purebred. (Source: NCPPSP)


That is not all. That is no where near all.

We're not talking about people whose dogs accidentally have babies. We're talking about intentionally bred, purebred puppies.


----------



## VonKromeHaus (Jun 17, 2009)

msvette2u said:


> Telling people what to do (or not telling them) doesn't have anything to do with those who claim one thing and are actually another entirely


I would think most people on this thread are what they say they are. RESPONSIBLE. 

I agree with BlackGSD. While Judge is slightly leash reactive to other dogs, he really doesn't have any problems or behavioral issues that one would associate with his testicles. I respect whatever someone chooses to do with their dog speutering wise as long as the person is responsible, and even if they're not, I can only educate them as much as they'll let me and it's still their choice. 

I think using a dog's testicles or uterus as an exuse as to their behavior is silly and a very uneducated way of looking at things. 

A dog in a trial has to trial potentially with a bitch in season well within their smelling range, even if the in heat bitch goes last to the field, the dogs can still smell her, their training must be better than their natural instincts if you want to place. 

IMHO- Training is KEY and MANY people don't know how to train a dog. I'm not saying that the majority is responsible, cause they're not but those of us here, I'd like to think are what they say they are! I've had Judge 4 years and never had an accidental breeding so I know it can be done.


----------



## CookieTN (Sep 14, 2008)

nitemares said:


> I only ever have one dog at a time, I live in an apartment, my dog is never off leash outside. never needed to neuter. Cats on the other hand i would and will neuter my male. I hate the marking and i will not breed. Never owned a female cat so I don't know about that.
> 
> Put here the general mentality is no speutering pure breeds only mixed and mutts.


I had a female cat. They go in heat more often than dogs and mine would cry all during her heat cycle, try to to get loose. We eventually got sick of it and had her spayed.


----------



## Gracie's My Girl (May 27, 2011)

I have a female GSD who is still very young. Currently, I am at the point where I am still weighing the options and doing research because I want to do what is best for her. The only thing I know for certain is that I will not consider spaying her until she is at least three years old. I do believe that there is some benefit in leaving all of the hormones intact until the dog has reached maturity.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

My own personal experience with both intact and neutered animals is that I prefer both the physical condition, appearance and temperament of a fully mature intact animal. I believe, after much reading, that removing the gonads is to the long term detriment of the health of the animal and think more and more research studies are bearing that out.

[edit-I am more convinced about keeping a male intact past the age of full maturity than a female - probably won't really study it too much until I get my next female.--I did notice the dog agression come into my own female after she was spayed at 1 year but there could be many other causitive factors]

I do think neutering, particularly at a young age, turns the final dog into a different animal than an intact dog. When I look back, the only male dogs I had temperament issues with were neutered at a young age. My own intact male has had to actually WORK around a female in heat. Most working dogs learn that work trumps reproduction and can focus in this way. Obviously I would not trust the two of them unsupervised! 

Having acquired my first dog in 1965 at the age of 10, I have never, nada, not once been responsible for an "oops" pregnancy or any pregnancy for that matter (except for my own  )

I think the context of responsible ownership is there are plenty of educated folks on the board who take their responsibility concerning intact animals very seriously , have intact animals, and probably have experiences similar to my own. Education is the answer here. 

People need to be allowed to make their own decisions ....... these discussions scare me because they often lead to unenforceable legislation. Otherwise I could care less whether or not someone wanted to neuter THEIR dog.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

ladyfreckles said:


> We're not talking about people whose dogs accidentally have babies. We're talking about intentionally bred, purebred puppies.


You think those puppies don't end up in shelters? Have you actually worked in a shelter or rescue for any amount of time? I'd like to invite you to our local shelter, which right now has about 25 purebred (or at least what appear to be purebred) young Pit Bulls looking for homes, because around here, everyone who owns Pit Bulls seems to think they MUST be bred, and rarely do I see anyone walking a Pit that doesn't have either testicles or sagging teats. Craigslist abounds with ads for "pure bread pitt pups" every single day, many of the ads saying "stop flagging my ad, if i can't find homes for these pups they will go to the pound".

If "intentionally bred, purebred puppies" don't end up homeless, why are there rescue organizations just for purebreds?


----------



## CookieTN (Sep 14, 2008)

I'd guess it depends on your area. Here looks like most of the dogs come directly from owners who were moving, couldn't keep them anymore, or just wouldn't keep them anymore rather than directly from breeders. My childhood Poodle, which we had bought from my grandmother who used to breed Poodles, was put in the shelter because we had to move to an apartment that didn't allow dogs.
When I volunteered there (for several months) I saw litters of puppies at the shelter as well, but they weren't the majority.

I would say that a puppy from a responsible breeder rarely ends up in the shelter because of return policies.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

ladyfreckles said:


> We're not talking about people whose dogs accidentally have babies. We're talking about intentionally bred, purebred puppies.


To be fair, intentionally bred, purebred puppies generally start trickling into shelters when they're 4-6 months old. By the time they're 8 months to a year that trickle is a flood. In Texas, there are 7 large, well-run rescue groups devoted to rescuing and re-homing purebred German Shepherds and we can't keep up with the ones in shelters. At any given time in Dallas (where I live) there are 5-10 purebred German Shepherds in animal shelters that there are no room for in rescue. Well over half are in the 8 months to 2 years range. (Source: 10 years experience working GSD rescue in TX)

So no, not really puppies, but intentionally bred, purebred dogs do end up in shelters with staggering regularity. They don't generally come directly from breeders; there's a stopover of anywhere from 2 months to a year in a private home. Although my state is about to be flooded with intentionally bred, purebred puppies in rescue as soon as the Alpha-Tex puppymill lawsuit is finished.


----------



## CookieTN (Sep 14, 2008)

Ah, okay.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

I think most of the general public should spay/neuter their pets. But then I am torn in some ways in regards to freedoms and political matters that can't be got into on the board.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Emoore said:


> To be fair, intentionally bred, purebred puppies generally start trickling into shelters when they're 4-6 months old. By the time they're 8 months to a year that trickle is a flood. In Texas, there are 7 large, well-run rescue groups devoted to rescuing and re-homing purebred German Shepherds and we can't keep up with the ones in shelters. At any given time in Dallas (where I live) there are 5-10 purebred German Shepherds in animal shelters that there are no room for in rescue. Well over half are in the 8 months to 2 years range. (Source: 10 years experience working GSD rescue in TX)
> 
> So no, not really puppies, but intentionally bred, purebred dogs do end up in shelters with staggering regularity. They don't generally come directly from breeders; there's a stopover of anywhere from 2 months to a year in a private home. Although my state is about to be flooded with intentionally bred, purebred puppies in rescue as soon as the Alpha-Tex puppymill lawsuit is finished.





Freestep said:


> You think those puppies don't end up in shelters? Have you actually worked in a shelter or rescue for any amount of time? I'd like to invite you to our local shelter, which right now has about 25 purebred (or at least what appear to be purebred) young Pit Bulls looking for homes, because around here, everyone who owns Pit Bulls seems to think they MUST be bred, and rarely do I see anyone walking a Pit that doesn't have either testicles or sagging teats. Craigslist abounds with ads for "pure bread pitt pups" every single day, many of the ads saying "stop flagging my ad, if i can't find homes for these pups they will go to the pound".
> 
> If "intentionally bred, purebred puppies" don't end up homeless, why are there rescue organizations just for purebreds?


I did not say none of them did. I said that the majority of dogs in shelters were not from purebred breeders. I also provided a reputable statistic to prove my point.

25% is still a significant number, but that is not the majority. It's the minority by a whole lot of dogs. That percentage *also* covers the dogs that trickle in at 6 months. It's purebred dogs period, not just puppies.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

ladyfreckles said:


> I did not say none of them did. I said that the majority of dogs in shelters were not from purebred breeders. I also provided a reputable statistic to prove my point.
> 
> 25% is still a significant number, but that is not the majority. It's the minority by a whole lot of dogs. That percentage *also* covers the dogs that trickle in at 6 months. It's purebred dogs period, not just puppies.


You are correct. Just wanted to clarify for anyone reading who might be under the impression that young healthy purebred dogs rarely end up in shelters.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I got to thinking about this thread last night and it made me wonder.
So some person, new to GSDs, maybe even it is the 1st dog they owned, comes on here, asking what age they ought to alter their pet.
A few of you are firm believers in waiting as long as possible to alter.
So you advise him/her to wait, of course you need to wait! 

But you don't even take into account...because you know nothing about this person...what kind of yard set up they have, if they understand how strong the urge to breed can be (even through a fence, if the dogs can't get under or over), if they are responsible enough to have intact animals, etc.

What do you consider "responsible enough"? Because I feel to recommend everyone wait, is doing a disservice to animals. The people seeking advice on a forum may be more responsible or caring, or whatever, than other owners. But when even "mostly responsible" breeders or merely keepers of intact animals can have an "oops" litter, where does that leave people who really have no intention of breeding animals, but would not spay-abort should their bitch accidentally be bred while waiting for that magic number to arrive where you say it's "safe" to go ahead and spay? And what about their boy dogs who routinely escape the yard? In the thread about the dogs being shot in the woods, many people admitted their dogs often wandered loose, or even escaped and were gone for hours. When you have an intact boy, you may never know how many puppies he's helped create if he's off your property for an hour or two.

And, someone asked why I alter my pets? Because they are first and foremost _pets_, and I do not wish to live through another heat, knowing that my girls could get pyo, knowing that each heat increases their chance of breast cancer, knowing that even a female spayed late in life can get incontinence (spaying young isn't a guarantee she will no more than spaying late is a guarantee she won't), and just like we vaccinate, the benefits outweigh the risks, IMO and in our living situation. 

Just as everyone has to decide for themselves (usually with the assistance of their vet who does like their clients to live long, happy lives), people on here shouldn't be making others to feel like idiots or irresponsible when they make the decision _to _neuter or spay prior to a year of age.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

ladyfreckles said:


> We're not talking about people whose dogs accidentally have babies. We're talking about intentionally bred, purebred puppies.


Sorry, but there is nothing accidental about a litter of puppies. if you have an intact female and don't take appropriate steps to prevent a pregnancy, there WILL be puppies eventually. Where is the "accident" in that?
Sheilah


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I don't know, maybe it's just my perspective, but from reading this thread it seems to me most people are saying, "I personally choose to wait or not neuter at all, but it's a personal decision to be made with your vet and breeder." 

I don't think anyone has said, "You must wait to neuter or else you're a bad dog owner." _I don't feel_ like people on this thread are being made to feel like they're bad dog owners for neutering prior to one year. In fact _I feel_ like people who choose to wait are being made to feel like they are irresponsible and don't care about homeless shelter pets. Maybe it's all in perspective. 

My friend and neighbor recently got a lab puppy. She's got the Banfield plan and is going to neuter him at 4 months old. I wholeheartedly endorsed this and am loaning her my lampshade collar for his surgery. _For her and her dog_ neutering young was the right choice. _For me and my dog_ it was not.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Emoore, if you go back and read through other threads, people are routinely told to wait as long as possible, or at least 2yrs. before altering. Usually in their introduction, if not a post or two later when they genuinely want to know. I can't go find them (or don't feel like it right now LOL) but I can remember even a few people who've told newbies their vets don't know anything and just want to make money which is why the vet would alter at 4-6mos. Again, maybe it's not exactly those words but it's really close.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

sit said:


> Sorry, but there is nothing accidental about a litter of puppies. if you have an intact female and don't take appropriate steps to prevent a pregnancy, there WILL be puppies eventually. Where is the "accident" in that?
> Sheilah


Very true. I see these advertised on CL all the time, and even claims they'll "use the money they make on the puppies to spay the mom". 

Yeah. Makes so much sense to breed a litter so you can afford to spay mama...


----------



## CookieTN (Sep 14, 2008)

msvette2u said:


> Very true. I see these advertised on CL all the time, and even claims they'll "use the money they make on the puppies to spay the mom".
> 
> Yeah. Makes so much sense to breed a litter so you can afford to spay mama...


Wouldn't work out so well if they had to use that money to pay for a C-section instead. Or found that they spent it all on other expenses to do with raising puppies.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I just wish everyone propagating puppies onto the face of the earth had the "pleasure" of euthanize a litter because nobody will adopt them. Right now on our CL, I see a litter of "pit/rottie/wolf/malamute" puppies. They are being given away at 7 weeks of age. Guess where they'll be in 6mos?


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Because I feel to recommend everyone wait, is doing a disservice to animals.


I agree. To recommend waiting to the general pet-owning public pretty much guarantees more accidental litters. You have to assume that the general pet-owning public is NOT knowledgable, experienced, or responsible enough to manage an intact pet--I know this sounds elitist, but I feel qualified to make this statement because I have seen it firsthand, over and over again.

If there weren't so many homeless pets, this wouldn't be an issue. But this effects everyone. Who pays to warehouse, feed, and care for all these homeless animals? Who pays for Animal Control to pick up strays? The taxpayers. Even people who don't care about homeless pets ought to know this.

In a perfect world, spay/neuter would be a personal choice and a non-issue. And in fact it still is a personal choice, not a legislated one. For it to stay that way, I think it's a good idea to encourage the average pet owner to spay/neuter before an accidental litter has a chance to occur.

For those who are experienced, knowledgable, and responsible enough to manage an intact animal, more power to them--I wish all pet owners would be this way.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

To me, it's like telling a newbie to treat (for instance) worms without even seeing a vet, yes it can be done, but _should_ it? Probably not. 

And you're right, free - BLS has occurred because people were irresponsible. Mandatory spay/neuter is a knee-jerk reaction to the sheer amount of pets being put to sleep yearly because people are, apparently, irresponsible, and shelters are sick to death of seeing it and having to do it. They'd love to be out of a job!

As for rescue, I keep saying, "we'll not get any more dogs until..." and then we do, because the numbers are just staggering. 
When faced with a puppy who is literally starving to death and freezing (night time temp was 18 that night) because her body scale is a ONE...it's really hard to turn our backs.


----------



## VonKromeHaus (Jun 17, 2009)

There are always 2 sides to the issue. I don't think anyone here is saying that "EVERYONE" should keep their dogs intact. Maybe I'm reading it differently, to me they are saying that it is a personal decision. 

