# Is Early Neutering Hurting Our Pets????



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

First time I've seen this article, relating cancers to early spay/neuter:

Is Early Neutering Hurting Pets?



> Hemangiosarcoma is one of the three most common and devastatingly fatal cancers in larger dogs, *especially German shepherds and golden retrievers.* We see it most commonly as malignant growths in the spleen, but 25 percent of cases involve the heart and 25 percent appear in multiple locations.
> 
> Ware’s study also found a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males. This information has been around in journals for almost a decade, but it takes time to consider large epidemiological studies as evidence-based medicine useable in decision making.
> 
> A 2002 epidemiological study of 3,218 dogs done by Cooley and Glickman, et al, found that those neutered before age 1 had a significantly increased chance of developing osteosarcoma. Another study showed that neutered dogs were at a two-fold higher risk of developing osteosarcoma.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes, I have read many other similar articles which is why my male will never be neutered and Zoe who is almost 14 months will finally be spayed next month at 15 months. Hormones play a huge role in our bodies and it is no different for dogs- we really do function better with all systems go


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

I still think that neutering your male if you don't plan on breeding is the best thing for the dog. I will be neutering Deuce at around 18-24 months. Articles and studies differ every day it seems. It's like some studies saying humans who eat carrots too much with have an orange tinge to their skin but carrots prevent cancer and make your eyesite better


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Unless it is critical that my pets be altered, I'll leave them intact. And by critical I am talking about health issues, behavior issues or avoiding unwanted litters. 

There is a rise in cancer in dogs - I never thought it could tie back to alterations. Interesting thought.....


----------



## Lesley1905 (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm debating neutering as well...it's one of those topics that seems to always be iffy. One day eggs are bad for you, the next day they are great for you....


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

Ok. Here we go again. More excuses for people not to neuter or spay their pets. Seriously people, lets think about this. This study takes 2 of the most popular breeds. Breeds that are, I hate to say it, overly bred. I don't believe that having your dog fixed is the major cause of these cancers. Lets think about this. Wouldn't you think that genetics would play a bigger factor in this than just having your dog fixed? Or perhaps poor diet, too? I think this gives people the wrong message on spay or neutering their pets, whether they a purebred or not. I have heard "they won't look right if you fix them early", or "Its more beneficial for them to be left intact as nature intended". Hog wash. Oh, and this is my favorite "well, if I get my dog fixed he will get fat". Ok, so which one is it? Not fill out properly, or get fat? How do people know these facts? Just because they owned 1 or 2 dogs? Have they worked for a vet to see how these animals turn out over the years after spay or neutering? I bet most haven't. But guess what? I have. And its BS. I am a groomer, and also worked for a vet for over 10 years. I have followed clients from puppy, to adulthood, to there senior years. I have seen MORE POSITIVE OUTCOMES ON LIFE EXPENTANCY DUE TO SPAYING AND NEUTERING. I am all for opinions. I have many. But, if its because "you read it on the interenet, it must be true" or "you heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend that used to breed....." Talk to your vet, talk to the people who work for vets, who see this everyday. Not from someone who "read it" or "heard it" somewhere. I feel people on this forum are extremely intelligent people in which they will do there own research and talk to the proper people to get the education they need for the health of there furry kid. On that note. I'm done with my rant. No ill towards you Ms MaggieRose. . Just another opinion. And you know what they all say about opinions......


----------



## GSDBESTK9 (Mar 26, 2002)

I believe spaying and/or neutering very young is NOT a good thing. However, I'm not agaisnt spaying and/or neutering after the dog is at least 18 months of age.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

There is a difference between being filled out because you are fat, and being filled out because your bones and muscles are well developed- very different. Early spay neuter doesn't allow for the long bone plates to close on time resulting in too long leg bones which puts extra strain and the hips and spine. This is not opinion but fact any vet will be honest about. 

I agree diet and genetics play a role in cancers, but of course hormones do as well. Why do you think woman after menopause have higher rates of cancer than men who by far are guiltier of eating poorer diets, consume more alcohol, and are more prone to smoke? Hormones help combat free radicals that cause cancer and studies by respected institutes such as UC Davis and others agree waiting does decrease the risk of cancer. It doesn't mean every dog speutered early will get cancer or those speutered later will not- it means the risk is reduced. The only cancer increased by later spay is mammary cancer which is highly localized, curable, and easy to deal with.

What do you think the health benefits are of early speuter anyway since you believe you have seen it increase life expectancy?


----------



## 1sttimeforgsd (Jul 29, 2010)

I asked Ace what was his opinion on this subject and his answer was


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

1sttimeforgsd said:


> I asked Ace what was his opinion on this subject and his answer was


 
:rofl:


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

bunchoberrys said:


> Ok. Here we go again. More excuses for people not to neuter or spay their pets. Seriously people, lets think about this. This study takes 2 of the most popular breeds. Breeds that are, I hate to say it, overly bred. I don't believe that having your dog fixed is the major cause of these cancers. Lets think about this. Wouldn't you think that genetics would play a bigger factor in this than just having your dog fixed? Or perhaps poor diet, too? I think this gives people the wrong message on spay or neutering their pets, whether they a purebred or not.* I have heard "they won't look right if you fix them early"*, or "Its more beneficial for them to be left intact as nature intended". Hog wash. Oh, and this is my favorite "*well, if I get my dog fixed he will get fat*". *Ok, so which one is it? Not fill out properly, or get fat?* How do people know these facts? Just because they owned 1 or 2 dogs? Have they worked for a vet *to see how these animals turn out over the years after spay or neutering?* I bet most haven't. But guess what? I have. And its BS. I am a groomer, and also worked for a vet for over 10 years. I have followed clients from puppy, to adulthood, to there senior years. I have seen MORE POSITIVE OUTCOMES ON LIFE EXPENTANCY DUE TO SPAYING AND NEUTERING. I am all for opinions. I have many. But, if its because "you read it on the interenet, it must be true" or "you heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend that used to breed....." Talk to your vet, talk to the people who work for vets, who see this everyday. Not from someone who "read it" or "heard it" somewhere. I feel people on this forum are extremely intelligent people in which they will do there own research and talk to the proper people to get the education they need for the health of there furry kid. On that note. I'm done with my rant. No ill towards you Ms MaggieRose. . Just another opinion. And you know what they all say about opinions......


Wow, what was already said about the growth plates, and neutering before their closure. For dogs, yes, you can get a leggier appearance, and also secondary sex characteristics will not be as pronounced, so you can get a "bitchy" dog (looks not temperament).

Have I seen this happen? Yes, and no. Yes, I neutered Cujo at 14 or 18 weeks, hard to remember now. I then gave him to my parents and see him daily. 

He was the runt of the litter, 13 ounces. I graphed the pups weight with relation to days, and not only was he smaller than the others, he grew at a slower rate -- the graph, rise over run was more horizontal than the other pups in the litter. My thought was that he would be a smaller dog, nice for the old people...

We still joke that Cujo has NEVER stopped growing. He is larger by far than his littermates, who stayed around 26 - 27 inches and 80 - 90 pounds (males). Cujo is a regular horse at 30 inches and 86 pounds. He did not develop the mane, the depth of chest, the breadth of body that the other dogs did. His face is a carbon copy of his mother's. And he has had a host of problems. 

However, even being able to chart his littermate's progress, there is no way for me to say that this dog was not DESTINED to be taller, skinnier, bitchier, with skin problems and others. He may have been a true-runt and had that in his genetic make up when he was conceived. 

You on the other hand have watched dogs grow up. So. You cannot say in good concience that this dog would NOT have had more depth, more breadth, shorter, heavier in face and bone, etc. Because you see one dog who has been alterred. You cannot split a dog in two and alter half of the dog. So you cannot say what that potential would be. And nor can I.

Of the six dogs out of this breeding that I personally own or my parents own, five are intact 4 and 5 years old. They are bitches. They are all 23.5 to 24.5 inches tall, they are all well proportioned, and none of them have the problems that Cujo has. Does that mean the problems are caused by neutering? No. But some of them could be. 

If anyone wants to neuter their dog that is fine. They should have available the pros and the cons to neuter. I have tried to be unbiased in printing these out for puppy buyers. I encourage waiting for sexual maturity. I WANT to encourage them NOT to do it at all, but especially with females, many do not want the hassel of dealing with a bitch in heat. AND, knowing that they ARE spayed or neutered, helps me to know that they will not end up in anyone's nasty puppy mill. So it is a mixed bag. 

Unfortunately there are untruths and flat out lies provided to people by trainers, veterinarians, and shelter people about the risks of NOT altering, and I find this simply hard to let be.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Bunchoberrys, how did you pick your user name. In this topic, I find it interesting....


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

GSDBESTK9 said:


> I believe spaying and/or neutering very young is NOT a good thing. However, I'm not agaisnt spaying and/or neutering after the dog is at least 18 months of age.


This is my same response.


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

@ Selzer, What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I am intriqued to hear your answer?


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

Studies or no studies, I have never been convinced that removing a functioning body part that serves a purpose is *healthier* than keeping it. I just can't accept that it isn't needed and that they are better off without it. 
I understand the reason why it is done and why many people feel it is important, I am specifically speaking healthwise.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

bunchoberrys said:


> @ Selzer, What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I am intriqued to hear your answer?



Well, :blush:

They do refer to the part at shows where the judge checks out whether the dog conforms to the standard, with respect to his anatomy as opposed to a female's, as "the Berry check." 

Since you are very pro neuter... I just found that to be really kind of um funny.

I know, that will get me in trouble.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Well I think we all can agree that if you are pro speuter or not that neutering YOUNG(as the thread title implies) such as 6 months or younger is not good.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

From what I can tell in this article Dr. Villalobos is questioning, not stating anything? 

Sadly, we are fighting the inevitable. Go in the saddest section of the board - spayed, not, neutered, not, we all lose our friends. Yes we want to keep them as long, as healthy, and as pain free as possible. 

With longevity we have:
Genetics* 
Environment
Nutrition
Activity
Sun exposure
among other things. 
*huge!

I can control _some_ of some of those things. I also want to know - in those studies - were all these things equal in these dogs? Correlation does not imply causation. 

So I will continue to speuter around 6 months, and/or preferably before first heat for females, and even have 2 dogs who have had pediatric speuters done before I got them. Since I don't know much of their genetics for all my dogs (other than they are dogs!), I just have to work on the other stuff to the best of my ability for greatest longevity and quality of life anyway. 

ETA- actually Jessie, I don't agree with that. 
And selzer as much as you are against it you try to be SMART about it when talking to people. 

People need to remember that other than some cases, you don't KNOW anyone on this board. And you really need to think before you recommend to people who obviously can't control their dog, not to mention a bitch in heat or a dog looking for a bitch in heat, keep their pets intact. THAT to me is the deciding factor. IF everyone who thinks they can control their intact animals actually can, I say go for it. If they can't, then...do what needs to be done regardless of age.


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

Ah, Selzer. You never fail to deliver. Just because someone has an opinion that doesn't agree with yours you do the juvenile thing an do a personal attack. Not surprised. As to the topic at hand. All I can suggest is to talk to many people in the veterinary field. We all are not monsters, we are not hoarders of testicles and ovaries "Selzer, that is a joke, don't get your panties in a 'bunch". We do actually care about animals and not the all mighty dollar.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

I really find myself marveling that perfectly intelligent, logical people can often be so confounded when it comes to certain fields. Dogs seem to be one of them.

If a woman has a hysterectomy, what do we do? We give her hormone replacement therapy. Why do we do that? Well, hysterectomies are linked with osteoporosis, heart disease, neurological disorders and mental health issues. Hormone therapy can prevent or mitigate the severity of, those risks.

If a man is hypogonadic, we treat with hormone replacement therapy.
Why? See above.

Yet, we induce identical states in our dogs, provide no hormone replacement, and then are shocked at rampant health defects in our pets.

Is it really any surprise that a dog who has suffered induced hypogonadism or menopause at an age before they even received adequate levels of hormones to ensure that growing completes correctly and that bones achieve adequate density, who is more likely to be overweight and have lower muscle mass, and is genetically prone to structural issues as the GSD is, should have such widespread problems?

Spay/neuter is a reality of life. There are irresponsible pet owners, who cannot, or will not, prevent the occurrence of unplanned litters. Ultimately, however, if you don't *have* to alter your animal, that choice is in their best medical interest.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

How do you explain, despite the surgery, dogs living very long lives?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Whatever. 

If vets cared about dogs and not the almighty dollar they wouldn't be removing berries so young.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

This is the first time you've read this, or anything like it? I've read a few case studies over the year about large breed dogs and especially rottweilers suffering from hemangiosarcoma or osteosarcoma as a result. 



bunchoberrys said:


> Ok. Here we go again. More excuses for people not to neuter or spay their pets. Seriously people, lets think about this. This study takes 2 of the most popular breeds. Breeds that are, I hate to say it, overly bred. I don't believe that having your dog fixed is the major cause of these cancers. Lets think about this. Wouldn't you think that genetics would play a bigger factor in this than just having your dog fixed? Or perhaps poor diet, too? I think this gives people the wrong message on spay or neutering their pets, whether they a purebred or not. I have heard "they won't look right if you fix them early", or "Its more beneficial for them to be left intact as nature intended". Hog wash. Oh, and this is my favorite "well, if I get my dog fixed he will get fat". Ok, so which one is it? Not fill out properly, or get fat? How do people know these facts? Just because they owned 1 or 2 dogs? Have they worked for a vet to see how these animals turn out over the years after spay or neutering? I bet most haven't. But guess what? I have. And its BS. I am a groomer, and also worked for a vet for over 10 years. I have followed clients from puppy, to adulthood, to there senior years. I have seen MORE POSITIVE OUTCOMES ON LIFE EXPENTANCY DUE TO SPAYING AND NEUTERING. I am all for opinions. I have many. But, if its because "you read it on the interenet, it must be true" or "you heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend that used to breed....." Talk to your vet, talk to the people who work for vets, who see this everyday. Not from someone who "read it" or "heard it" somewhere. I feel people on this forum are extremely intelligent people in which they will do there own research and talk to the proper people to get the education they need for the health of there furry kid. On that note. I'm done with my rant. No ill towards you Ms MaggieRose. . Just another opinion. And you know what they all say about opinions......


More reason for me not to trust my vet. IME, the vets I've talked to know NOTHING of the cons of s/ning. They (and you) try pushing neuter so much that they don't take the time to educate themselves. YOU need to do a little more research on the topic, not us.



bunchoberrys said:


> Ah, Selzer. You never fail to deliver. Just because someone has an opinion that doesn't agree with yours you do the juvenile thing an do a personal attack. Not surprised. As to the topic at hand. All I can suggest is to talk to many people in the veterinary field. We all are not monsters, we are not hoarders of testicles and ovaries "Selzer, that is a joke, don't get your panties in a 'bunch". We do actually care about animals and not the all mighty dollar.