I recommend speutering to MOST people I meet in public because they don't appear to be very responsible or educated nor do they want to be. Just because I choose to keep intact animals doesn't mean that I don't push speutering.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Personally, I don't think anyone should spay or neuter unless there is a medical condition endangering the life of the pet. I think everyone who owns a dog should be more responsible and spay/neuter is almost touted as a free pass for being irresponsible. People should be more responsible with their pets. They should not allow them to breed indiscriminately. Dog's get hit by cars too. We could do surgery on them removing their legs. Then people would not have to keep them contained, and they wouldn't get run over by cars. If we remove their teeth, they will not be able to bark. If we remove their voice box, they will not be able to bark. Why bother with training or containing when there is a surgery that can take care of it?

People should be more responsible instead of mutilating their pets. I think it is pretty sad that we feel that human beings do not have the ability to be more responsible and therefore everyone should perform surgery on their dogs to prevent pregnancy or any contribution to pregnancy.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> People should be more responsible instead of mutilating their pets. I think it is pretty sad that we feel that human beings do not have the ability to be more responsible and therefore everyone should perform surgery on their dogs to prevent pregnancy or any contribution to pregnancy.


The word "mutilating" is a bit overdramatic, don't you think? 

I am spayed. I chose it. I do not want to breed and I do not need another organ to sit there doing nothing but giving me pain and possible cancer. Am I "mutilated"? Am I "irresponsible"?

You can never expect the public at large to be responsible with their pets--that's like expecting people to never break the law or countries never to go to war with each other. We have police and military force for that reason; human nature dictates that we cannot trust our fellow human beings TOO much. By the same token, it's better to ensure unwanted litters aren't born, through (a relatively safe and routine) surgery that prevents it. I for one do not trust the general public with their pets. You can see that as "sad" if you like, but I see it as practical.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Freestep said:


> The word "mutilating" is a bit overdramatic, don't you think?


"Mutilation" is a funny word. When they do it to little girls in Africa it's mutilation. When they do it to little boys in Western hospitals it's circumcision. When you do it to your own ears or face it's art. When you do it to a dog it's responsible ownership. 

Either way it's cutting off or poking holes in perfectly serviceable body parts. The only real difference is culture.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Selzer, I've seen many of your posts I thought were articulate and made a lot of sense. However, I had a lab I got that was already neutered. He was an incredible dog, big, blocky, absolutely masculine looking. In many ways will be the best dog I'll ever have had the pleasure to live with. In no way will I ever think of him as mutilated. I cannot understand your thinking as such. Do I think it's necessary for every dog? No. Do I think it is for many? Yes. Mutilated is not something that will ever come to mind, however.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Emoore said:


> "Mutilation" is a funny word. *When they do it to little girls in Africa it's mutilation.* When they do it to little boys in Western hospitals it's circumcision. When you do it to your own ears or face it's art. When you do it to a dog it's responsible ownership.
> 
> Either way it's cutting off or poking holes in perfectly serviceable body parts. The only real difference is culture.


What they do in Africa is to stop the female from ever being able to feel pleasure. It has nothing to do with reproductive abilities. Circumcising a male still allows them to feel pleasure, the last time I checked.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Germany does not have people running out and spaying and neutering everything in sight, they do not use crates and much as we do, and they do not have as much of a problem with over-population that we do. 

Human beings CAN be responsible with their animals. But it is so much easier to just cut off the offending member. I find _that _a bit extreme. 

It is a choice as well it should be. People should not be vilified for doing it or for not doing it. Some people are just so adamant that everyone should, that they cannot just put forth their opinion and let it be. They have to try to prove that their opinion is the only one that makes sense or is ok.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

RocketDog said:


> What they do in Africa is to stop the female from ever being able to feel pleasure. It has nothing to do with reproductive abilities. Circumcising a male still allows them to feel pleasure, the last time I checked.


Not trying to get into a debate about this. Just saying that when you start cutting off bodyparts, the difference between mutilation, art, and responsibility is cultural. If I cut off a dog's ears and tails in England, it's mutilation. It America, it's an accepted part of many breed standards. If I cut my own ears until they come to a point at the top, in general culture it's mutilation. At a scifi convention it's true devotion.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

selzer said:


> Germany does not have people running out and spaying and neutering everything in sight, they do not use crates and much as we do, and they do not have as much of a problem with over-population that we do.
> 
> Human beings CAN be responsible with their animals. But it is so much easier to just cut off the offending member. I find _that _a bit extreme.
> 
> *It is a choice as well it should be. People should not be vilified for doing it or for not doing it. Some people are just so adamant that everyone should, that they cannot just put forth their opinion and let it be. They have to try to prove that their opinion is the only one that makes sense or is ok*.


Excellent summary.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Emoore said:


> Not trying to get into a debate about this. Just saying that when you start cutting off bodyparts, the difference between mutilation, art, and responsibility is cultural. If I cut off a dog's ears and tails in England, it's mutilation. It America, it's an accepted part of many breed standards. If I cut my own ears until they come to a point at the top, in general culture it's mutilation. *At a scifi convention it's true devotion.*


I grew up with three older brothers...I knew who Kirk and Spock were before I knew who the president was.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

RocketDog said:


> Selzer, I've seen many of your posts I thought were articulate and made a lot of sense. However, I had a lab I got that was already neutered. He was an incredible dog, big, blocky, absolutely masculine looking. In many ways will be the best dog I'll ever have had the pleasure to live with. In no way will I ever think of him as mutilated. I cannot understand your thinking as such. Do I think it's necessary for every dog? No. Do I think it is for many? Yes. Mutilated is not something that will ever come to mind, however.


Rocket Dog. I mutilated Cujo before giving him to my parents. I regret it completely. He has had medical problems linked to early castration. He has grown in ways that are reported to be indicative of early neuter. But I used the term specifically to illustrate what we are actually doing to our dogs for the sake of convenience, and so that we can be less responsible with them. For me, that is wrong. It is a lesson I learned the hard way.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Freestep said:


> The word "mutilating" is a bit overdramatic, don't you think?
> 
> I am spayed. I chose it. I do not want to breed and I do not need another organ to sit there doing nothing but giving me pain and possible cancer. Am I "mutilated"? Am I "irresponsible"?
> 
> You can never expect the public at large to be responsible with their pets--that's like expecting people to never break the law or countries never to go to war with each other. We have police and military force for that reason; human nature dictates that we cannot trust our fellow human beings TOO much. By the same token, it's better to ensure unwanted litters aren't born, through (a relatively safe and routine) surgery that prevents it. I for one do not trust the general public with their pets. You can see that as "sad" if you like, but I see it as practical.



Emoore, I love your posts, I do. And I know I quoted someone else above. 
But when you say "oh, people are so adamant that people spay/neuter they can't see another view", when people get on here and say s/n is "mutilation", doesn't that have the same effect??

If you are going to say that s/n advocates can't see another view point, to say altering a pet is mutilation, that's the same thing. It's not a "loving choice", it is tantamount to a crime to alter!

And I apologize. It was selzer who said nobody can just give their opinion and let it be.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> Emoore, I love your posts, I do. And I know I quoted someone else above.
> But when you say "oh, people are so adamant that people spay/neuter they can't see another view", when people get on here and say s/n is "mutilation", doesn't that have the same effect??
> 
> If you are going to say that s/n advocates can't see another view point, to say altering a pet is mutilation, that's the same thing. It's not a "loving choice", it is tantamount to a crime to alter!
> ...


I didn't say it was mutilation. One person said it was. Another person said it wasn't. Then I came along and said the definition of mutilation is cultural. One person's mutilation is another person's responsible choice. Or body art. Or breed standard.

My problem is I see both sides of every single issue. Makes it very difficult when it comes time to step into the ballot box, let me tell you.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

LOL I bet 
I apologize I re-read and it wasn't you, I pointed that out in my last post


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It was me, it was me. I said it and I own it. 

My point MSVETTE is that I gave my opinion and let it be, and a certain individual kept on and on and on and on about their point of view, until finally I had to get involved again, LOL. I said mutilation deliberately and for effect. I do believe it should be a choice, but I do not think anyone should be vilified for choosing to do so or not to do so. I don't think it should be an answer for irresponsibility, and a bandaid for everything from marking to humping to biting to roaming. Sorry, but people need to be more responsible. And being responsible has nothing to do whatsoever with spaying or neutering your dog.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

msvette2u said:


> I just wish everyone propagating puppies onto the face of the earth had the "pleasure" of euthanize a litter because nobody will adopt them. Right now on our CL, I see a litter of "pit/rottie/wolf/malamute" puppies. They are being given away at 7 weeks of age. Guess where they'll be in 6mos?


 Shelters which are still routinely euthanizing healthy, adoptable puppies probably need to change their approach a bit. There are areas of the country that have next to no young, adoptable dogs in their shelters and plenty of people wanting them



Emoore said:


> So no, not really puppies, but intentionally bred, purebred dogs do end up in shelters with staggering regularity. They don't generally come directly from breeders; there's a stopover of anywhere from 2 months to a year in a private home.


 I don't think the dogs who end up in shelters are a huge percentage of the population of dogs in our country. Certain breeds do more commonly end up in shelters and the number of those breeds in shelters/rescues seems high. However, it's still very small percentage of the breed's entire population. Why do you see so many APBTs and GSDs coming into shelters or rescues? Because those are some of the most common purebred dogs in the US. So it would stand to reason you'll see more of them in shelters but you're also more likely to see them in obedience classes, at petstores, out for a walk, at dog parks, etc. There's just plain more of them to see - no matter where you look! The purebreds found in shelters are overwhelmingly the most popular breeds, no matter where you are. I wouldn't say "purebreds end up in shelters with staggering regularity" when the fact is, dogs of most of the hundreds of established breeds rarely end up in shelters.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

AgileGSD said:


> wouldn't say "purebreds end up in shelters with staggering regularity" when the fact is, dogs of most of the hundreds of established breeds rarely end up in shelters.


Ok. Young, healthy purebred German Shepherds end up in shelters with staggering regularity.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Yes, people should be more responsible with their pets. Yes, they should not allow them to breed indiscriminately. But they aren't, and they do. Whether or not you (the general "you", not anyone in particular) want to acknowledge that fact doesn't change the truth. Thinking that people should have the ability to be responsible enough to prevent unplanned litters does not change the fact that many people either do not have that ability, or they simply don't know enough or care enough to be more responsible. Wishing and hoping and positive thinking doesn't make it so. 

I have no problem with people who ARE responsible making the choice not to speuter their pets for whatever reason, but I completely agree that the default position should be to encourage the general public to do so.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I have no problem with people who ARE responsible making the choice not to speuter their pets for whatever reason, but I completely agree that the default position should be to encourage the general public to do so.


Exactly! I wish that everyone who decides to keep an intact pet could be responsible about following through on that choice. But the sad fact is that the average pet owner just doesn't do that. They aren't as diligent as some members here and they don't have the kennel set-up of other members. 

If people could be half as militant about educating pet owners on the responsibility required to keep an intact pet as they are about preaching the evils of spay/neuter practices, there might be less of an over-population problem. 
Sheilah-happily "mutilated" since 2000


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

AgileGSD said:


> I wouldn't say "purebreds end up in shelters with staggering regularity" when the fact is, dogs of most of the hundreds of established breeds rarely end up in shelters.


Over the years I have seen just about every breed recognized by the AKC come through the doors of my shelter. Including several Irish Wolfhounds (all traced back to one regional breeder) and a regular supply of Cavaliers. We had a purebred Ibizan Hound (surrendered with AKC papers when the owner moved across the country for a job, only to find that the apartment complex had a weight limit on dogs).

There is no breed out there that is immune to the risk of ending up in a shelter. The use of the word "rarely" as a qualifier is misleading. A breed that is rarely seen in the owned population will be just as rarely seen in the shelter population. 

There was an article in "Animal Sheltering" magazine several years ago that said the percentage of any given breed in a shelter had a steady correlation to the percentage of dogs of that breed out in the owned population. So if the number of purebred Labs (for instance) in a shelter represented 20% of the owned population, then the number of purebred Havanese (for instance) in shelters at any one time would also represent 20% of the owned population for that breed. 20% of however many purebred Havanese there are in the U.S. is going to be a relatively small number when compared to the number of Labs in the owned population, but still statistically relevant. I think they were using breed club statistics to base their idea of what number constituted an "owned population". And I don't recall the exact correlated percentage they claimed. I just pulled 20% out of the air because it seemed about right.

It was an interesting article. 
Sheilah


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

selzer said:


> It is a choice as well it should be. People should not be vilified for doing it or for not doing it. Some people are just so adamant that everyone should, that they cannot just put forth their opinion and let it be. They have to try to prove that their opinion is the only one that makes sense or is ok.


BUT....let it be known that "People should be more responsible instead of mutilating their pets." Very delicately put!!
Sometimes it may be hard for people to "put forth their opinion and let it be"
when they are accused of mutilating their pets....just a thought


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Purebreds do end up in shelters, some more than others, but then again that depends on the area. No breed is exempt from ending up in a shelter. The shelter I volunteer for gets many purebred GSDs, purebred Labs, purebred Pitbull type breeds(or look like it) purebred Rotties and purebred Dobes. I am pretty sure there is a breed specific rescue out there for every breed listed with the AKC.

Oh and no I don't think I mutilated my pets as they have very little to zero scaring from the surgery or any other health related issues.. Sorry, I found that rather offensive. There are irresponsible owners of both intact and altered pets. Sadly, in reality, majority of the general public can't own an intact pet let alone an altered pet.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

sit said:


> Over the years I have seen just about every breed recognized by the AKC come through the doors of my shelter.


 Even if that is true, say over X number of years you've seen at least one of all of the less common and rare breeds in your shelter. That still makes seeing all but the more common breeds a fairly unusual occurrences. 



sit said:


> Including several Irish Wolfhounds (all traced back to one regional breeder) and a regular supply of Cavaliers. We had a purebred Ibizan Hound (surrendered with AKC papers when the owner moved across the country for a job, only to find that the apartment complex had a weight limit on dogs).