You came here and attacked us first, missy.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> How do you explain, despite the surgery, dogs living very long lives?


How can we possibly know how much longer they might have lived, without it?

Age at surgery is certainly a factor, as is the degree of physical maturity, which isn't static in a breed. Certain lines, as we all know, develop at different rates. 

One GSD goes into heat at 7 months of age. Another at 18 months of age. Obviously, they were developing at radically different rates. If both dogs were spayed at 6 months of age, one, we'd never know that they were developing that differently.

Two, the first dog, who would have gone into heat a month after the spay procedure, was obviously more physically mature than the dog that would have taken another YEAR to go into heat. The first dog received far more adult hormones prior to spay, than the second did. 

Many people live their entire lives smoking cigarettes, and experience no serious health repercussions as a result. Does that make smoking healthy? No. It means that a myriad of factors coalesce to determine health. Some of which are in our control [diet, lifestyle, medical care], and some are not [genetics].


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> How do you explain, despite the surgery, dogs living very long lives?


Would you expect 100% of early s/ns to have issues? That isn't a fair question, at all. Not all are going to be effected, and those that are aren't necessarily going to lead short lives. Hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hip displaysia, etc. don't have to happen early in life or be their cause of death.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> How do you explain, despite the surgery, dogs living very long lives?


Some do, and some don't. 

There seems to be a correlation between when an animal is neutered to how much the longevity is affected. One study on Rottys. The bitches that kept their parts longest, had the best longevity. 

One study is not enough to say that is it the rule.

So maybe a spayed bitch lives to 12 or 13. There is NO WAY to know that unspayed, she may have lived to 14 or even 15. 

The thing is, once you alter, you cannot take it back. There is no way to know if you affected longevity of a specific animal. 

I do not believe alterring EVER increases longevity, unless secondary considerations are not met. In the rare instances of testicular cancer, if the owner had noticed the issue and did an immediate neuter, the dog might not be seriously affected. Same goes for pyometra, but if the owner does not realize their animal is sick and needs immediate care, THEN they may die from it. 

The thing is that we can die from many things. We do not start cutting off body parts because maybe they might become infected or cancerous. We wait until that happens and then we look at treatment options.


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

Oh, your right selzer, we want people to have "bunches" of puppies and kittens so we can put them in shelters and euthanize them. Hey, if we can't have there "berries", lets take there babies. Mwahahahahahaha. Its a conspiracy, you found us out. *GASP*


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

We don't know - we do the best we can with what we have - and what we can control. 

Like I said, if all the people who think they can be responsible owners of intact animals are, great. 

For those who don't really care about the health impacts or the animals themselves really - who are the ones most likely to have their dogs, their dogs' offspring end up dead in shelters or shoot them, let them go, etc, I hope vets and others continue to promote speutering. 

For those who care about the health impacts, but can't control an intact animal, I slide over to the speuter side again. Because our behavior is the key determinant, in my opinion.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

DJEtzel said:


> Would you expect 100% of early s/ns to have issues? That isn't a fair question, at all. Not all are going to be effected, and those that are aren't necessarily going to lead short lives. Hemangiosarcoma, osteosarcoma, hip displaysia, etc. don't have to happen early in life or be their cause of death.


Just reread and don't understand what exactly is meant here.


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

@ DJEetzel. I did not attack. I gave my opinion.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> More reason for me not to trust my vet. IME, the vets I've talked to know NOTHING of the cons of s/ning. They (and you) try pushing neuter so much that they don't take the time to educate themselves.


Just to touch on that point - there are vets who keep up to date on current research and there are those who don't. And I am not just referring to spay/neuter. That is not unique to vets, you will find that in just about any profession. 
Things change from the days when they were trained, it is up to that person to keep with it. If one doesn't keep up on research that may change that opinion, how can that vet be reliable? 

One of the things I love about my vet is that she stays current. We have discussed many issues and always provides me with tons of great resources with up to date info. 
I don't know her position on spay/neuter, since two of my boys were already done before we went to her, and the other is a working dog that will remain intact. I do plan on discussing this with her when I see her again, just out of curiousity.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> We don't know - we do the best we can with what we have - and what we can control.
> 
> Like I said, if all the people who think they can be responsible owners of intact animals are, great.
> 
> ...


You have my full agreement with the statement in bold type.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

bunchoberrys said:


> Oh, your right selzer, we want people to have "bunches" of puppies and kittens so we can put them in shelters and euthanize them. Hey, if we can't have there "berries", lets take there babies. Mwahahahahahaha. Its a conspiracy, you found us out. *GASP*


huh???

Intact does not equal puppies. 

I have had it with people who do not believe that people can keep animals intact without breeding them. I should be overrun with puppies as all my animals are intact. 

Your argument should be not to breed your animals as dogs are dying in shelters. Not maim your animals because you are too stupid to keep intact animals without letting them breed indiscriminately.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeanKBBMMMAAN*
> _We don't know - we do the best we can with what we have - and what we can control.
> 
> ...


I wish there was an easy way to put that on a billboard and marketing materials!

Are you an idiot? Spay or Neuter your pet!


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

GSDBESTK9 said:


> I believe spaying and/or neutering very young is NOT a good thing. However, I'm not agaisnt spaying and/or neutering after the dog is at least 18 months of age.


Nicely said!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

bunchofberries you didn't answer my question- what are the medical benefits to speutering?

I've never speutered an animal in my life and yet I've never had a litter. While Zoe will be the first animal ever spayed in my care due to my DH's preferences it won't happen before 15-18 months, and if I had my say probably wouldn't happen at all. She's in heat right now and perfectly safe from impregnation- it's called separation and diligence. I know not everyone is responsible, but having a litter has nothing to do with why people should speuter health wise. As a matter of fact women and dogs who bare children have lower rates of cancer as well


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

@ Zoeys Mom
spay medical benefits:
Decreases the chance of developing breast tumors later in life 
Decreases the chance of cystic ovaries and uterine infections later in life 
Neuter medical benefits:
Decreases incidence of prostate disease later in life.
And of course decreases the number of unwanted puppies and kittens.
Hopefully, this helps. If you have any other questions, I'm sure your vet would be happy to answer them.


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

@ zoeysmom "As a matter of fact women and dogs who bare children have lower rates of cancer as well". Really? You can tell that to my sister in-law, who just had to have a double masectomy at the age of 27, while pregnant with her second child.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes you have proven my point. Let's see prostate cancer or osteosarcoma-which do you want? Breast cancer or hemangiosarcoma? Again which suits you? You see while prostate and breast cancers are relatively easy to treat the later two are not- they are death sentences. So if speutering reduces the risk of two minimal forms of cancer while leaving the two most deadly more probable one can easily conclude it is HEALTHIER to keep dogs intact. I say healthier not reduces the population of unwanted dogs- thats another issue all together. I am lucky my vet will not speuter before a year and urges people to really think about waiting until later in life if ever doing it at all. Unless the owner is a mooron...not moron, but mooron separating is just not hard to do. Especially for those households with only one dog, or two dogs of the same sex where is the benefit? I've heard of males roaming and marking, but Zoe is my first and only female dog. All my males died intact and never roamed or marked, were aggressive, or had prostate cancer. 

With responsible ownership impregnation is really not a risk- so it comes down to health benefits and even you have concluded there really aren't any


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Actually, Zoeysmom is correct. Lower rates of cancer for women who have had children. Not NO cancer. Might want to look that one up.