 Hopefully you contacted the breeder of the Ibizan or the parent club, that breed is a pretty small community and more than likely the breeder had no idea the dog was abandoned. Cavaliers are far from uncommon or rare breeds. 



sit said:


> There was an article in "Animal Sheltering" magazine several years ago that said the percentage of any given breed in a shelter had a steady correlation to the percentage of dogs of that breed out in the owned population. So if the number of purebred Labs (for instance) in a shelter represented 20% of the owned population, then the number of purebred Havanese (for instance) in shelters at any one time would also represent 20% of the owned population for that breed. 20% of however many purebred Havanese there are in the U.S. is going to be a relatively small number when compared to the number of Labs in the owned population, but still statistically relevant. I think they were using breed club statistics to base their idea of what number constituted an "owned population". And I don't recall the exact correlated percentage they claimed. I just pulled 20% out of the air because it seemed about right.
> 
> It was an interesting article.
> Sheilah


 I don't consider the statistics of a publication put out by HSUS to be all that reliable. They have too much to gain by bending the facts. And it sounds like it's just a "theory" anyway, not anything with hard facts.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Yes, people should be more responsible with their pets. Yes, they should not allow them to breed indiscriminately. But they aren't, and they do. Whether or not you (the general "you", not anyone in particular) want to acknowledge that fact doesn't change the truth. Thinking that people should have the ability to be responsible enough to prevent unplanned litters does not change the fact that many people either do not have that ability, or they simply don't know enough or care enough to be more responsible. Wishing and hoping and positive thinking doesn't make it so.
> 
> *I have no problem with people who ARE responsible making the choice not to speuter their pets for whatever reason, but I completely agree that the default position should be to encourage the general public to do so.*


She said it in just one sentence.
I think the position of any message board that promotes responsible ownership should be that sentence above.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

msvette2u said:


> She said it in just one sentence.
> I think the position of any message board that promotes responsible ownership should be that sentence above.


This is just so irritating. 

Spaying and neutering because people are too IRRESPONSIBLE to be trusted with intact dogs should not automatically make them RESPONSIBLE. Responsible dog ownership has NOTHING to do with spay/neuter. If a bitch can get knocked up, it can get run over or shot, unless the owners own both dog and bitch. 

I am not saying that people who DO neuter or spay are IRRESPONSIBLE. But idea that people are so irresponsible that we should have a default on spay/neuter which is controversial as to the health benefits and the way that surgery affects the growth of the dog. 

If the site is comprised of German Shepherd Lovers, its position should be to allow members to have their own opinions about spay/neuter.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Okay 
And you're doing just what you accused someone else of.
You can argue with my opinion all day but it's still my opinion and I know others share it, and that is, the general public_ should_ alter their pets.
I'm sorry if that opinion offends you but if you think about it, it shouldn't. Nobody said _you_ were irresponsible for not neutering or spaying.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I think the word irresponsible is tossed around too much.
A lot of pet owners are ignorant. They think (asI did at one time) you get a dog. Then you feed it from the stuff at the grocery store, give it water, annual vaccinations, take it for a walk once in awhile, and if it develops any problems get rid of it. They don't view things the way a lot of people on dog forums do. People don't always give thought to the potential reproduction of their pets. There are also those who don't worry about males because they won't be stuck with the litter.
It happens with people. Boys will be boys but girl's get pregnant.
Education is the key but then you will still have some who truly are irresponsible.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

selzer said:


> the idea that people are so irresponsible that we should have a default on spay/neuter which is controversial as to the health benefits and the way that surgery affects the growth of the dog.


If your biggest concern is the health of each particular dog, you have to take accidental pregnancy into account, as well as mammary tumors, pyometra, etc. There are risks to keeping dogs intact as well; I have seen some lovely older females fall to pyo because their owners never bothered to spay them. I have never seen a female suffer any spay-related medical problem, unless it had to do with the surgery itself. I have heard of neuter-related issues in dogs; I have seen neuter related issues in male cats if they were done too young, but other than that, I have not personally seen any neuter-related issues either. I've seen lots of testosterone-related issues in my day... granted, some of those are training/management issues, but that just goes to show that the general public cannot be trusted to properly manage intact dogs.

Secondly: if it repulses you to think about perfectly good puppies and dogs being killed, you might take a moment to think about the pet population at large as well as the welfare of each individual dog. I am making an assumption here, but I'm thinking you may never have worked/volunteered at a shelter or worked with rescue, and heard the stories and excuses people make for their dogs getting pregnant.



> If the site is comprised of German Shepherd Lovers, its position should be to allow members to have their own opinions about spay/neuter.


It is, and it does. But on one hand you say this, and on the other you use words like "lazy" and "mutilation" to describe spay/neuter. So which is it? A choice we ought to allow and respect, or a dangerous mutilation that only the laziest of dog owners choose to needlessly inflict on their precious pups?

I don't think I've heard anyone here say that it's *wrong* to leave dogs intact. What I and others are saying is that, in order to minimize unwanted litters (and avoid some undesireable behaviors that most dog owners don't know how to handle), espousing spay/neuter to the general public is going to be the most helpful. In terms of preventing unwanted litters, it is quicker, easier, and more effective than attempting to educate people in the management of intact dogs. People won't learn what they don't want to learn.

You see this as "lazy" and "sad"; and maybe it is, but it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, it would be great if all pet owners were responsible and diligent enough to properly manage intact animals. It would be awesome if everyone could afford a kennel setup and a secure property. It would be great if all pet owners were as interested in raising, training, and keeping their dogs with as much care as you or I. But most people do not and are not. Like it or not, most people get dogs as an afterthought, and not as the thing their life revolves around.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

msvette2u said:


> Okay
> And you're doing just what you accused someone else of.
> You can argue with my opinion all day but it's still my opinion and I know others share it, and that is, the general public_ should_ alter their pets.
> I'm sorry if that opinion offends you but if you think about it, it shouldn't. Nobody said _you_ were irresponsible for not neutering or spaying.


Well, you added another dimension to your argument. You added that this site's position is that the default should be spay/neuter. I was responding to that, which I disagree with wholly. And you linked spay/neuter with responsible, which will always get me going, that implies to not spay/neuter you are irresponsible -- this is not the case whether you are on your first dog or your tenth, whether you show, trial, work with your dogs, or if they are just pets. 

I think we should educate people on how to be responsible with their pets, and not take the easy way out and just encourage everyone to get their animals altered. 

FWIW, I do not believe the answer to teen pregnancies are passing out condoms, and putting them on birth control.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> Responsible dog ownership has NOTHING to do with spay/neuter.


I have seen too many instances where owners with altered pets have been horribly irresponsible to ever think that simply having the pet altered to begin with is enough to make them responsible owners. I don't think I have ever heard that particular argument before? The logic is certainly flawed enough to make it laughable.

However, I DO think that having an altered pet limits the consequences of being an irresponsible owner. An intact dog can have a negative impact on the community in so many different ways. An altered dog is much more limited, and the consequences of being owned by an idiot are shouldered by that dog alone. Altered pet is allowed to roam? The consequence is THAT dog can be stolen, THAT dog can be killed by a car, THAT dog can be picked up by animal control. An intact dog in that same scenario? Has the ability to flood the community with many puppies, who in turn can breed and flood the community with still more puppies. And so on.

Educate the average pet owner about what it takes to be a responsible owner in all the boring details. Explore the idea that in order to protect your ability to breed dogs to your heart's content, you just might have to admit that many (perhaps even most) causal pet owners aren't prepared at this point in time to be as responsible as they could be with many different aspects of the care their pets receive and limiting the consequences of that irresponsibility is in everyone's best interest. 
Sheilah


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

The problem is many people refuse to educate themselves. I belong (and have for a long time) to a running forum and just last night got "defriended" by a long time friend on FB who is also a member there, because he INSISTED crate training is INHUMANE, TERRIBLE, an INJUSTICE, and DOGS *HATE IT.*

Oh, and he also thinks purebreeds are awful, and that everytime a person buys a purebred, a shelter dog dies. 

I told him when pups were surrendered to the shelter at 8-9 months after the owners came home for the bazillionth time to a house destroyed, potty training accidents, and high vet bills because the dog got an intestinal blockage from the drapes he ate while not crated, he could go adopt the dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Freestep said:


> If your biggest concern is the health of each particular dog, you have to take accidental pregnancy into account, as well as mammary tumors, pyometra, etc. There are risks to keeping dogs intact as well; I have seen some lovely older females fall to pyo because their owners never bothered to spay them. I have never seen a female suffer any spay-related medical problem, unless it had to do with the surgery itself. I have heard of neuter-related issues in dogs; I have seen neuter related issues in male cats if they were done too young, but other than that, I have not personally seen any neuter-related issues either. I've seen lots of testosterone-related issues in my day... granted, some of those are training/management issues, but that just goes to show that the general public cannot be trusted to properly manage intact dogs.
> 
> Secondly: if it repulses you to think about perfectly good puppies and dogs being killed, you might take a moment to think about the pet population at large as well as the welfare of each individual dog. I am making an assumption here, but I'm thinking you may never have worked/volunteered at a shelter or worked with rescue, and heard the stories and excuses people make for their dogs getting pregnant.
> 
> ...


Could you point me to the post where I said "Lazy"? I am not saying I did not, it was really late last night, but it is just an odd term for me to use.

Anyhow, I did say we spay for convenience and that is a choice and that is ok. Personally, I will not cut my dog, for convenience -- not dealing with messy heat cycles. And as I do not believe in that, I cannot encourage others to do so. 

I did use the term mutilate. I do not see any other term that fits the bill. Removing the ability for a dog to produce hormones that will increase the risks of some cancers, alter some behaviors, and will cause a dog's growth patterns to be altered is, in my opinion mutilation. Interfering with the body's natural process is mutilating the body. It tends to inflame people. I did it to Cujo, and regret it because he HAS had negative effects from it. And I did it to my Arwen, and I believe that it did shorten her life. 

I guess I just cannot introduce the possibility of a variety of health concerns to prevent other health concerns. And just because I think it is terrible to throw newborn puppies up against a wall to kill them, does not mean I think we should alter everything on four legs. 

They do not spay and neuter as frequently in Germany, and do not have the problem with over population that we have here. Why is that? Maybe they have a higher rate of responsible owners to irresponsible owners here. Maybe. 

Here responsible owners often spay/neuter
There responsible owners generally do not spay/neuter

Here responsible owners do not let their dogs roam and keep them under control
There responsible owners manage their dogs so that there are not many unwanted pregnancies

Here if all the people who now spay/neuter did not spay/neuter nothing would change all that much. Sorry, but just because the animal is intact, they are not going to allow the animal to run down the street and get tied with the first available dog. Responsible owners will be responsible with their dogs. 

Some irresponsible owners will spay/neuter because it is more convenient than having litters of puppies. They still will. It makes sense for them to do so. I am talking about people who let their dogs roam, etc., not people who spay/neuter and are responsible about containment, and controlling their dogs.

I don't remember ever using the term lazy though. It may be convenient for someone to spay a bitch so they do not have heats. It may be convenient to spay if you have male and female. It may be convenient if you are training and trialing or working with your dog to not have to be interrupted by cycles. I do not see that as being lazy, and I am glad that people have that choice. It does not make them better or worse than those of us who keep our dogs intact. I do not agree with it for me or for my dogs, and I will not encourage others to do so, because if I do not think it is healthy for my dogs, then I could not in good faith encourage someone else to do it to theirs.

When you lose a dog to an unnecessary surgery because you wanted to prevent the possibility of a possibly fatal disease, then you think about things a little differently.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

selzer said:


> Here if all the people who now spay/neuter did not spay/neuter nothing would change all that much. Sorry, but just because the animal is intact, they are not going to allow the animal to run down the street and get tied with the first available dog.


Not sure about the area where you live but where I live, there are multiple neutered males running the streets. Also some females, I don't know if they're spayed or not. I'm thankful that these dogs are friendly, and I'm thankful that their owners were responsible enough to neuter them, even if they're not responsible enough to keep them from running the roads.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

AgileGSD;2319110
Hopefully you contacted the breeder of the Ibizan or the parent club said:


> Yes, I did contact the parent club. I notified them that I had placed the dog in question into foster care and could they please refer any qualified adoption applicants to me. It was always my policy to contact breeders when I had that information, and this instance was no different. None of us had any luck and as far as I know, contact was never made. You know, in all the years that I routinely contacted breeders about dogs/pups of their direct breeding that ended up in the shelter or rescue, I had exactly ONE respond by stepping up and actually taking the dog back, or even helping to place the dog. It was a five year old male GSD bred by Mona Allison of Gem Crest Kennels in Boise. She didn't hem and haw and make vague noises about wanting to do something, but coming up with excuse after excuse why she just couldn't help. She stepped up. You know what the breeder of the Wolfhounds said? They weren't meant to be pets, he bred them as coyote control dogs and once sold had no more interest or use for them.
> 
> About Cavaliers...I am aware of how "unrare" they are. I used them as an example because they are relatively expensive, routinely and easily selling for $700-$800 and although common, a buyer does have to do some looking to find a puppy (you won't find them being sold in the Wal-Mart parking lot like you do some breeds). And yet they show up in shelters on a pretty routine basis. So purebred status and a relatively hefty price tag is not providing this breed with much protection from shelter life. That was my point, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I think Sue was saying that people who let their dogs roam will do so, regardless of spay/neutered or not.

Here, we don't have a leash law, so it's legal to let dogs roam at will. across the street, they go through dogs on a regular basis. That I know of, there have been at least 5 litters of pups in the time I've lived here. Most of the dogs don't last long since we live on the highway and the local practice of the SSS method of dealing with problem dogs.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> And I did it to my Arwen, and I believe that it did shorten her life.


What about the female that died so suddenly just in the last year? Whitney, right? Was she spayed? She was fairly young, right?

What about that male that you had euthanized? The one with the spinal issue that you chose not to treat? Was he intact? It has been several years since that happened. I can't remember his name or all the circumstances around the situation. 

If they were intact, I would submit that you have had more untimely deaths occur with dogs that were left unmutilated than with dogs that you have mutilated. 
Sheilah


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I guess this is what bothers me when it comes to issues of 'to s/n or to not s/n"

This catch 22 thing, so your (general your) dog was s/n and came down with 'something', I don't 'get' how one can blame it on that when how would one know the dog wouldn't have developed the 'issue' if left intact? 

And vice versa? 

I agree it's one's personal choice. My opinion is, if Joe Public has a dog they aren't showing, aren't breeding then spay/neuter it. 

And I'm sticking to it)


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I see the biggest problem is not dogs getting pregnant but dogs roaming. Dogs roaming at will hook up with other dogs and get pregnant, they run in front of cars, they can attack children or occasionally an adult, they spread diseases, they attack livestock, they tear up gardens and garbage, they run deer and other wildlife. 

I see unwanted litters as symptom the main issue. When some lists list roaming as a reason to spay/neuter that almost suggests a get out of jail free card for altered pets. When you call up someone and say, I have your dog, and they say, just let him go, its ok, he's neutered, it puts up huge red flags as to where the mindset is in this country. 

Some places do not have a leash law. Ohio does, and I have always lived here, and can only gage what people do by there always being a leash law. But it is a law that is not enforced, and dogs roam and unless a dog attack a child nothing is ever done about it, save an irate property owner might deal with the problem with a shot gun or rifle.

If you don't like BSL, then why not deal with the problem. The problem is not the breed. The problem is dogs being improperly contained, and maybe a bigger problem is the permissibility that people practice on the topic. HSUS's answer is to spay/neuter everything that moves. That solves the problem of these dogs having litters of unwanted mixes. It does not solve the problem of dogs attacking people, dogs attacking other dogs, dogs being run over, dogs attacking wildlife, dogs attacking domestic animals. And when the worst happens, suddenly the ignored problem is completely overlooked, and it is suddenly a breed issue where we should ban them all. 

Spay/neuter to reduce the number of dogs in shelters is not our friend when it comes to keeping our dogs safe and legal. Let's deal with the problem, not the symptom.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sit said:


> What about the female that died so suddenly just in the last year? Whitney, right? Was she spayed? She was fairly young, right?
> 
> What about that male that you had euthanized? The one with the spinal issue that you chose not to treat? Was he intact? It has been several years since that happened. I can't remember his name or all the circumstances around the situation.
> 
> ...


Whitney died two weeks after her four year old vaccinations. She always had a problem with vaccinations. She would sleep all day after them. She had a lot of problem due to dog food as well, we thought we had that figured out, but I think her system was just too battered. 

As for the dog, I do not think it would have made a difference intact or not. He was injured by my contractors and ruptured a disk. I did everything possible on that, he became totally paralyzed within days of the second episode and two vets told me that surgery was the ONLY option, and that they would NOT perform surgery on that dog if he was their dog. He was a bad risk for surgery, and the surgery had very poor prognosis. I do not believe in putting a dog through prolonged pain for something that has a very poor prognosis of a good life afterwards. If you want to crucify me for that decision, have at. 

So far I have had bad luck with three out of three dogs altered.
So far I have had bad luck with two out of more than a dozen dogs not altered.

I think I am still ahead by not fixing what is not broken.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> Let's deal with the problem, not the symptom.


Routine protocol in a doctor's office calls for alleviating symptoms at the same time the underlying cause is being treated. Which is why medicine is given to bring a fever down while antibiotics are being administered to treat the underlying infection that is causing the fever in the first place. Because sometimes the fever can cause more long lasting damage than the infection.

Protect your right to breed by educating the casual pet owner, while, in the mean time, limiting the consequences of the uneducated and/or irresponsible owners. Those are the folks that should be the focus of your attention, not those who advocate the spay and neuter for most the casual pets.
Sheilah


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

sit said:


> However, I DO think that having an altered pet limits the consequences of being an irresponsible owner.


Yes, that's what I've been trying to say, but you put it much more succinctly. 

Irresponsible people will always get a hold of dogs. There is no way to keep pets out of their hands, and it's unlikely that any attempt at education is going to get through to them. 

Irresponsible people let their pets roam, they throw them in the backyard and don't pay attention to the hole in the fence, they get opposite-sex dogs and don't bother to separate them. They have kids, who open doors, they have husbands who are forgetful. Their dogs can get out and be hit by cars, shot, poisoned, attacked by other dogs, stolen, or worse. That is bad enough, but at least if their pet is unable to procreate, it takes one more awful consequence out of the equation. 

Just last week my DH let my pubescent, cycling doeling goat in with her father. He just wasn't thinking. Fortunately, for goats we have a pretty safe mis-mate injection. You'd better believe DH got an earful--but this is just an example of how even responsible, well-meaning households can have accidents happen.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

JakodaCD OA said:


> I guess this is what bothers me when it comes to issues of 'to s/n or to not s/n"
> 
> This catch 22 thing, so your (general your) dog was s/n and came down with 'something', I don't 'get' how one can blame it on that when how would one know the dog wouldn't have developed the 'issue' if left intact?
> 
> ...


Certain things are traceable to pets being intact.

I agree with your position, above


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sit said:


> Routine protocol in a doctor's office calls for alleviating symptoms at the same time the underlying cause is being treated. Which is why medicine is given to bring a fever down while antibiotics are being administered to treat the underlying infection that is causing the fever in the first place. Because sometimes the fever can cause more long lasting damage than the infection.
> 
> Protect your right to breed by educating the casual pet owner, while, in the mean time, limiting the consequences of the uneducated and/or irresponsible owners. Those are the folks that should be the focus of your attention, not those who advocate the spay and neuter for most the casual pets.
> Sheilah


Spaying and neutering has been used to mask the problem for years, and years, and years, and there is still a problem. Spay/neuter is more like a anti-depressants trying to mask the symptom of fatigue while the patient's cancer eats away at them. Almost lost my mother this way. Nothing is being done to address the problem. The problem is irresponsibility. That is the abscess that needs to be dealt with, and not just putting a band-aid over the part that is dripping goo.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Emoore said:


> Not sure about the area where you live but where I live, there are multiple neutered males running the streets. Also some females, I don't know if they're spayed or not. I'm thankful that these dogs are friendly, and I'm thankful that their owners were responsible enough to neuter them, even if they're not responsible enough to keep them from running the roads.


It's funny you should mention this, as an ACO picking up strays, I'd say 1 out of every 15-20 dogs I picked up were intact. I rarely, if ever, picked up spayed/neutered dogs. When I did, they were usually licensed. 
The intact animals? Not licensed either.
I pondered that and still do.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> So far I have had bad luck with three out of three dogs altered.
> So far I have had bad luck with two out of more than a dozen dogs not altered.
> I think I am still ahead by not fixing what is not broken.


Which three dogs that were altered have you had problems with? You only named Arwen and Cujo as being altered, and you often talk about how wonderful Cujo is. He is from one of your first litters, correct? If so, more than enough time for all these neuter-related health issues to appear, I would think.

People could look at your numbers and decide that your two intact dogs that died young and unexpectedly is proof that reproductive alteration does NOT present increased health risks, just as you have decided that Arwen's death as an altered dog is proof that there ARE increased health risks. It goes both ways, depending on how you want to look at it.
Sheilah
P.S. I remember that you spoke of a possible congenital issue with the male that had the spine problem. You took a great deal of heat from some members here at the time, with a looong thread that went back and forth and the whole topic stuck out for me in a big way because that was when I first realized you were a woman.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

sit said:


> Routine protocol in a doctor's office calls for alleviating symptoms at the same time the underlying cause is being treated. Which is why medicine is given to bring a fever down while antibiotics are being administered to treat the underlying infection that is causing the fever in the first place. Because sometimes the fever can cause more long lasting damage than the infection.


Well put, thank you. 

Sometimes the symptoms are more painful than the disease itself.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> Spaying and neutering has been used to mask the problem for years, and years, and years, and there is still a problem. Spay/neuter is more like a anti-depressants trying to mask the symptom of fatigue while the patient's cancer eats away at them. Almost lost my mother this way. Nothing is being done to address the problem. The problem is irresponsibility. That is the abscess that needs to be dealt with, and not just putting a band-aid over the part that is dripping goo.


I would agree with much of what you said. However, the band-aid over the abscess is a good thing, too, as long as that abscess is also being treated at the same time. Antibiotics are a good thing, but so is not dripping green pus all over the lady standing next to you at the grocery store.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Sue. Treating the root cause and limiting the consequences of that root cause at the same time should not be mutually exclusive. And by admitting that there are some pretty unpleasant consequences that should ALSO be addressed (please note the use of the word "also", rather than "instead") lends credibility to your position. 
Sheilah


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I'm not following you selzer. Roaming intact dogs will create more roaming intact dogs. Roaming neutered dogs will not..


On the personal side. Every dog I have owned since I was a child were neutered. Except for a couple of dogs when I was a kid, all my dogs (big dogs) have lived to be ten or older. I never had a major medical problem with any until they were very old. So my experience and yours are very different.
There is certainly nothing scientifc about either of our experiences but my experience says all the medical concerns about s/n did not occur for me.
Maybe I was just lucky. I also vaccinated the crap out of them and had no consequences.
Interestingly though Jack had a very negative response to Frontline for flea and tick.


----------



## Alexandria610 (Dec 2, 2010)

selzer said:


> What gets to me about the spay/neuter issue is that people cannot just have an opinion. Everyone is either right or wrong. If we all give our opinions, and some of those are different than other people's opinions, then that person MUST come on and reinforce their position, and say over and again their position.
> 
> It is a choice.
> 
> ...


 
I haven't really read much of this thread, but this definitely caught my eye. I couldn't agree more with you. There have been a few instances where I've told my opinion on spaying/neutering, and while I have some people agree that my opinion is indeed my opinion, and that they may or may not agree with it, I have had one too many jump on me and tell me that spaying/neutering my pet is horrible and wrong and that, in conclusion from these words about my opinion, I must be a horrible pet owner.

I think it is very important that each and every person get the chance to make his/her decision in the matter. Do what you believe to be best, do what is best by your pet and his/her situations, and talk to your vet/breeder/handlers/competitors, etc. etc. in the dog world (as well as the cat world).

But yes, to shorten all of that, I agree whole-heartedly with your statement.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sit said:


> Which three dogs that were altered have you had problems with? You only named Arwen and Cujo as being altered, and you often talk about how wonderful Cujo is. He is from one of your first litters, correct? If so, more than enough time for all these neuter-related health issues to appear, I would think.
> 
> People could look at your numbers and decide that your two intact dogs that died young and unexpectedly is proof that reproductive alteration does NOT present increased health risks, just as you have decided that Arwen's death as an altered dog is proof that there ARE increased health risks. It goes both ways, depending on how you want to look at it.
> Sheilah
> P.S. I remember that you spoke of a possible congenital issue with the male that had the spine problem. You took a great deal of heat from some members here at the time, with a looong thread that went back and forth and the whole topic stuck out for me in a big way because that was when I first realized you were a woman.


Cujo is one of them. He has some neuter-related health/growth concerns. 

Another was Princess who was the only dog that we ever have had that had cancer, unless the hematoma that Arwen had was cancerous. She was a mix and was spayed after her first heat cycle. 

The dog had spondylosis (diagnosed after his second litter was born). I looked at spines for his progeny and none of them had the condition at two when I did hips and elbows. While the spondylosis could have caused a weakened state, he was injured when the contractors teased him, feeling it was funny to get him to jump up and down in his six foot high kennel until he was hitting his head on the roof or the kennel. The next day he could not walk. That is an injury. I rushed him to the ER, and my regular contractor let me know what the concrete guys did to him. (I was at work at the time they were pouring concrete.) We were able to treat it and he was fine for just over a year. Then he ruptured the disk.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Personally, i only spay and neuter when there is a medical reason, period.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sit said:


> Which three dogs that were altered have you had problems with? You only named Arwen and Cujo as being altered, and you often talk about how wonderful Cujo is. He is from one of your first litters, correct? If so, more than enough time for all these neuter-related health issues to appear, I would think.
> 
> People could look at your numbers and decide that your two intact dogs that died young and unexpectedly is proof that reproductive alteration does NOT present increased health risks, just as you have decided that Arwen's death as an altered dog is proof that there ARE increased health risks. It goes both ways, depending on how you want to look at it.
> Sheilah
> P.S. I remember that you spoke of a possible congenital issue with the male that had the spine problem. You took a great deal of heat from some members here at the time, with a looong thread that went back and forth and the whole topic stuck out for me in a big way because that was when I first realized you were a woman.


Arwen may or may not have died due to having been spayed. I think it was a factor. Shortly after her spay surgery, she stopped keeping herself clean and I ran a total check up with bloodwork on her. I treated her for her first ever UTI, and her T4 numbers were slightly low so we put her on thyroxine. Within two years she bled out and the vet did a minor check of her and said that she definitely had a hematoma probably on the spleen, that she did bleed out. Literally days before the spay she was given an ultrasound and had no signs of hemangiosarcoma, tumors, hematomas, etc. 

I think that the surgery jarred her normal hormonal balance, it may have caused the shift in thyroid, which was only something like one point low. I think it sped up the aging process. And perhaps accelerated the cancer cells. It is certainly not scientific. But perhaps when a younger dog is spayed, their body compensates in different ways. 

I agree, there is no way to really truly say that our interference with their system caused this issue, this change, this growth rate, etc. And it is impossible to say that if we had left it alone that they would have lived longer or had a better quality of life or would have grown differently. But I believe the hormones are there for more than just reproduction. If you look at all the different things the thyroid gland affects -- hair, sight, reproduction, etc., and then you have to wonder what all the ovaries or testes affect. If removing them does effect longevity, maybe dogs that might have lived to 12 or 14 are dying at 9 or 11. Maybe. 

There are those that would say that unless the dog die on the table, it did not effect the dog.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> It's funny you should mention this, as an ACO picking up strays, I'd say 1 out of every 15-20 dogs I picked up were intact. I rarely, if ever, picked up spayed/neutered dogs. When I did, they were usually licensed.
> The intact animals? Not licensed either.
> I pondered that and still do.


Where I live, there are no ACO's, no licensing and the dogs aren't strays. They're people's pets that are neutered and they more or less hang around their owner's property. Enforcing dog containment is nominally the job of the Sheriff's department, but they have better things to do. Occasionally I'll see a dog that doesn't belong to anyone that someone dropped off thinking it would find a good home in the country. Those I take to the shelter, because AC doesn't come out this far. 

So I'm not surprised to hear my area's situation is a bit different from an area like the one you describe.

I have friends whose dogs live in the house, but they don't have fences so when the dog needs to go outside, they just open the door and let them out into an unfenced area. They make the rounds of the neighborhood, visiting friends and peeing on the pee spots, then come back a few hours later wanting back in.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Maybe I'm lucky but I've never seen or caught a roaming intact dog. I've seen a few dogs at large but they were escaped pets and already speutered.

I'm all for spaying and neutering of pets but I also don't understand the attitudes and assumptions that intact males just howl day and night and try to get away so they can impregnate every female. My male GSDs are both intact and the few times I've left a gate open they've never left the yard (and I'm not talking about a large "property" conducive to roaming GSDs, I can spit a cherry pit from the street to the back fence). My males train, show, and compete next to intact females sometimes in standing heat and it's never been more than a minor annoyance.

I don't neuter my males because I don't have one good reason to do it. It's never really crossed my mind, doing it just for the sake of it.

Females I think are different. My way of preventing accidental breedings is to not own females. I think there are greater health concerns leaving a female intact that to me are not worth the risk for a non-breeding animal, but I also don't like early spay just because and won't put up with 3-4 heat cycles so no females for me. Easy enough.