What I would like to see, is not a vet tech/groomer's 10 years of experience but not actually studying the records. I want to see a study with controlled groups and dogs followed diligently throughout their lives.

What I've seen in studies so far is that males have a much lower rate of certain cancers if not neutered. Females have a rate of zero mammary cancer if spayed before their first heat. How much does spay/neuter shorten lives? It can only be an average as we'll never really know the exact number. Is it three months? 3 years? Is it significant?

And as we can see just by doing a quick look on petfinder, a good percentage of pet owners are NOT responsible enough to keep their animals from having litters. It's not incredibly hard. Sierra was 3 before we had her spayed and we never had an issue. But the over populated shelters and euthanization rates at the shelters shows that it is incredibly hard for a whole slew of people.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Uhm prostate cancer risk INCREASES with the neuter. 

Just saying.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

bunchoberrys said:


> @ zoeysmom "As a matter of fact women and dogs who bare children have lower rates of cancer as well". Really? You can tell that to my sister in-law, who just had to have a double masectomy at the age of 27, while pregnant with her second child.



Sure, tell her to read these: Pregnancy and Breast Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute
The Protective Effects of Childbirth
Ovarian Cancer Prevention - Ovarian Cancer - Oncology Channel

You have to understand as you actually previously stated that diet, environment, and genetics ALSO play a role in cancers. So I will assume given your sister's age she carries one of a few breast cancer genes that are inherited and that her pregnancies were not the result of her cancer. Statistics are statistics and while they aren't all reliable I think the National Cancer Institute may know more than you or I. You can also look up studies spanning over 40 years from the Mayo Clinic and NIH. It is a fact pregnancy reduces the rates of cancer's in women and not that pregnancy prevents all cancers in women- read that however you will


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

To each, there own. All my pets have been spayed/neutered before the age of 1. They all have lived long happy, healthy, loved lives. And thats all that I can ask for. I gave my opinion. Thats all I wanted to do, is be heard just as much as anyone else. I love my animals, and working and helping others. I am very passionate at what I do. My intentions were not to attack, but to shed light, to show, from a different point. For those I have offended I apologize.


----------



## bunchoberrys (Apr 23, 2010)

@zoeysmom. There is no history of breast cancer in her family. The pregnancy hormones actually fueled the cancer to spread faster, in which she had to be induced 8 weeks early.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Jess - I don't feel you 'attacked' anyone. And your opinion is always welcome. My only point was that I want to see a study with a control group for both sides. There are independent studies coming out here and there but nothing that gives a clear view of the entire picture. Unless you personally have followed all of these dogs in the vet's office their entire life and have a control group to compare it to then you can't say with certainty whether neuter/spay is not detrimental to their health.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes, pregnancy hormones fuel already present cancers, but not create them. The OP was about health risks of early speuter- not how many unwanted dogs are in shelters. Evidence shows a higher rate of some of the deadliest cancers in speutered dogs- not a lower one. I think idiots should speuter their dogs believe me, but not because it is healthier for the dog in question.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

bunchoberrys said:


> To each, there own. All my pets have been spayed/neutered before the age of 1. They all have lived long happy, healthy, loved lives. And thats all that I can ask for. I gave my opinion. Thats all I wanted to do, is be heard just as much as anyone else. I love my animals, and working and helping others. I am very passionate at what I do. My intentions were not to attack, but to shed light, to show, from a different point. For those I have offended I apologize.


Your opinion is blind though. You can do whatever you want with your pets, but if you are going to try to change our minds, you need to show some statistics or proof. You've obviously done very little research on the subject, and if you continue s/ning before a year old, it is just a matter of time before one dog WON'T live happy, healthy lives. 

PLUS, you don't know that your dog will. He's only a year old now, but the surgery you put him through could cause hip dysplasia in 6 years for all you know.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

DJEtzel - have you read the original source materials - it looks like Jax08 has. 

And then on top of reading them, we have to be able understand and to intrerpret the science - and I always ask for help on that because stats and such were not my thing!


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

One factor alone, such as neutering, will not cause hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia is a multi-facet disease that is at least partly heriditary. There is no evidence, or any indication, that early spay/neuter causes hip dysplasia. If you know of a study then I would love to read the source.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

It would also make it very odd that when I had Rocco x-rayed BEFORE his neuter, he had one mild hip...as if his testicles knew...
 :rofl:


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Here are two studies:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
Canine Sports Productions: Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete

Now obviously these aren't the Bible, but if you think about long bone growth and their connection with the hips it does make sense. When bones grow out of proportion to the hip sockets dysplasia seems like an obvious consequence


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

and as I stated...one factor alone, such as neutering/spay, does NOT cause HD. It is a multi-facet disease that has hereditary factors. The Canine sports article is a compilation of studies that really just summarizes without giving the meat.

That first article I want to go back and read but I'm trying to work and not being very successful at it. Thanks for posting that Zoey's Mom! It looks like a good study with control groups.


----------



## EJQ (May 13, 2003)

Zoeys mom said:


> There is a difference between being filled out because you are fat, and being filled out because your bones and muscles are well developed- very different. Early spay neuter doesn't allow for the long bone plates to close on time resulting in too long leg bones which puts extra strain and the hips and spine. This is not opinion but fact any vet will be honest about.


*I agree whole heartedly!!*


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665


> *In 1 large study of 1,842 dogs, there was an increased incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs spayed or castrated prior to 5 months of age*


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Jax was spayed at about 6 months, it was early and would have been earlier but the shelter let me take her that day. She is leggy. Her hips would OFA fair according to one vet but she does have an odd gait that has been helped with chiropractic care.

Is that 100% due to her being spayed? I doubt it. She's 24 1/2" tall so she's not terribly over the standard. I think that breeding plays a large roll in the size of a dog more than early spay/neuter. 

But, just going from what I've seen in horses, the longer backs, not the longer legs, play a much larger role in spine problems. Long backs put more strain on the middle because the proportions aren't correct. I don't see how longer legs would stress the back. And that is just my opinion so if anyone has more information on how it stresses the hips and back I would love to read it.

I would believe more that that lack of proper hormones play a larger role. And how the body processes vitamins. There are studies that show Vitamin C plays a huge role in how the body processes the natural chemicals that help build and maintain the joints. So when we take away the hormones, how are we altering the overall chemical balance of the body? If women who have had hysterectomies are more prone to osteoporosis then I would lay my money on the body not absorbing calcium the way it should rather than the growth of the leg bone. Are there studies out there on the density of the bones in speutered animals?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

SchDDR said:


> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


now that's what I'm talking about!!


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 231(11):1688 - Abstract



> Results suggested that early neutering was a significant risk factor for development of excessive TPA in large-breed dogs with CCLD. Further research into the effects of early neutering on TPA and the pathophysiology of CCLD is warranted.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 224(3):380 - Abstract



> Among male and female dogs with early-age gonadectomy, hip dysplasia, noise phobias, and sexual behaviors were increased.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Sigh. Jean - I'm going to get you for this later.

Hi Zoey's mom - it's a common misconception but those aren't studies. Those are articles. They are articles that cite studies, but without looking at the studies themselves, you're just taking someone else's word on their interpretation. A study would be something in a peer reviewed journal, with control groups, and solid statistical analysis and design. Studies get misquoted and misunderstood in articles ALL the time. For any substantive conversation about the information they're claiming, we need to go look at the source material. 

Since the article that started this thread uses one of the articles above as its source material, we're now looking at third hand information. Sometimes it's tempting to just go with a conclusion that seems intuitive or fits with our anecdotal experience but if we want facts, we've got to dig deeper. 