I just choose not to own what I don't think I can handle.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

selzer said:


> Cujo is one of them. He has some neuter-related health/growth concerns.
> 
> Another was Princess who was the only dog that we ever have had that had cancer, unless the hematoma that Arwen had was cancerous. She was a mix and was spayed after her first heat cycle.


What are those neuter-related health issues that have you concerned with Cujo? And how are they related to his being neutered, other than you opinion that altering reproductive status is not a good choice? 

If my understanding of your breeding program is correct, you have made some pretty significant changes since Cujo's litter. Could it be that his issues are more related to his breeding (which you have apparently decided needed improving upon, since your goals have changed since then), as opposed to his reproductive status?

I think it is a very good thing that dog owners (both casual pet owners and breeders alike) have these kinds of conversations. It gets people thinking about the issues. And as is the case whenever people are pressed to explore their reasoning, strengths and weaknesses in arguments are discovered and shared.

I used to recommend the a pushy male be neutered in the course of addressing behavioral issues. Although I still often think that neutering is a good choice in those cases, I no longer think that neutering will cool that dog's jets entirely, so to speak. The behavioral horse has been let out of the barn already and neutering alone will not provide an instant cure. I have seen so many owners with really obnoxious adolescent males who have a pretty relaxed attitude about addressing the behaviors, and all because they plan on neutering eventually and that will take care of any issues. Not so! But try to tell that to the clueless owner who might not really *want* to know better. But that goes back to being responsible and informed about the choices we make for and with our pets. And believing that what was a good choice for me isn't necessarily followed by the belief that it is a good choice for everyone else. 

Extreme positions cause us to take an either/or kind of stance. And as we all know, life is made up of so many instances where the answer "It depends..." is the only one that really works.
Sheilah


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

Oddly enough, there are more intact stray females in my area than there are intact stray males. I think the cost of the surgery has a lot to do with it, since it is so much cheaper to neuter than it is to spay. 

I have also seen more female puppies sold with the idea of breeding later to make back the initial purchase price. My neighbor just bought a Golden puppy and when I asked what made them choose a female, I was told that they can breed her later and selling even one litter later on will more than return the initial cost of the puppy. Maybe this is why so many people (based on, say, newspaper ads) set a higher price on their female puppies? 
Sheilah


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

sit said:


> Oddly enough, there are more intact stray females in my area than there are intact stray males. I think the cost of the surgery has a lot to do with it, since it is so much cheaper to neuter than it is to spay.
> 
> I have also seen more female puppies sold *with the idea of breeding later to make back the initial purchase price*. My neighbor just bought a Golden puppy and when I asked what made them choose a female, I was told that they can breed her later and selling even one litter later on will more than return the initial cost of the puppy. Maybe this is why so many people (based on, say, newspaper ads) set a higher price on their female puppies?
> Sheilah


This is huge. My guess is that 90% or better of your oops litters started with this little gem of a thought in the back of their minds. 

These people will not spay their bitch. They WANT to have a litter. I paid $400 for her, I am going to get a litter out of her and make the money back. This is where people use every method under the sun to encourage these people to spay, scaring them with horror stories, pulling on the heart strings with all the poor puppies being euthanized in shelters, shaming them with the responsible dog-ownership spiel. By the time they manage to get her pregnant, they are well-aware that it is not going to be well-received so they adopt the tried and true whoops. People will do what they want to do. All of that other stuff applies to others not them. But, until they have that litter, all the begging and pleading and educating won't matter at all. Their dogs are not pregnant because they are too irresponsible to manage an intact bitch properly so that she does not, it is most of the time, because they want a litter. 

These are the people that say they will have just the one litter and then spay. 
These are the people that say they want their children to experience the miracle.
These are the people that say they want their bitch to experience motherhood.
These are the people who want to make back their purchase price.
These are the people that want to have one of her babies.
These are the people that don't worry about legislation, because they aren't going to bother abiding by it anyway. 
These are the people who will sell puppies for 2-500 dollars and argue vehemently that they are not a BYB, that they are not all about the money.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

sit said:


> Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, Sue. Treating the root cause and limiting the consequences of that root cause at the same time should not be mutually exclusive.


Exactly. It's not an either/or situation where we have to make a choice. We can do BOTH, and we should. 

Can anyone actually say with a straight face that they believe that if we counseled the general public, the average pet owner, that it was better _not_ to spay or neuter their pet, no matter how much education we did about unplanned litters (and where exactly would the money come from for that public service campaign?), there wouldn't be an explosion of unwanted pets, many times over the several million a year that already don't make it out of shelters alive? _REALLY?_ I don't see how it could possibly do anything but make an already serious problem exponentially worse.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

People who spay/neuter do not WANT puppies. If the surgery to alter suddenly costed 4,000 dollars, those people who own dogs, that do not WANT puppies, would figure our some other way to ensure their bitches do not get pregnant. Really, it is not all that hard. I agree with whoever objected to the idea that intact dogs are running around crazy to get at the females all the time. And I love the fellow who says all his dogs have always been spayed or neutered, but is so concerned with how hard it is to keep them intact. If my little brother can do it with two bitches and a dog, anyone can. If the current lot of spayed or neutered dogs were intact, they still would not be the problem. The problem is the irresponsible owners who actually WANT puppies until they figure out what they are in for.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Irresponsible owners who want puppies are PART of the problem, they are not the only problem.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I think the problem here is that you, Sue, are focusing so hard on one tree that you have completely missed the forest that you are standing in. 

You are dead right with your assertion. But that is only one facet of the overall problem that requires a multi-pronged approach. Encourage folks who shouldn't be breeding or have no interest in breeding to alter their pets, while also attacking the misinformation and miseducation issue. Once you have a good handle on that issue, then the whole idea of alteration becomes moot, since most of those that choose to keep their pets intact will do so in a responsible, informed manner. Regardless of why they make the decision to keep the pet intact, they know what they need to do in order to do it correctly. 
Sheilah


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I spay/neuter for a plethora of reasons beyond just not wanting puppies. When I add up those reasons with the bonus that, hey, they won't be able to reproduce, it's a big 
"winning" for me!

Sit,stay is right. There's a forest out there. Stop freaking out about s/n like it's a death sentence.
Perhaps you had/have problems which may/may not be related to s/n. 
But I have not. 
Many many people have not, in fact, most people have not, or there would not be so many people having it done to their pets. If vets lost every 5th patient on the table, or a year after the s/n even, and could trace it to "complications" of s/n, they'd quit doing it.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

We've only ever come across and 'captured' 2 strays. Neither were altered. I've seen other strays, but couldn't catch them. 

The first was Sania, our lab. After we decided to keep her (after searching for her owners for a while with no luck), she came into heat. After her cycle, we had her spayed. 

Second dog was a husky/lab mix. I found him wandering next to a busy road by our neighborhood. He followed two kids out of our neighborhood and I asked them if he was their dog. They didn't even know he was following them, but he wasn't theirs. So I managed to get him into my car and took him home. Aiden HATED him. He has an issue with intact males, except for Ozzy since he's been here since puppyhood. We had to find him a new home within two days. A woman took him, and said she'd get him neutered ASAP. Few months pass by, and she calls my mom saying he's being destructive because she's pregnant. Psh. So we post an ad for him on Craigslist, and the ORIGINAL owner that lost him saw the ad (after giving up looking for him, they got online to find another dog). She went to pick him up and showed the person we rehomed him to pictures from when he was a puppy and was crying because she thought she'd never see him again.

Do I think people should spay and neuter their pets? As a general rule, yes. A large majority of people are too lazy or incapable (or whatever you'd like to call it) of containing an intact dog. 

Will I have my males neutered? No. Vasectomized? Most likely. 

I would spay my females after they were at least 2 years old.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm with Sue on this one. I will not have my perfectly healthy dog cut open for any other reason than medical. None of my dogs will ever get spayed or neutered as long as they are in my primary care. 

And yes, it is easy to prevent an oops litter. Ooops can happen, I'm not saying that accidents could never happen, they could happen to me if I don't pay attention. BUT 90% of those oops litters were planned and then portrayed as oops.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

selzer said:


> If the current lot of spayed or neutered dogs were intact, they still would not be the problem. The problem is the irresponsible owners who actually WANT puppies until they figure out what they are in for.


 Never heard of any statistics or proof of that. It's fine if you believe that but I have a feeling that it's your own idea and not necessarily a fact.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Benny is the first dog I have not neutered. With my prior dogs I just did everything the vet recommended when it came to speuter, food, vaccs. When i got Benny 2 1/2 years ago i began reading and researching everything I could find.

Benny had one retained testicle and based on my research I chose to decided to have the retained testicle removed, and leave the other intact in September when he was 2 and 4 months. 

Benny will not be bred. When not with me, he is in the house. He goes many places with me and his being intact does not seem to cause any behavior problems. I have to pay more each month to renew Benny's license because he is intact which I think is unfair! 

My sons adopted Pit Bull was spayed at 4 months before we were able to get her from the shelter and she leaks urine. ( not sure if the early spay was the cause). I wanted to wait until she was 18 months and would have signed a contract promising to not let her breed and spay her when she was mature but this was not allowed.

I do think speutering is the best option for people who cannot ensure their pets won't be bred. 

There are studies that say speutering decreases risk of certain diseases, increases the risk of other diseases. We all owe it to out dogs to make the informed choice that we feel is best for the health of our dogs and if we keep them intact be responsible not to let them breed.


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

Mrs.K said:


> I'm with Sue on this one. I will not have my perfectly healthy dog cut open for any other reason than medical. None of my dogs will ever get spayed or neutered as long as they are in my primary care.


I really don't care either way.....desex your dog....don't desex your dog.
What gets me when I read this thread is some of the language used.
Those who desex their dogs are "irresponsible" "mutiliating" and having their dogs "cut open" I mean really.....if the only way to get your point across is to make people feel like they are doing some barbaric practice then you should just give up


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

sparra said:


> I really don't care either way.....desex your dog....don't desex your dog.
> What gets me when I read this thread is some of the language used.
> Those who desex their dogs are "irresponsible" "mutiliating" and having their dogs "cut open" I mean really.....if the only way to get your point across is to make people feel like they are doing some barbaric practice then you should just give up


:toasting: <-- can't find a "good post" or "applaud" icon.

Add to the above "fixed when not broken"


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> :toasting: <-- can't find a "good post" or "applaud" icon.
> 
> Add to the above "fixed when not broken"


 I second or third that. It's late :thumbup:


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

My SIL has a female GSD. She won't get her fixed b/c the vet charges to much. She's called around to tons of places close by her house.....and well over $500. So she decided not to get her fixed. She does have some money put back for vet bills...but she decided there is no reason to fix her female and spend all the savings she has saved up for her.

Personally, I think money could be the reason some people don't S/N.

For example...a local place had cheap S/N clinic one time. I think it was $45 for dogs. I read in the paper that there was over 800 people that showed up with their pets. SO MANY people that they had to turn most of them away.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

sparra said:


> I really don't care either way.....desex your dog....don't desex your dog.
> What gets me when I read this thread is some of the language used.
> Those who desex their dogs are "irresponsible" "mutiliating" and having their dogs "cut open" I mean really.....if the only way to get your point across is to make people feel like they are doing some barbaric practice then you should just give up


I did not call anyone irresponsible. In fact I believe that with some people it's better to S/N. 

It is my personal believe that I won't have my dogs cut open just so please the crowd. I live in the US for not even a year. Dec. 1st it'll be one year and I've fostered five dogs in that year, boarded 1. 
I was told by rescue people that I am the problem that so many dogs sit in shelters because I buy from breeders and don't s/n. 

It goes both way. I never said that people who do S/N are irresponsible, since when is that the case? Usually it's the other way around that you get yelled at because you don't do it. 

Yes, I did say cut open because my bitch was cut open because that is exactly what they do. And I will not have an absolutely healthy dog put under sedation and then cut open just because that is what everybody expects you to do.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I think it comes down to this. People who consider themselves "responsible," who go to the vet, seek out good breeders, etc will spay/neuter their dogs. Why? because that is what they are encouraged to do and believe is right. They are just average people, though, who don't LIVE dogs. A dog is a dog, even though they love them. COULD they handle an intact dog and put in the extra work? Yes, but they don't want to. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. 

In my entire life I can count on 1 hand the number of dogs I've came across that accidentally slipped out or gotten lost. In the 6 years I've lived here, there has been ONE!!! out of dozens of dogs. The owner was having some remodeling done and left her with a friend. The wife of the friend just let the dog out tied to a rope and she took off. The guy was frantic and found her at my house a few hours later. 

The rest of the dogs? They are chronic roamers. It's the country, so everyone thinks dogs should be free. Add in no leash law and you have dogs all over. To those people, dogs are dogs. They roam, they get pregnant, they get run over, they die, you get a new one. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people fall somewhere along that range.

IF you can handle it, then keep your animals intact. If you want to spay/neuter because you are worried or even just because you don't want to deal with it, that's fine too. But, for the majority of the public, spay/neuter is the way to go. Why? because, sadly, they just don't KNOW enough or CARE to know how to keep their dogs from getting pregnant or impregnating someone else's. When Freya was in heat, my yard was dog central. They were climbing the fence, jumping on the windows, crowding my front door. If I hadn't blocked up the doggie door to keep her from slipping out unnoticed, I can guarantee that they would have been in my house! 

I think it depends on where you live and what you know. Many of you describe neighborhoods where the people are generally responsible. They keep their dogs home and roaming dogs are pretty uncommon. Just this morning, I have seen 5 roaming dogs. They live in the trailer park across the street. There are 2 more dead in the highway within sight of my house. Counting up the ones I know and see on a regular basis, there are about 10. Well, 2 less now, but they will be replaced soon as there is a litter expected any day now across the street. 3rd one this year.

So, for me, having an intact girl is more than me just keeping her inside and under my watchful eye. Every potty trip was like running a gauntlet, complete with armed guards and lookouts. It wasn't just a convenience for me, it was a matter of sanity. I didn't know if I would be able to keep her safe for the rest of her life.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I live for my dogs, I do anything for them, and CHOOSE to spay and neuter them because I feel that is best for them. I don't think it's a lesser choice. 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selzer*
> _What gets to me about the spay/neuter issue is that people cannot just have an opinion. Everyone is either right or wrong. If we all give our opinions, and some of those are different than other people's opinions, then that person MUST come on and reinforce their position, and say over and again their position.
> 
> ...


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

So I have a question. If you don't believe in cutting up your dog because of what _might_ happen-- a very compelling argument-- would you do a gastropexy on a dog with a family history of dying young from D&V? 

This is an honest question. I was planning on doing Kopper's gastropexy and neuter at the same time, between 18-24 months, but the argument for not doing surgery to prevent what might happen is a compelling one.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this topic.
Here in our area we are also very rural. We (our rescue) has cleaned up more than one property, in fact...I'm thinking a couple per year (4yrs. of rescue) with basically a pack of feral dogs living on it.
And like your area, people let their dogs wander and they are intact.
Rather like feral cat communities, someone will invariably start feeding a dog, then it becomes two, then sooner or later you have puppies. 
These puppies grow up with minimal contact and breed with each other and soon you have huge issues on your hands.
When we go there, we end up euthanizing most the adult dogs, a litter or two of puppies may be able to be saved but often the dogs over 6mos. are goners.
And the reasons giving for not altering the dogs? Not money. It's around $90-100 to spay a female at most vet clinics here.
It's because "the last time I got one spayed it got ran over".

But chronic roamers? Yep. Got 'em. And what's worse many of them are such awful mixes they won't even propagate "cute" puppies that will make suitable pets. 

Veterinarians are correct to encourage neutering as stated below, and the 'general public' is correct to s/n whenever possible. 




Dainerra said:


> I think it comes down to this. People who consider themselves "responsible," who go to the vet, seek out good breeders, etc will spay/neuter their dogs. Why? because that is what they are encouraged to do and believe is right. They are just average people, though, who don't LIVE dogs. A dog is a dog, even though they love them. *COULD they handle an intact dog and put in the extra work? Yes, but they don't want to. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.*
> 
> In my entire life I can count on 1 hand the number of dogs I've came across that accidentally slipped out or gotten lost. In the 6 years I've lived here, there has been ONE!!! out of dozens of dogs. The owner was having some remodeling done and left her with a friend. The wife of the friend just let the dog out tied to a rope and she took off. The guy was frantic and found her at my house a few hours later.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Emoore said:


> So I have a question. If you don't believe in cutting up your dog because of what _might_ happen-- a very compelling argument-- would you do a gastropexy on a dog with a family history of dying young from D&V?
> 
> This is an honest question. I was planning on doing Kopper's gastropexy and neuter at the same time, between 18-24 months, but the argument for not doing surgery to prevent what might happen is a compelling one.



Honestly, we just never had to do any of that. In 30 years of dog breeding we had on bloat and two dogs with pyometra (one of which was Zensi). 

We overall have healthy dogs. Yeah, HD here and there but other than that always healthy and no cancer or anything degenerative.... so I don't even think about stuff like that. It's just not even in the picture.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Emoore, if I already had my dog under anesthesia for a neuter I would have the gastroplexy done if there is a history of torsion. I would not have it done just to have it done and believe it shouldn't be done as a preventative in a breeding animal. 

IMO a responsible owner is one that does what is best for their situation and the well being of their dogs. For some that means spay/neuter. For others that means leaving their dogs intact. This should be a choice of each owner and not something that is forced on people through guilt or laws. 

Though Selzer's comments and opinions about s/n are a bit over the top and too blunt even for me I understand why she feels this way. At no time have I ever seen people trying to force others to keep all of their dogs intact. I have never seen laws being proposed to force mandatory intact dogs. I have never seen anyone attacked for not having testicles on their male dog. There is no agenda out there to force people to keep their dogs intact.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

lhczth said:


> Emoore, if I already had my dog under anesthesia for a neuter I would have the gastroplexy done if there is a history of torsion. I would not have it done just to have it done and believe it shouldn't be done as a preventative in a breeding animal.
> 
> IMO a responsible owner is one that does what is best for their situation and the well being of their dogs. For some that means spay/neuter. For others that means leaving their dogs intact. This should be a choice of each owner and not something that is forced on people through guilt or laws.
> 
> Though Selzer's comments and opinions about s/n are a bit over the top and too blunt even for me I understand why she feels this way. At no time have I ever seen people trying to force others to keep all of their dogs intact. I have never seen laws being proposed to force mandatory intact dogs. I have never seen anyone attacked for not having testicles on their male dog. There is no agenda out there to force people to keep their dogs intact.


Couldn't agree more with you on that. :thumbup:

There are extremes on both sides. However, live and let live. If you s/n it's your decision and if I don't, it's mine and we should respect each others choice.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

lhczth said:


> Emoore, if I already had my dog under anesthesia for a neuter I would have the gastroplexy done if there is a history of torsion. I would not have it done just to have it done and believe it shouldn't be done as a preventative in a breeding animal.


I agree it should not be done as a preventative for a breeding animal. Not planning to breed my dog. I'm just trying to decide-- neuter and gastropexy, or no neuter and no gastropexy? If I did one I'd do both. His sire died of D&V at 5 years old and that dog's paternal uncle did as well.


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

I have not neutered my male because we currently work in Schutzhund and he has presented me with no other reason to do the surgery. The majority of my close friends and fellow Schutzhund club members all have intact female dogs, so Aiden must just be used to it buy now because honestly he couldn't care less about a female in heat, or ay females in general. He actually ran his first real Schutzhund trial as a "dummy dog" with a female in heat going for her BH at the same time. His behavior is just as any neutered male dogs that I know. I have had ongoing complications due to my female's spay, so this has also held me off on neutering Aiden for now. 

That said, at the first sign of any behavioral or physical health problems, I would have the surgery done if it would possibly help correct the problems.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Neuter can also prevent some health issues from occurring, Emoore, the older the dog gets. If it was my dog I'd do both together. 

Just...because it's gotten so confusing (heh) I think it's people's right to keep their dogs intact. But they must know their situation. Biological drives to procreate are probably the strongest drive in a dog (even overriding training, etc.). 

That's why, when I see people, newbies, come on this message board, asking when to s/n because "their vet said it's good/okay to do at 5-6mos", I shudder when some of the anti-s/n folks get all up in arms and state it's best to wait until age 2. Sure, it might be, in some cases, but these newbies to the forum, you don't even know if they have a fenced yard! You don't know if they're responsible enough to wait until age 2 or beyond to s/n. At the_ very_ least, you ought to learn more about them and their situation, and actually, if their vet recommended it, maybe the vet knows something you don't about the dog and it's living situation.


----------



## krystyne73 (Oct 13, 2010)

I have always S/N my pets as soon as I could but tried not spaying Sasha. I was put off by the mess and couldn't handle it. Also my Great Dane is on the small side and I can't help but think it had to do with the early snip.

One day I plan on getting another male and I might try holding off on neutering him until he is a few years old. I will worry about the roaming issue. 

I am in no way interested in adding to the puppy crisis though.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Actually the Dane would be taller, not smaller, due to early neuter.


----------



## krystyne73 (Oct 13, 2010)

msvette2u said:


> Actually the Dane would be taller, not smaller, due to early neuter.


you think so? I have been told I runted him by the early neuter.
of course he is large to most people but his dad was 3 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier.

Max weighs only 129lbs and 33 in at the shoulder.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Yes, neutering before puberty can delay closure of the long-bones. Size has a lot to do with hereditary and he would have gotten half his genetic makeup from mama 
I don't know what's average for a Dane, but that sounds pretty large to me!


----------



## krystyne73 (Oct 13, 2010)

msvette2u said:


> Yes, neutering before puberty can delay closure of the long-bones. Size has a lot to do with hereditary and he would have gotten half his genetic makeup from mama
> I don't know what's average for a Dane, but that sounds pretty large to me!


He is on the small side, but his breeder had huge danes. Females can get as tall as 33 in and males 36 in. But I figure that is why he is living so long and well. lol

hmmm now I have to research this further...thanks


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

lhczth said:


> Emoore, if I already had my dog under anesthesia for a neuter I would have the gastroplexy done if there is a history of torsion. I would not have it done just to have it done and believe it shouldn't be done as a preventative in a breeding animal.
> 
> IMO a responsible owner is one that does what is best for their situation and the well being of their dogs. For some that means spay/neuter. For others that means leaving their dogs intact. This should be a choice of each owner and not something that is forced on people through guilt or laws.
> *
> Though Selzer's comments and opinions about s/n are a bit over the top and too blunt even for me I understand why she feels this way. At no time have I ever seen people trying to force others to keep all of their dogs intact. I have never seen laws being proposed to force mandatory intact dogs. I have never seen anyone attacked for not having testicles on their male dog. There is no agenda out there to force people to keep their dogs intact.*


I am a fairly recent member here, but it does seem to me that _OUTSIDE_ of this board, there is a definite information wave to spay and neuter. 

_ON _this board however, it is definitely the other way around. People say things like "mutilate" "cut open" "sacrifice on the altar of responsibility" (which btw, there are other people who have posted on this board, not in this thread but in a similar one, who are MUCH more vehement than poor selzer, who is taking the brunt here) and make you feel like you're a uneducated monster for even considering speutering. Oh, and for sure an irresponsible one. 

It's enough to just make me walk away from the whole board, which would be a loss for me, as I enjoy the pictures, the stories and the training and behavior tips I find otherwise.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Why would you walk away because of somebody who has a different opinion than you? 

Your post is full of sarcasm and irony just the "poor Selzer" comment alone shows me that you've got no problems at all to stand up for your believe. Don't walk away, stick to your believes and opinions. And what the heck is wrong about saying 'I won't let anyone cut open my dog.' if it is the truth, it's the truth. I won't let it happen to any of my dogs without a medical reason. 

If you want to speuter that is your decision but I don't have to do it just because it's a popular thing to do. Again, live and let live. I respect your decision, you respect mine, nuff said 



RocketDog said:


> I am a fairly recent member here, but it does seem to me that _OUTSIDE_ of this board, there is a definite information wave to spay and neuter.
> 
> _ON _this board however, it is definitely the other way around. People say things like "mutilate" "cut open" "sacrifice on the altar of responsibility" (which btw, there are other people who have posted on this board, not in this thread but in a similar one, who are MUCH more vehement than poor selzer, who is taking the brunt here) and make you feel like you're a uneducated monster for even considering speutering. Oh, and for sure an irresponsible one.
> 
> It's enough to just make me walk away from the whole board, which would be a loss for me, as I enjoy the pictures, the stories and the training and behavior tips I find otherwise.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

RocketDog said:


> _ON _this board however, it is definitely the other way around. People say things like "mutilate" "cut open" "sacrifice on the altar of responsibility" (which btw, there are other people who have posted on this board, not in this thread but in a similar one, who are MUCH more vehement than poor selzer, who is taking the brunt here) and make you feel like you're a uneducated monster for even considering speutering. Oh, and for sure an irresponsible one.


Yes, it's rather surprising to me that some people feel spay/neuter is wrong and that no one ought to do it. I could understand that viewpoint a bit better if there weren't so many homeless dogs, but in light of the population problem it seems counterproductive to rail against s/n. If you don't want to spay/neuter your own dogs, that's fine, but to tell the general public they shouldn't either? It's going to compound the problem, IMO.

I have a client who breeds cats. She isn't a "breeder", she just collects cats and doesn't believe in s/n because it isn't "natural"; ergo, she always has kittens being born. She doesn't believe in vaccinations or Western medicine, either, so her cats are always sickly and full of parasites, and a good number of them die from disease despite her attempts at homeopathic and herbal "cures".

So I guess that's one method of population control.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> ...it seems counterproductive to rail against s/n. If you don't want to spay/neuter your own dogs, that's fine, but to tell the general public they shouldn't either? It's going to compound the problem, IMO.


Exactly.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Mrs.K said:


> Why would you walk away because of somebody who has a different opinion than you?
> 
> Your post is full of sarcasm and irony just the "poor Selzer" comment alone shows me that you've got no problems at all to stand up for your believe. Don't walk away, stick to your believes and opinions. And what the heck is wrong about saying 'I won't let anyone cut open my dog.' if it is the truth, it's the truth. I won't let it happen to any of my dogs without a medical reason.
> 
> If you want to speuter that is your decision but I don't have to do it just because it's a popular thing to do. Again, live and let live. I respect your decision, you respect mine, nuff said


This is exactly the problem with the internet. I'm not in ANY way trying to be sarcastic or ironic. I am not mad, sad, angry or anything other than just stating my view this morning.  I did feel kind of bad for selzer, she was mentioned quite a bit. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. 

In fact, I was going to PM you and ask you about Germany. My dearest and best friend is German, she's from Trier. She lived here almost 10 years and moved back two years ago.  I miss her terribly.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I know in Germany, pet breeding is heavily regulated. We have a gorgeous Red double dapple Dachshund girl and I brought her to one of our vets we use that is from Germany. He said "She's a nice pet, but in Germany they'd have killed her".


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

msvette2u said:


> I know in Germany, pet breeding is heavily regulated. We have a gorgeous Red double dapple Dachshund girl and I brought her to one of our vets we use that is from Germany. He said "She's a nice pet, but in Germany they'd have killed her".


To clarify for anyone else reading-- it's self-regulated by the breeders and breed clubs. It's not like the Gestapo comes in with guns drawn and kills out of standard puppies. (The mental picture I got when reading the quoted post.) It's just a different mindset in the breeders and breed clubs.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

To a lot of people on the forum their dogs are their lives and they are willing to put in many hours of training time. They will do what is required to keep intact animals from breeding. No cost is too much to care for their dogs.
I don't see anything wrong with that if that is what an individual has chosen.

My perspective is different sometimes because I spent most of my adult life raising kids. With kids come less time for dogs. I still loved my dogs and took care of them. I didn't however have time to worry about intact animals. Kids and their friends coming and going, doors and gates being left open. 

That is why all my dogs were s/n. That was my decision and I didn't make it because I was irresponsible or lazy. I was busy.

A lot of people seem to have more time available to do things that families do not.
Dogs were part of the family not *the family*.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Jack's Dad said:


> To a lot of people on the forum their dogs are their lives and they are willing to put in many hours of training time. They will do what is required to keep intact animals from breeding. No cost is too much to care for their dogs.
> I don't see anything wrong with that if that is what an individual has chosen.
> 
> My perspective is different sometimes because I spent most of my adult life raising kids. With kids come less time for dogs. I still loved my dogs and took care of them. I didn't however have time to worry about intact animals. Kids and their friends coming and going, doors and gates being left open.
> ...