For example, HD is not caused by long bones growing too long for sockets. It seems sort of logical but it's actually an issue of coverage and can occur in short-legged dogs just as easily as taller ones. It is mainly due to genetics. 

As discussed on all the thousands of previous threads on this topic, anyone seriously interested in these issues needs to read the original articles themselves and not rely on what is now a third hand retelling of their supposed conclusions.

On some other topics - hormone replacement therapy in humans is associated with a host of medical problems - including an _increased_ risk of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. It is far from an unequivocal health boon. However there are behavioral factors for humans (like the wish for a sex life) that make it more reasonable, but these should have no bearing on the decisions we make for our dogs. Also, the health problems that human hormone replacement therapy reduces are mostly not things that commonly affect dogs (like osteoporosis) - probably due to their much shorter lifespans. 

Back to humans again, statistically women who have babies (as well as breast feed) have lower incidences of certain reproductive cancers. The comparison is betweem "intact" women who have children and "intact" women who don't. The reason the women who have children have a lower (note: not no, just lower) incidence of cancer is because pregnancy and lactation eliminate monthly cycling. So, its the cycling hormones that create the elevated cancer risk. _That's an argument FOR spaying, not against it._

Back to dogs - there is a tendency to anecdotally blame every health problem, which has ever even weakly been linked to altering, that an altered dog suffers on the fact that they're altered but these are not problems that only afflict altered dogs. Unless you're doing a real study with control groups saying "oh, my altered dog got such and such and would have lived many more years if only I hadn't altered him/her" is human and understandable but quite possibly totally untrue. Anyone who has been around enough dogs has seen plenty of leggy intact dogs or intact dogs with these kinds of cancer. The issue is whether or not altering, statistically and on a population level, has an overall positive or negative affect on lifespan. That's an interesting question but a far more complicated one. So far the evidence is that, even after you control for lifestyle (roaming etc) at least for female dogs and definitely for female cats spaying leads to better longevity. It's a more complicated questions for well-cared for male dogs but still far from a slam dunk against neutering. 

Conversely, unlike structural issues like HD or incontinence or cancers like osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma which all affect _both_ altered and unaltered animals, there are cancers like mammary cancer which really almost never affect early spayed dogs/cats. And there are plenty of folks (me included and others on this board) who have lost beloved pets to mammary cancer, even with prompt diagnosis and aggressive treatment. So the statement that it's localized and easily treated is misleading at best. 

The other point is that while spaying pretty much eliminates the risk of mammary cancer, leaving an animal intact _in no way_ eliminates the risk of osteosarcoma or hemangiosarcoma. Plenty of intact dogs get those. So the idea that you're somehow swapping one risk for another is wildly off base. You need to be comparing the percentage risk of each - how much does your risk of osteo/hemangio need to go down to make it worth sacrificing the elimination of a different kind of cancer? It's not trading one for the other. 

Finally, all our dogs will eventually die of something. My Golden Retriever was spayed at 6 months and died of osteosarcoma. Golden Retrievers are a very cancer-prone breed but Charlotte was 13 years old when she died. That's old for any big dog and quite old for a Golden. Did she get osteo because she was spayed young or would she have gotten it anyway? Did she die of osteosarcoma at age 13 because she DIDN'T die of mammary cancer at age 10? It's complicated and impossible to know on any case by case level. And so many things are correlational 

A study can show that x group of dogs is more likely to die of disease A than y group of dogs, but perhaps A disease is a disease of extreme old age and y group of dogs aren't living long enough to get it. You have to look carefully at what the studies really show and then you've got to apply that information to your personal pet. For example, osteosarcoma is a lot more common in large dogs and in certain breeds, so even if you believed that altering increased the risk, your cost/benefit analysis might be quite different for a Rottweiler than your Chihuahua.

We all want to make the best possible decisions for our pets and we want them to live as long and as healthy lives as possible. To that end, it seems to me the best approach is to look hard at the best studies and put that information in the overall context of longevity. The really important question isn't actually who gets what, it's which group lives longer and why? And then, how can we apply that information to our own situation.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

and the rest of the sentence was 



> In 1 large study43 of 1,842 dogs, there was an increased incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs spayed or castrated prior to 5 months of age; *however, it was not clear whether the diagnosis of hip dysplasia was confirmed by a veterinarian in all affected dogs.*


So basically, this article does not prove HD either way. What were the other factors involved? What were the breeds? The weight of the dog? Diet? Genetics? If the diagnosis was not confirmed then the study was not controlled so the study is not valid. 

I'm not doubting that it could be part of the problem but it's not the whole problem.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 224(3):380 - Abstract


This is what I'm talking about! You gotta read the whole article folks!

From the same abstract - here's there conclusion:
*Conclusions and Clinical Relevance*—Because early age gonadectomy *appears to offer more benefits than risks* for male dogs, animal shelters can safely gonadectomize male dogs at a young age and veterinary practitioners should consider recommending routine gonadectomy for client-owned male dogs before the traditional age of 6 to 8 months. For female dogs, however, increased urinary incontinence suggests that delaying gonadectomy until at least 3 months of age may be beneficial.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> and the rest of the sentence was
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did anyone say it *was* the whole problem?
Genetics play a factor in who develops lung cancer from smoking cigarettes.

I linked the study, although the initial post was fail. I edited with the repaired link.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

There are so many things wrong with the study quoted for the HD it's just crazy.



> PROCEDURE: Dogs underwent gonadectomy and were adopted from an animal shelter before 1 year of age; follow-up was available for as long as 11 years after surgery. Adopters completed a questionnaire about their dogs' behavior and medical history. When possible, the dogs' veterinary records were reviewed. Associations between the occurrence of 56 medical and behavioral conditions and dogs' age at gonadectomy were evaluated.



So, they have dogs with unknown genetics, unknow health histories, unknown diet and exercise. The only thing they knew about these dogs were they came from a shelter and were spayed/neutered before the age of 1. When possible the vet records were reviewed? The owners filled out questionaires? How accurate is that?



So, where is the CONTROL group?? You can not have a scientific study with valid results without one!\\


And the newest data is saying to NOT neuter dogs at a young age whereas this conclusion states the opposite.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

SchDDR said:


> Did anyone say it *was* the whole problem?


ummmm...yes.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

pupresq said:


> This is what I'm talking about! You gotta read the whole article folks!
> 
> From the same abstract - here's there conclusion:
> *Conclusions and Clinical Relevance*—Because early age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs, animal shelters can safely gonadectomize male dogs at a young age and veterinary practitioners should consider recommending routine gonadectomy for client-owned male dogs before the traditional age of 6 to 8 months. For female dogs, however, increased urinary incontinence suggests that delaying gonadectomy until at least 3 months of age may be beneficial.


Yes. Veterinarians who make money off of a surgical procedure concluded in their study that they feel that the risk of hip dysplasia is outweighed by the benefit to their pocket book. Nowhere in the study do they actually successfully demonstrate that the health benefits outweigh the risks. In fact, if you read the study point by point, they actually do the exact opposite, and then proceed to contradict themselves in the conclusion.

Read the study, they're recommending spaying and neutering dogs under 3 months of age [for males], because they feel that the multiple types of cancer, endocrine disorders, neurological disorders, structural disorders, etc etc etc are outweighed by the benefit of... wait... they never actually cite more than two clear benefits, one of which is preventing pregnancy, which is irrelevant to the health matter of the discussion. They readily admit the severe health repercussions of early spay and neuter, without demonstrating a clear benefit.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> ummmm...yes.