Exactly this, too, and I might point out that in another thread, a female's upcoming heat is causing issues with an upcoming trip as well (Sorry, Kzoppa!). We're not lazy. I just really don't want huge issues with incoming fosters in heat or intact, should we have the opposite intact animal here already in our own pack. It's not fun having a Dachshund in heat and having a (now-neutered) 90lb. male who was previously used for breeding.    I can think of better things to do with my time, thank you! And yes, the neutered boys can still "perform". 

In fact we have 2 female Chi foster dogs that are in heat right now (LOVELY!!!! ) and must be spayed ASAP to attend an upcoming adoption event. Needless to say, they're getting a lot less time out and about in the general play area 

Finally, I've made concessions with my own *ahem* monthly issues in my life without having to worry about our pets' reproductive issues for what's left of it!


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Finally, I've made concessions with my own *ahem* monthly issues in my life without having to worry about our pets' reproductive issues for what's left of it!


Haha! I totally hear that... I actually went and had myself "mutilated" because I'm too lazy and irresponsible to manage my own reproductive issues and this was the most convenient way to fix it. 

Seriously, do female dogs get fibroids?


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Emoore said:


> To clarify for anyone else reading-- it's self-regulated by the breeders and breed clubs. It's not like the Gestapo comes in with guns drawn and kills out of standard puppies. (The mental picture I got when reading the quoted post.) It's just a different mindset in the breeders and breed clubs.


Oh yeah, I mean I could imagine it the other way (the breeding Gestapo!) but no, the breeders are not breeding for "pretty colors" so wouldn't even try for those colors. They'd correctly view it as a potential health issue.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Freestep said:


> Haha! I totally hear that... I actually went and had myself "mutilated" because I'm too lazy and irresponsible to manage my own reproductive issues and this was the most convenient way to fix it.


Ablation works well, too LOL 



Freestep said:


> Seriously, do female dogs get fibroids?


I don't know?


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> *Ablation works well,* too LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know?


This. I had it at the suggestion of my gyno because of consistent LONG and heavy periods, polyps, etc...I was 38. Done with kids, etc. 

*BEST **** THING I'VE EVER DONE. 


*


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

RocketDog said:


> This. I had it at the suggestion of my gyno because of consistent LONG and heavy periods, polyps, etc...I was 38. Done with kids, etc.
> 
> *BEST **** THING I'VE EVER DONE.
> 
> ...


I agree! Wish I'd done it years ago, could have saved hundreds on tampax!!!


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Alright already. Can we get back to dogs.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Sorry!


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Jack's Dad said:


> Alright already. Can we get back to dogs.


Well, my question was whether female dogs can get uterine tumors (fibroids) like human females do? While not usually cancerous, fibroids can cause pain, cramping, swelling, and a host of other problems for women and they are quite common. If dogs can suffer from the same kind of thing, it's another good argument for spay.


----------



## Alexandria610 (Dec 2, 2010)

sparra said:


> I really don't care either way.....desex your dog....don't desex your dog.
> What gets me when I read this thread is some of the language used.
> Those who desex their dogs are "irresponsible" "mutiliating" and having their dogs "cut open" I mean really.....if the only way to get your point across is to make people feel like they are doing some barbaric practice then you should just give up


I agree. It really frustrates me. I will more than likely always spay/neuter my animals, but I don't think that those that choose not to are "irresponsible" or "just waiting for an oops litter to happen" either. 

When it comes down to it, it is a CHOICE for each and every pet owner. To say things that seem to portray EITHER side in a negative and/or irresponsible manner is quite concerning.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

I believe the choice to "alter" one's pet is the sole decision of the pet owner ...period.
If an owner decides that it is in the best interest (for all those involved/owner & pet) to alter (for whatever personal reasons)...then they should.

Personally.....I do not alter any of my dogs unless there is a medical reason to do so.....but that is my *choice*. 
*This is one of the responsibilities of animal ownership....either make absolute sure that unwanted breedings *do not occur....*or take the necessary precautions (alter) to *prevent any and all possibilities.**

Accidents do happen, even for the most responsible owners......but there is still no "right or wrong" answer.....


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I do not get the "spay/neuter your dog because of generalized pet overpopulation" argument. Most of the stray/at large dogs I've picked up and ones we worked with in the shelter were already spayed and neutered. They were at large because owners were not diligent in training them or containing them, or dumped at the shelter because the owner was not willing to deal with a training or behavioral issue (regardless of intact/altered) or because the owner genuinely could no longer properly care for the animal. I do not think the altered status of the animals is why we have so many unwanted animals, I think that is a problem with people and their attitudes towards pets being disposable or giving up on them way too easily. The dog owners I know that make an informed decision TO spay/neuter their pets are not the people I would predict having oops litters and then dumping them on the side of the road even if they chose NOT to spay/neuter.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I think for the general public, yes. I can imagine how much worse overpopulation would be if more of the mediocre pet owners out there had intact dogs, if dogs in shelters came intact, if all those strays were not spayed/neutered and were instead breeding...

For educated, responsible dog owners who are able to control their dogs properly, IMO it's up to the individual. There are risks and benefits on both sides.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Liesje said:


> I do not think the altered status of the animals is why we have so many unwanted animals, I think that is a problem with people and their attitudes towards pets being disposable or giving up on them way too easily.


That is definitely true. If all pet owners made a commitment to their animals, dumping wouldn't happen, and far fewer dogs would end up in shelters.



> The dog owners I know that make an informed decision TO spay/neuter their pets are not the people I would predict having oops litters and then dumping them on the side of the road even if they chose NOT to spay/neuter.


True again. But even good people have oops litters. Your responsible person will certainly not dump oops puppies by the side of the road, but neither do they have the resources to care for 8-10 pups for the rest of their natural lives, so they have to go somewhere. Even if a good home is found for every last pup, that still displaces 8-10 other pups that are also looking for homes. 

Say Joe Schmoe is looking for a puppy. He's about to go through rescue and adopt a GSD mix puppy, but he runs into a nearby breeder that has had an "oops" litter and is selling the puppies cheap. Joe decides to buy one of the oops puppies, which is fine, but what of the pup in rescue? Will someone else come along and adopt it, or will they all do the same thing as joe schmoe?

That's just one scenario. I know there are also many people who only buy pups through breeders and do not, would not consider one from rescue in the first place. That is fine, too. But if our average pet dogs were spayed/neutered, there wouldn't be an opportunity for "oops" litters, and there would be more homes to go around. So I think the reproductive status of pet dogs definitely makes a difference to the number of unwanted animals.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

l.


Liesje said:


> I do not think the altered status of the animals is why we have so many unwanted animals, I think that is a problem with people and their attitudes towards pets being disposable or giving up on them way too easily. The dog owners I know that make an informed decision TO spay/neuter their pets are not the people I would predict having oops litters and then dumping them on the side of the road even if they chose NOT to spay/neuter.


This is why there is no end to this topic. You think (whatever), selzer thinks (whatever) I think (whatever) is the cause of overpopulation. Maybe all of us are right except we only have part of the answer. 
There are probably many reasons. I think the push for s/n is because it is something that can be done, not that it is the sole answer.

I mentioned this once before but will repeat for this thread. My wife knows a woman who got a mixed lab for a pet. She was going to do a spay but didn't. The young (less than a year) female saw some action with supposedly a fence jumper and had a litter of 8 or 9 pups. The woman found homes for all of them except one male pup she kept. You guessed it about 6 months to a year later she had four or five more pups but she wasn't sure who daddy was because she was watching her female. She was asked about the male pup but didn't think he was old enough.

I really don't know how you combat this stuff. My wife had talked to her repeatedly when she saw her, about spaying the female. He response was that she didn't have enough money right now.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think part of the problem is that we are constantly overgeneralizing, even using phrases like "speuter" (which I use on occasion). To me intact males vs intact females are very very different. I see owning intact males as just second nature, part of owning a male (as long as he does not have some rare medical condition or monorchid/cryptorchid), but at least as far as I believe keeping a female intact comes with greater medical risk to the dog. I can't say I am for or against "speuter" because I am against neutering males for no reason but also against keeping females intact who are not to be bred so my absolute 100% solution for not producing oops litters is to not own female dogs. As far as I am concerned that's about an absolute guarantee as it gets unless two males can start reproducing.

People need to be educated and make informed decisions when it comes to their pets and not just be told to do one thing because it's a sure-fire guarantee. How does that educate anyone or actually help solve this problem? To me it is like people who have their dogs' teeth filed to prevent fight injuries. These are just band-aids that only apply to that one dog and that one person at that one time and don't address the root problem.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Freestep said:


> Say Joe Schmoe is looking for a puppy. He's about to go through rescue and adopt a GSD mix puppy, but he runs into a nearby breeder that has had an "oops" litter and is selling the puppies cheap. Joe decides to buy one of the oops puppies, which is fine, but what of the pup in rescue? Will someone else come along and adopt it, or will they all do the same thing as joe schmoe?
> 
> That's just one scenario. I know there are also many people who only buy pups through breeders and do not, would not consider one from rescue in the first place. That is fine, too. But if our average pet dogs were spayed/neutered, there wouldn't be an opportunity for "oops" litters, and there would be more homes to go around.


Can you expound on this? It sounds as if you are saying that the buyer is only concerned with demand and price?


----------



## Stella's Mom (Mar 8, 2011)

I have not spayed my female. She is rounding off her first heat now. I don't plan on spaying her in the near future and I don't plan on breeding her.

She is in the house under supervision at all times or on a leash outside with us. There is no way we will have an oops litter. Folks around here don't leave their dogs off leashes.

The only way she would have an ooops litter is if I disobeyed club rules at the Shutzhund field and one of the numerous intact GSD male dogs jumped the fence as it borders the field and is quite low. They are beautiful imported dogs for sure, but I am not looking to breed. Another member bred with a dog there and her female is a SCh3 as is the Sire and they still have 3 pups left even though they are not overly expensive and quite nice looking.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Liesje said:


> Can you expound on this? It sounds as if you are saying that the buyer is only concerned with demand and price?


No, I'm saying it's just one scenario that the average pet buyer might present. I have seen it before (many times in fact) where the buyer was all lined up for a rescue or pound puppy and then ended up buying from a BYB or "oops" litter instead.

Your average pet buyer does not do a lot of research; they buy based on whim and whatever happens to present itself. That doesn't apply to most of the people here, but it does apply to the majority of pet owners that I see... and I see a lot of them.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Freestep said:


> No, I'm saying it's just one scenario that the average pet buyer might present. I have seen it before (many times in fact) where the buyer was all lined up for a rescue or pound puppy and then ended up buying from a BYB or "oops" litter instead.
> 
> Your average pet buyer does not do a lot of research; they buy based on whim and whatever happens to present itself. That doesn't apply to most of the people here, but it does apply to the majority of pet owners that I see... and I see a lot of them.


Aint that the truth. Around here we have people who sell puppies in front of large retail stores. They almost never fail to sell them. How much sense does that make? You got to Target for a few items and come home with a puppy.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

RocketDog said:


> This. I had it at the suggestion of my gyno because of consistent LONG and heavy periods, polyps, etc...I was 38. Done with kids, etc.
> 
> *BEST **** THING I'VE EVER DONE.
> 
> ...


God, truer words have never been spoken! I had no idea how much of a physical drain menstruation was on my body until I had a hysterectomy at the age of 36. It really was the best choice for me.
Sheilah


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Liesje said:


> I do not get the "spay/neuter your dog because of generalized pet overpopulation" argument. Most of the stray/at large dogs I've picked up and ones we worked with in the shelter were already spayed and neutered. They were at large because owners were not diligent in training them or containing them, or dumped at the shelter because the owner was not willing to deal with a training or behavioral issue (regardless of intact/altered) or because the owner genuinely could no longer properly care for the animal. I do not think the altered status of the animals is why we have so many unwanted animals, I think that is a problem with people and their attitudes towards pets being disposable or giving up on them way too easily. The dog owners I know that make an informed decision TO spay/neuter their pets are not the people I would predict having oops litters and then dumping them on the side of the road even if they chose NOT to spay/neuter.


And this is in Michigan. 

Now go to a shelter in the Northeast. 

Then go to a shelter in the South. 

By region, probably even by zip codes, you are going to see variances in the number of intact animals you see due to policies and education. 

There are entire litters dropped off at shelters - I try not to get the mass emails about these things - with 80-90 new dogs a week, including litters. *And bottom line, you are right, it is the person. *

But for those people, if you were able to spay and neuter their dogs, and any future dogs they get, those dogs are going to stop reproducing, and there will be less dogs in the shelters, being shot, dropped off at parks, etc. But you can't, so you have to try to do educate which helps. 



> Per capita shelter intake and euthanasia have been in a steady decline nationwide for the past several decades. Research indicates that the main reason for this decline is the increasing incidence of spayed and neutered animals in the pet population (Zawistowski et al., 1998; Irwin, 2001; Clancy & Rowan, 2003). In fact, the veterinary community recently formally acknowledged the importance of safe, efficient, accessible sterilization programs as the “best antidote to the mass euthanasia of cats and dogs resulting from overpopulation” (Looney et al., 2008). There is, however, variation in shelter intake and euthanasia rates across communities as well as a difference between that for dogs and cats. As a result, many communities are currently searching for methods to reach those who are still contributing disproportionately to companion animal overpopulation.


ASPCA | Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

There are anti spay and neuter groups. It started with people who were engaged in beastiality. Spaying and neutering animals reduced their pool of available victims. So they started advocating and getting information on keeping animals intact or doing limited procedures. 

Then the backlash began against the spaying and neutering of animals because of mandatory regulation attempts. SO groups like the NAIA began to produce information against spaying and neutering. Recognize those initials yet? That's the PDF that everyone uses as evidence that spaying and neutering is bad. Who are they? http://www.naiaonline.org/about/index.htm Do you think they have a bias? The AKC sends out action alerts against MSN laws and yet are okay with Hunte Corp. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hunte+Corporation+

I am not for mandatory spay and neuter because policies like that can never work in the way we want them to. But I think people should look at these groups just like they look at HSUS, etc. Who exactly are all of these groups advocating for?


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Jack's Dad said:


> Aint that the truth. Around here we have people who sell puppies in front of large retail stores. They almost never fail to sell them. How much sense does that make? You got to Target for a few items and come home with a puppy.


on Black Friday, there were FIVE different people selling puppies in the wal-mart parking lot. GSDs, Boxers, labs, yorkies, yorkie-poos, pitbulls, and malti-poos.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

^ Same here. And yet buying from a reputable breeder is "encouraging puppy mills and the deaths of innocent pound dogs". Why do people not realize that buying puppies this way is one of the worst things they can do, especially if they're so concerned with pound/shelter/rescues.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Jack's Dad said:


> Aint that the truth. Around here we have people who sell puppies in front of large retail stores. They almost never fail to sell them. How much sense does that make? You got to Target for a few items and come home with a puppy.