Then either, you've misunderstood the intent, or they were wrong.

*I*, certainly, am not alleging that Hip Dysplasia is caused solely by gonadectomy, any more than I would allege that lung cancer is caused solely by cigarette smoking.

Certain factors are beyond our control- namely, genetics.

However, others are within our control. Gonadectomy and diet happen to be two of them.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> Yes. Veterinarians who make money off of a surgical procedure concluded in their study that they feel that the risk of hip dysplasia is outweighed by the benefit to their pocket book. Nowhere in the study do they actually successfully demonstrate that the health benefits outweigh the risks. In fact, if you read the study point by point, they actually do the exact opposite, and then proceed to contradict themselves in the conclusion.
> 
> Read the study, they're recommending spaying and neutering dogs under 3 months of age [for males], because they feel that the multiple types of cancer, endocrine disorders, neurological disorders, structural disorders, etc etc etc are outweighed by the benefit of... wait... they never actually cite more than two clear benefits, one of which is preventing pregnancy, which is irrelevant to the health matter of the discussion.


Do you have a link to the whole study? Because I only saw the abstract and in the abstract that you posted, their conclusion was the the benefits outweigh the risk. They probably got into a bit more detail on their conclusions in the actual article. 

Also, I'm a bit confused - _you_ link to the research and you selectively quote one sentence that supports your position but you reject the rest of the research and the conclusions/analysis of the people that conducted it? Seems a big contradictory to believe them when they're saying what you want to hear and not when they're not.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

bunchoberrys said:


> We all are not monsters, we are not hoarders of testicles and ovaries "Selzer, that is a joke, don't get your panties in a 'bunch". We do actually care about animals and not the all mighty dollar.



As a side note . . . unaltered dogs see the vet too. The point is, veterinary staff are exposed to all kinds of dogs, of all ages, intact and altered. 

Just a little while ago we saw a 8 year old standard Poodle with testicular cancer. It was not caught soon enough, unfortunately the dog died. 
How often do people with intact dogs perform a manual check of the testes? How about PAP smears for their intact bitch?

It is scary how far along disease of the reproductive tract can progress before the owner notices.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

I cite where they state that spay/neuter increases HD risk, yes.
I don't reject any of the contents of the study, which is scientifically sound for this sort of study. I reject their CONCLUSION, which is a matter of opinion, not supported by their own evidence.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

shannonrae said:


> As a side note . . . unaltered dogs see the vet too. The point is, veterinary staff are exposed to all kinds of dogs, of all ages, intact and altered.
> 
> Just a little while ago we saw a 8 year old standard Poodle with testicular cancer. It was not caught soon enough, unfortunately the dog died.
> How often do people with intact dogs perform a manual check of the testes? How about PAP smears for their intact bitch?
> ...


The individual vet does not conduct this study.
The large overarching entity does. The large, overarching entity that is subject to political and financial pressure.

It's happens in the food and human pharmaceutical industries- are you really so surprised that the same realities are present in the Veterinary industry?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Just curious, because I've agreed with just about everything you've posted regarding diet and this topic...but do you have to argue with everything? Even when there isn't an argument? I didn't say you alleged anything. In fact, other than to say I didn't think the study was valid due to the procedure used to create the study, I didn't say much of anything to you. So perhaps you've misunderstood the intent because I am saying basically the same thing as you so why are you arguing with me?





SchDDR said:


> Then either, you've misunderstood the intent, or they were wrong.
> 
> *I*, certainly, am not alleging that Hip Dysplasia is caused solely by gonadectomy, any more than I would allege that lung cancer is caused solely by cigarette smoking.
> 
> ...


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

I had the link, and lost it. I'm looking for it again, but my power keeps going out and taking the router with it.

I'll eventually find it again.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> Just curious, because I've agreed with just about everything you've posted regarding diet and this topic...but do you have to argue with everything? Even when there isn't an argument? I didn't say you alleged anything. In fact, other than to say I didn't think the study was valid due to the procedure used to create the study, I didn't say much of anything to you. So perhaps you've misunderstood the intent because I am saying basically the same thing as you so why are you arguing with me?


Not really. I wasn't paying close enough attention, and didn't realize who I was replying to.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't think spaying or neutering, or not is the whole problem at all. No we can not control these statistics as we do in a lab setting and have to account for things out of our control...a standard deviation is probably the best we can get. However, these statistics do show higher rates of certain cancers and other health concerns we have to think about. I can't say my dogs lived as long as they did simply because I never neutered them- I think it contributed, but obviously environment, genetics, diet, and exercise play a role in that as well. 

I can say that the sex hormones play a huge role in our development and function as well as that of other mammals especially when looking at the endocrine systems that affect every organ in our bodies. While it may be impossible to determine exactly how much time is added to our beloved pet's lives by keeping them intact I find it odd anyone could argue that depriving an animal of something as essential as their hormones which are responsible for delivering important messages throughout their bodies is a good thing.

These articles of course were based on actual studies which we have already admitted are going to be flawed from lack of a control population, but why is it every study concluded the same things? The sex hormones play a role in reducing....not eliminating certain cancers. No one here has said it is a cure for cancer- just a deterrent. There are also studies on cardiovascular and joint health that directly correlate to a dogs sex hormones and in humans this relationship has been well studied. Osteoporosis in aging women and a higher rate of heart disease in men with low testosterone levels are just a few examples.


----------



## shannonrae (Sep 9, 2010)

It is just an observation. I have seen a few dogs with disease of the reproductive tract. It is usually caught late. In all cases I have seen, the dogs die soon after diagnosis (with the exception of pyo). 


Another side note, both my Mother and my Grandmother have had ovariohysterectomies, neither take hormone replacement.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Zoeys mom said:


> I can say that the sex hormones play a huge role in our development and function as well as that of other mammals especially when looking at the endocrine systems that affect every organ in our bodies. While it may be impossible to determine exactly how much time is added to our beloved pet's lives by keeping them intact I find it odd anyone could argue that depriving an animal of something as essential as their hormones which are responsible for delivering important messages throughout their bodies is a good thing.
> 
> These articles of course were based on actual studies which we have already admitted are going to be flawed from lack of a control population, but why is it every study concluded the same things? The sex hormones play a role in reducing....not eliminating certain cancers. No one here has said it is a cure for cancer- just a deterrent. There are also studies on cardiovascular and joint health that directly correlate to a dogs sex hormones and in humans this relationship has been well studied. Osteoporosis in aging women and a higher rate of heart disease in men with low testosterone levels are just a few examples.


But sex hormones AREN'T a deterrent for cancer. Go back and look at the studies. Hormone replacement therapy in women leads to higher, not lower, rates of reproductive cancers. Testosterone in men can lead to all sorts of health problems. All of these things involve trade offs. 

As far as the veterinary stuff - When you read those articles you are relying not only on a study that may or may not have some flaws (like the questionnaire one) but also someone's _interpretation_ of that study - and that person may have an agenda or be misunderstanding something. You are getting second hand (or in the case of the OP article third hand) analysis.

People are taking it as some sort of article of faith that intact dogs live longer. They don't.