Isn't that illegal?


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Mrs.K said:


> Isn't that illegal?


only if the store has a policy saying that it is, at least here it isn't. That probably varies by state/city. The people here are actually on an empty lot in front of Wal-Mart, beside the gas station. You get some people selling mutts for $50 or so and other people selling "registered" dogs for several hundred

We also see a lot of people who have litters because "I didn't think he'd do it with his Mom/sister!!"


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

I was with my friend and we were walking into the mall and there were 2 girls selling 2 Maltese puppies for $200. Its not like they needed the money. Sure the puppies were cute, but no sorry, I prefer to spend my money where its going to good use not someone's pocket. Its sad though, it was really cold too. =(


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think I have been misunderstood. I think it should be a choice and no one is better or worse than the next for whichever they choose, to spay/neuter, to not spay/neuter. 

I will not encourage anyone, not even people who are average dog-owners, to do so because of my personal beliefs about it. That does not mean I am militant in trying to stop people from doing it. That is their choice. 

Most of my puppy buyers spay or neuter. In the documentation that goes with the dog, I give the pros and cons and leave it up to the buyers. Most of them call me and tell me when they do it. I never discourage them from doing it. I may have encouraged waiting with some people, but that is even rare. 

I get upset when people marry the terms "responsible dog owner" to spay/neuter. I do not feel that people are more or less responsible for choosing to spay or neuter or choosing not to spay or neuter. 

I do not like when people suggest spay/neuter to prevent roaming. 

As for surgery to prevent bloating in a dog with a close relative that bloated, I don't know. I have never dealt with bloat yet. I get colonoscopies because my mother had colo-rectal cancer. I might not have done so at this point, if I had not had any symptoms, and did not have a close relative that had the problem. I think that is a bit different than spaying to prevent a problem that is not necessarily genetic, just a possible female issue. 

So if Jenna nearly died of pyometra, would I spay her offspring to prevent pyometra? Probably not. As far as I know there is not a genetic component that makes some females more likely to have the condition than another. Whereas, bloat may have a genetic component, or just the progeny have the same shape form that might contribute to bloat, may make it much more likely for them to have the condition. 

So I am not sure, but I think I would be more likely to do a surgery to try to prevent bloating if a close relative bloated, than to spay or neuter because there is a higher rate of mammary tumors, testicular cancer, and pyometra in intact animals.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

> So if Jenna nearly died of pyometra, would I spay her offspring to prevent pyometra? Probably not. As far as I know there is not a genetic component that makes some females more likely to have the condition than another. Whereas, bloat may have a genetic component, or just the progeny have the same shape form that might contribute to bloat, may make it much more likely for them to have the condition.


I dont think there is. Like I said before, in thirty years we've had two females with Pyometra.


----------



## ladyfreckles (Nov 10, 2011)

Bringing this thread back to bump it for new people. 

It's been on my mind since my friends asked if Viking was neutered yet. 

"No."
"What? Why not?!"
"He's nine weeks! I don't see any reason to do so before he has reached full maturity."
"Well as long as you neuter eventually."
"To be honest, I probably won't neuter him. He's never going to be in a situation where I would allow that to happen."


They eventually backed off, but I felt like they were glaring daggers into my head. Because I hadn't had surgery performed on a _nine week old puppy_. Now for me, I never intend to take him to a dog park, or out in public without a leash. I don't have a yard to let him loose in that he can get out of, and I hope that by the time I have a yard he'll be well trained and him running away constantly won't be an issue. 

The standard around here is to speuter 10 week old kittens before sending them out for adoption. The friend who asked why I hadn't neutered Viking yet grew up around here where that is the standard and probably doesn't know any better. It's "common knowledge". It's something you _just do_ around here. Which is unfortunate, because speuter debate aside, there is no good reason to go and take a _baby_ to get de-sexed.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

After reading, reading, and reading. I decided to wait until my female reaches maturity to spay her. All the reading I did I came to the conclusion that it is personal preference. Six of one or half dozen of another type of situation.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

I have gone BACK and FORTH on this one! Agonizing thing, actually. Almost as bad as choosing food!

I came on this forum intent to neuter at 16 weeks. Got much feedback, decided not to.

Fast forward to eight months old... sexual maturity setting in.. Bailey began earnestly sniffing girls and sniffing where they peed at the dog park. I stepped up shutting that down. He will still try, but now he knows it is going to get Mama grumpy with him, so it is better.  (It's actually funny; he'll go for the sniff, I'm right there, he looks up, I don't really have to even say anything because he knows, gives me the "guilty" eye, turns around and that's that.) Then he had his very first attempted hump. I think three attempted hump incidents now, and all shut down PRONTO. I must say, as these things surfaced, neutering certainly was dancing on my mind. He marks all over at the dog park - I can't get a grip on that one yet because he's too dang quick. ANYWAY, now that I've found these issues really are quite manageable with supervision and control of the situation, I'm relaxed and more prepared to make it to at least a year, preferable 18 months to 2 years. We'll see.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

ladyfreckles said:


> This isn't a question about advice for me, it's just about opinions in general. I searched, but could not find a thread on this already.
> 
> I've had intact pets and I've had neutered/spayed pets. I don't really have a preference. However, awhile ago when I was doing research for a report I came across something about neutering and how spaying/neutering your pets can cause more diseases than it supposedly "fixes".
> 
> ...


No, unless there is a problem with there reproductive parts they will remain intact.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think that a mammal's body is a intricate number of systems that work in tandem and work together and work separately to perform all the many functions that make up the life of the critter. If you look at a thyroid gland, and all of what it actually affects, it just makes sens to me that the hormones in the reproductive organs may do more than generate eggs and sperm. 

For me, it is no problem to keep intact animals. If someone feels they should spay because they do not want to deal with heat cycles, I have no problem with that. If someone is afraid they will not be able to keep their dog and bitch apart, then they should spay or neuter one of them. It is one of those things that people should not feel better than others because they do or they don't. Spaying or neutering does not make you a rocket scientist, nor does not spaying or neutering make you low crawling thing.

Vet's and humane organizations have an agenda. That agenda is not always the health and well being of an individual dog.


----------



## Josh's mom (Oct 30, 2010)

I never planned to breed Josh, no one would have him anyway, he was cryptorchid. 

We ended up giving in and having him neutered at 7 mo, might have waited a little longer, our vet said the younger dogs get over surgery easier than older ones so we went ahead and did it earlier than planned.


----------



## mssandslinger (Sep 21, 2010)

I have both my male and female fixed, I don't want puppies and it's easier to deal without the extra hormones going through them, Sadie I had done at 7 months and zero I had done at 14 months, I hated going to the dog park and dogs trying to mount Sadie of others trying to fight zero ( even though he's the nicest and least territorial male) other dogs could just smell that he was intact and it was to much for me to handle. And he's not a good specimen for his breed. Beautiful yes! But he has to much anxiety


----------



## Davey Benson (Nov 10, 2010)

It may seem sexest, and unfair.... but as a rule I only fix my females. I do have two neutered males but they come to me that way. I just don't want to have to deal with the heat cycles, or deal with puppies. I live too far away from others to worry about my males doing any unauthorized breeding.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I decided to take the middle ground with Ilda. 

She's almost two years old and I'll be taking her in next Monday for a laparoscopic spay.

Still got the lecture from the vet about how she has a much more of a chance of getting mammery cancer.....but after doing research there's a lot of health issues brought on by S/N too young as well. We'll wait until our Aussie girl is around 14 months before spaying her.

This is a good article written by a vet on this topic:

Canine Sports Productions: Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete







ladyfreckles said:


> Bringing this thread back to bump it for new people.
> 
> It's been on my mind since my friends asked if Viking was neutered yet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

ladyfreckles said:


> "Well as long as you neuter eventually."


I love it when people say stuff like this. "As long as you neuter him eventually. . . ." what? You'll still be my friend? Santa will still bring me presents? I'll still go to heaven? And if I don't neuter him eventually, you won't be my friend, Santa won't bring me presents, and I don't get to go to heaven? 

Other people's opinions have ZERO impact on most of my decisions.


----------



## brembo (Jun 30, 2009)

If I had a male from a good breeder that had potential as a stud down the road I'd likely keep him intact. Same story for a female, but it would not really be my decision, I'd defer to the breeder on that matter. I have no business doing my own breeding, not enough knowledge in that arena. Also, when I say good breeder I mean someone that knows what they are doing, does it right and is in the biz for the love of the breed above monetary gain.

Since I'm a rescue type fella, I just get the bits removed to make life easier all around. I might treat myself to a high-end PB from a breeder someday, and I'll make that call at the time as the situation warrants.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I'm like the other people on here, I haven't neutered and was planning on doing it at 2 years old. But we haven't had any issues, he listens really well, and he shows no aggression due to having extra testosterone. I love his work ethic, I can keep him in check, so I don't think he'll be getting neutered at all.

Now the next one in a few years will be a female and will be spayed as soon as she's out of her first heat...unless I start doing conformation. But most likely won't and she'll get spayed so I don't have to deal with keeping the two apart and heat schedules.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> This is a good article written by a vet on this topic:
> 
> Canine Sports Productions: Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete


Actually that is not that good of article and many of the "issues" were overstated and overblown.

http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf

This gives a very good rebuttal to that K9 sports page.


----------



## RocketDog (Sep 25, 2011)

Rocket will get neutered because both of his testicles are retained, and as far as I know, his risk of (testicular?) cancer is higher then if he didn't get neutered? But, it won't be for awhile. He's fine. No aggression, minimal marking, never out of my sight. If it weren't for that, he would likely not be neutered.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

We'll neuter Ruger one of these days. He's not showing any butt-headedness that often goes with adolescence so he's still got his.
But before 2yrs. probably.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh geez..... just when I think I'm making the right decision.

You can't even trust literature written by a Veterinarian with cited studies?





msvette2u said:


> Actually that is not that good of article and many of the "issues" were overstated and overblown.
> 
> http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf
> 
> This gives a very good rebuttal to that K9 sports page.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I'd go straight to the source and not rely on a biased individual to interpret the findings.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yeah, but who is biased here? I can try to find the cited studies and read them but I've not got the D.V.M. after my name.

This is why I never take a some bloggers 'word' on something like this. I verify the source as to the individual's professional status and ability to interpret medical data.

If the article you linked to is correct then the author of the first should be ashamed....because I read your link and it's not just about being 'overblown' it's down right misleading.

(btw there's something similiar going on with vitamin c and it's affect on osteoarthritis in dogs..conflicting opinions amongst vets and Veterinary colleges....)



msvette2u said:


> I'd go straight to the source and not rely on a biased individual to interpret the findings.


----------



## rshkr (Feb 9, 2012)

i know this is old, but daym!

if i knew females would mess the house and leave tracks of blood, i wouldve gotten a male...


----------



## chloe008 (Dec 24, 2012)

Emoore said:


> I love it when people say stuff like this. "As long as you neuter him eventually. . . ." what? You'll still be my friend? Santa will still bring me presents? I'll still go to heaven? And if I don't neuter him eventually, you won't be my friend, Santa won't bring me presents, and I don't get to go to heaven?



I guess I would have to agree with you there. By the way, when it comes to neutering your pet, people who have pets wanted their pets spayed or neutered, but when they find out how much it costs, they think it won't be possible. But it absolutely is possible—there are many shelters, veterinarians, and organizations who are ready and able to help. And it can be easy to find them. 
Now, if you still need help, we've got more suggestions. 
1. Visit some website on the Internet to see if there is a state or national group that will help you out. 
2. Call your local humane society or animal shelter and tell them you are looking for low-cost spay/neuter services. 
3. Talk to your veterinarian. You might be able to work out payment arrangements. 
4. Click here for website that offers credit plans for veterinary services.


----------



## Kaasuti (Aug 8, 2012)

rshkr said:


> i know this is old, but daym!
> 
> if i knew females would mess the house and leave tracks of blood, i wouldve gotten a male...



Then you get a male and sometimes they have random accidents where they "mess" everywhere without warning. I've seen it happen a few times. My dog hasn't done it yet though, fingers crossed :blush:.
​


----------



## Rodimus80 (Jan 13, 2013)

Hopefully you guys can help me with my current problem. My GSD is 7 months, Male, intact. The biggest complaint I have is when strangers are close or people who the GSD is not familiar with make eye contact or approach him. He starts barking. No biting but I'm aware it could lead to that further down the road if I make no adjustments now. 

And he is easily distracted. Highly food motivated. Perfect around my two daughters who are 8 and 4. He will bark at anyone coming into the door and unless it is someone he knows, which is only about 6 people at best, he will bark. But if the person ignores him he quiets down within the first 5 minutes but here and there if the person does make direct eye contact or thinks it's okay to pet him he will let loose a deep bark. When we walk he lets out a growl if someone gets within 20ft of us. I do live close to rural areas where I let him go off lease when we ware walking in the woods and he will go in front of me no more then 10ft. After that he stops and looks at me and waits till I get about 5ft then he walks 10ft and repeats the same behavior. Always. Unless someone else is on the trail. On our walks he does not walk in front of me and only requires mild corrections. He comes when called about 90% in the house and about 60% outside but if there is a distraction like a person or another dog I lose control. I went to the Vet today so they could give him a look over before the Neutering which is scheduled for Monday. After what I would call nothing less then teasing my dog, they muzzled him. And when I say teasing, I mean the Vet purposely on 3 different times within 10mins would make direct eye contact with my GSD and talk to him like he was baby. Which of course set him off like I have never seen before. But after reading as much as I could about it I am starting to consider canceling it. I need some other people's experiences and wisdom to help me make my choice. Should I neuter and seek professional help or wait on neutering and seek professional help?


----------



## huntergreen (Jun 28, 2012)

i always neuter my pets. as for the barking, does he stop and relax when you tell him to?


----------



## Rodimus80 (Jan 13, 2013)

huntergreen said:


> i always neuter my pets. as for the barking, does he stop and relax when you tell him to?


It takes a few corrections. I'm going to throw treats into the mix again I think to help change his attention. I am also posed to make certain I am in my front yard when the school buses come so my GSD can get used to the sight of large numbers of strangers walking past. Any thoughts?


----------



## Splashstorm (Apr 25, 2020)

Spaying increases the risk of bone cancer, thyroid issues, and hormone imbalance issues.


----------