----------



## Dogaroo (Mar 4, 2003)

Gunnar was spayed early (at almost 4 months old) to stop a stubborn case of demodectic mange. It wasn't responding to treatment at all, and was threatening to generalize. I lost him to osteosarcoma nearly thirteen years later. (Well, I guess he WAS an "elderly" dog by that time....) He was a bit "effeminate" in some ways. He did finally learn to lift his leg to pee when he was about four years old (his sister taught him) but he went back to squatting a few weeks later after he accidentally whizzed on an electric fence.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

pupresq said:


> *But sex hormones AREN'T a deterrent for cancer. Go back and look at the studies. Hormone replacement therapy in women leads to higher, not lower, rates of reproductive cancers.* Testosterone in men can lead to all sorts of health problems. All of these things involve trade offs.


I actually just had this discussion with my sister who has worked as a nurse for an OB for many years. It's not as simple as the HRT causing problems. It's the specific hormone. Increased estrogen is causing cancer, not increased progesterone. I believe there might be something to do with the ratios of the hormones in your body but we didn't get that in depth.

I, personally, believe that there is a trade off. Yes, spaying decreases the chances of mammary cancer but what does it increase? I haven't read any perks to neutering yet other than population control.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

The only significant risk of testosterone therapy is liver damage. I say this as someone who is on HRT [and needs to take his testosterone shot tonight, as a matter of fact.]
The remaining risks are associated with testosterone in general, whether through HRT or through natural production. The problem with synthetic hormone therapy is an inability to perfectly mimic the natural production and levels of those hormones, which vary for each individual.

Do I think intact dogs live longer by virtue of being intact? Probably not.
Do I think that spay/neuter has health consequences? Absolutely. You cannot remove an animal's ability to produce necessary hormones and expect not to see health repercussions.

While I cannot for the life of me find the full article now, the studies that cite benefits outweighing the risks are referring to unplanned breedings, and roaming/fighting behaviors associated with sexual behavior leading to injuries and deaths.

While certain health risks are reduced by spay/neuter, as many or more are created. At best, it's an even break. When Vets argue the benefits outweighing the risk, they aren't restricting themselves solely to medical benefits, which is the topic of this thread.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

pupresq said:


> As far as the veterinary stuff - When you read those articles you are relying not only on a study that may or may not have some flaws (like the questionnaire one) but also someone's _interpretation_ of that study - and that person may have an agenda or be misunderstanding something. You are getting second hand (or in the case of the OP article third hand) analysis.


This should be repeated! Again and again and again....


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Jax08 said:


> I actually just had this discussion with my sister who has worked as a nurse for an OB for many years. It's not as simple as the HRT causing problems. It's the specific hormone. Increased estrogen is causing cancer, not increased progesterone. I believe there might be something to do with the ratios of the hormones in your body but we didn't get that in depth.
> 
> I, personally, believe that there is a trade off. Yes, spaying decreases the chances of mammary cancer but what does it increase? I haven't read any perks to neutering yet other than population control.


No, you're absolutely right - it seems to be quite a complicated interaction with different ratios having different effects and different implications for different kinds of cancer. My main point was simply that sex hormones don't decrease cancer risk in any kind of general way the way one of the other posters was saying. 

I agree with you on the other as well. To me there are clear and obvious health benefits to spaying. Most of the benefits I've observed with neutering are behavioral. But since I haven't observed or seen compelling evidence of much cost, for most owners it still seems to be worth doing.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

It's all about ratio's and balances, isn't it?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> Do I think intact dogs live longer by virtue of being intact? Probably not.
> Do I think that spay/neuter has health consequences? Absolutely. You cannot remove an animal's ability to produce necessary hormones and expect not to see health repercussions.


If by "repercussions" you mean effects, then I'm inclined to agree with you. There do seem to be some physiological effects of the removal of those organs and consequent hormones. I guess the issue is whether or not those effects are detrimental. I'm not seeing good scientific evidence that they are. People have this kind of Panglossian attitude about everything like "if it weren't important we wouldn't have it" but the "importance" may only be for reproduction. Which, clearly, is of huge importance to a species. Animals aren't designed or evolved to maximize longevity, they're evolved to maximize reproductive success. Therefore, there's no evolutionary problem whatsoever with a trait that improves reproduction at the expense of longevity. There are all sorts of examples in the animal world of reproductive characteristics that shorten the lifespan of the individual - but if they improve his/her reproductive success then they're going to be favored by natural selection. 

No question, removing a dogs gonads is going to hamper his/her reproductive success, but there's no scientific reason to conclude a priori that it will necessarily hamper longevity or health. 

I have yet to see any scientific evidence that intact dogs live longer or are healthier during their lifespan. And for me as a pet owner, longevity and health are the only things that matter.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

No, their sole purpose isn't reproduction.
If that were the case, we wouldn't see different health outcomes in women who've had hysterectomy vs post-menopausal women. And we do. Why? Because the ability to produce key hormones, even beyond the age of fertility, is an important factor in health.

Testosterone doesn't just play a role in reproduction- it plays a role in bone density, muscle development and maintenance. Estrogen is necessary for protein synthesis, affects blood coagulation and food digestion. These hormones have key uses within the body unrelated to reproduction. 

How much of a health impact spay/neuter has is certainly debatable, but the role of sex hormones for biological processes unrelated to reproduction is not.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes the endocrine system is our bodies most important messenger 2nd only to the nervous system and goes far beyond reproduction. Do a study on androgens for example. Reproductive cancers when caught early are treatable- remove the prostate, ovaries, and uterus and often if the cancer has not spread it is cured. What is the cure for hemangio or osteo sarcoma's? Oh yeah there is no reliable cure I think this is just a silly debate- the biology of the endocrine system is well known and all the information is out there. Sure studies and articles have biases but it is still a well known fact smoking and obesity are counterproductive to our health right? Sure some smokers and those who are obese live to old age just like many altered animals live to be and gray, but it doesn't make it healthier- just a better way to control population


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am not a doctor and I am not a vet. I have read studies but I have not gone through all the studies listed hear, not enough time today. 

If speutering before the growth plates close causes the long bones to grow longer than they otherwise would have grown, even if it is only 1/2 inch -- not sure where I got that figure and do not necessarily agree with it, but even so, might that cause the long bones to fit in the sockets differently than they would have if we left nature to run its course?

Any time a dog is put under anesthetic, it is dangerous, not only to the dog's life right then or there, but a period of reduced oxygen to the brain COULD cause seizures down the line. By speutering a dog to prevent a possible health risk, and at the same time increasing other health risks, it is not a good sell, really. If I lose a dog trying to prevent a possible illness (and I have) that is really a hard pill to swallow. 

My dogs do not go under to get their toe nails clipped. They do not go under to nick their nads. I will keep them intact, and let them mature. If they live to ten or to twelve I will be happy. If they live beyond that, it is a bonus. 

I guess I would rather lose a dog for not doing a procedure to prevent a possible problem, than to lose a dog because I did something to try to prevent something. Kind of like I would rather lose a dog without interfering with their system, than losing a dog because I tried to bend nature to my will. That is not to say I would not euthanize a dog that is suffering. I just do not want to change the way the system works together in order to try an prevent a possible problem.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> No, their sole purpose isn't reproduction.
> 
> How much of a health impact spay/neuter has is certainly debatable, but the role of sex hormones for biological processes unrelated to reproduction is not.


You misunderstand me. My point is not that sex hormones have no other effect or impact, it's that removing them is necessarily detrimental. People seem to have this idea that we are designed towards optimum longevity and health. We're not. We're designed towards optimum reproductive success - within the constraints of whatever biological and genetic material natural selection has to work with. 

But I don't care about my dog's reproductive success, I just want her to live as long as possible and be as healthy as possible. 

Intuition about the importance of hormones is not the same thing as science. A lot of what seems most logical to people about biological processes is absolutely dead wrong.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Zoeys mom said:


> Yes the endocrine system is our bodies most important messenger 2nd only to the nervous system and goes far beyond reproduction. Do a study on androgens for example. Reproductive cancers when caught early are treatable- remove the prostate, ovaries, and uterus and often if the cancer has not spread it is cured. What is the cure for hemangio or osteo sarcoma's? Oh yeah there is no reliable cure I think this is just a silly debate- the biology of the endocrine system is well known and all the information is out there.


Do you understand that lots and lots of intact dogs get hemangio and osteosarcoma and that not altering your dog doesn't prevent those types of cancer? Because you keep talking about this like it's some sort of one to one trade - reproductive cancers exchanged for these and that's not at all how it works. 



> Sure studies and articles have biases but it is still a well known fact smoking and obesity are counterproductive to our health right? Sure some smokers and those who are obese live to old age just like many altered animals live to be and gray, but it doesn't make it healthier- just a better way to control population


Right! One anecdote doesn't prove anything, there could be a few outliers. The reason it's a well-known fact that smoking and obesity are bad for health is that large scale scientific studies have demonstrated that they are. _Statistically,_ doing those things is going to reduce longevity.

So show me the evidence statistically that altering a dog reduces longevity.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

selzer said:


> I guess I would rather lose a dog for not doing a procedure to prevent a possible problem, than to lose a dog because I did something to try to prevent something. Kind of like I would rather lose a dog without interfering with their system, than losing a dog because I tried to bend nature to my will. That is not to say I would not euthanize a dog that is suffering. I just do not want to change the way the system works together in order to try an prevent a possible problem.


And that to me seems like an entirely reasonable rational; it's a philosophical perspective that you are using to guide your decision. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Do you really think men and women who no longer have reproductive organs are taking hormones for reproductive purposes? They're taking them because they are a physical necessity.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> Do you really think men and women who no longer have reproductive organs are taking hormones for reproductive purposes? They're taking them because they are a physical necessity.


Many of them are taking them for reasons that have nothing to do with longevity or health - they're taking them to get back their sex drive/function, to feel the way they used to, to restore (or eliminate) secondary sexual characteristics etc. Those are behavioral and cosmetic factors that don't apply to our dogs. In terms of the health benefits to hormone replacement in humans, they aren't things that affect dogs (heart disease, osteoporosis etc). 

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that dogs need hormone replacement therapy to avoid heart disease or osteoporosis.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Plus we don't really know what would happen if we were pediatric speutered as people and kept in a biosphere with optimum nutrition and activity and no sunburns. We could have a very weird group of perpetually playful, pale, nonparental, uber seniors! Or not. But we will never know...

Instead we have the Jersey Shore...


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Exploring mechanisms of sex differences in longevity: lifetime ovary exposure and exceptional longevity in dogs - Waters - 2009 - Aging Cell - Wiley Online Library



> Sex and lifetime ovary exposure in the oldest-old Rottweilers (age at death, ≥ 13 years) were compared to a cohort of Rottweilers that had usual longevity (age at death, 8.0–10.8 years). Like women, female dogs were more likely than males to achieve exceptional longevity (OR, 95% CI = 2.0, 1.2–3.3; _P _= 0.006). However, removal of ovaries during the first 4 years of life erased the female survival advantage. In females, a strong positive association between ovaries and longevity persisted in multivariate analysis that considered other factors, such as height, body weight, and mother with exceptional longevity. A beneficial effect of ovaries on longevity in females could not be attributed to resistance against a particular disease or major cause of death.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> From what I can tell in this article Dr. Villalobos is questioning, not stating anything?
> 
> Sadly, we are fighting the inevitable. Go in the saddest section of the board - spayed, not, neutered, not, we all lose our friends. Yes we want to keep them as long, as healthy, and as pain free as possible.
> 
> ...


Oh ok, I just assumed most were. I am kind of on the fence too about it.

I have seen dogs who were altered at 6 months and matured just fine. My previous dogs, Sheltie mixes were altered at 6 months and they grew to the appropriate size and lived to the appropriate age.

Until I see real definite proof that my dog is in complete danger because he/she altered then will I consider leaving them intact. Otherwise, I will continue to spay an neuter my pets.


----------



## Myamom (Oct 10, 2005)

My unspayed hospice foster's prior owners didn't catch her mammary cancer....and now...at 8 she is dying of a horrible disease. I won't even post the pictures...too upsetting. Just wanted to put that out there...don't want to minimalize mammary cancer.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> Exploring mechanisms of sex differences in longevity: lifetime ovary exposure and exceptional longevity in dogs - Waters - 2009 - Aging Cell - Wiley Online Library


Yes, I've read the Rottweiler study. Have you? Because in it, you'll see some methodological problems of the same sort mentioned previously in this thread. You'll also note that it applies exclusively to Rottweilers, a breed selected for the study (which was actually about trying to find a model for human bone cancer) because of their high rate of osteosarcoma. 

I read it precisely because it is one of the very few that actually tries to address the question of longevity. However, the conclusion that altering equals osteosarcoma and non altering equals no osteo and a longer life is not what it says.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Yes, it's another cohort study, and thus likely flawed.
As you say, it's one of the few studies that actually tries to address the issue- and that's just the point. There aren't any good studies one way or the other.
The studies that appear to evidence altered dogs living longer are not controlling for dogs dying as a result of being permitted to roam in response to reproductive urges, which is an owner failure, not a health risk.

We have no significantly conclusive evidence one way or the other.

As far as I'm concerned, the burden is on the party advocating invasive, potentially life-threatening surgery [as all general anesthesia operations are] to prove a significant benefit that cannot be obtained through non-surgical means. 

Now. Please understand my position. I typically recommend to most people I know, that they spay/neuter their animal.
Why? I have little faith in the *average* dog owner's ability to contain their pet.
I suggest that they wait until after the first heat if possible for bitches, and until at least a year for males. 

Do I alter my animals?
The cats are, yes. They are the product of a Trap/Neuter/Release program my partner ran for many years, and ALL of the cats were fixed.
The one sitting on my bed was spayed slightly older than most trapped kittens, as she had distemper and wasn't healthy enough until she was several months old. Most kittens were fixed around 6 weeks of age. The adults were fixed whenever they could be starved into a cage.

The dogs? No.
They were not obtained through a feral animal program. I contain my animals at all times. They do not leave my sight in the yard, and when a bitch is in heat, she does not leave the house without myself or my partner at the other end of a leash.
Do I trust the average pet owner to take those precautions? Nope.

Do I think that someone who can and does take those precautions should keep their animal intact? Yep. I've yet to see any compelling evidence that doing otherwise has any health benefit for the animal, and what little information you can find that appears unbiased indicates that the health risks outweigh any health benefits, and the majority of benefits to the animal are actually related to the responsibility of the owner, not the healthiness of the procedure.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> Oh ok, I just assumed most were. I am kind of on the fence too about it.
> 
> I have seen dogs who were altered at 6 months and matured just fine. My previous dogs, Sheltie mixes were altered at 6 months and they grew to the appropriate size and lived to the appropriate age.
> 
> Until I see real definite proof that my dog is in complete danger because he/she altered then will I consider leaving them intact. Otherwise, I will continue to spay an neuter my pets.


Yeah, I didn't mean to be so short!

I just wanted to say that even here, on this board, there are still some of us who will do this with our own dogs. We often don't say anything (this is the first thread of this kind I've posted on in a long time) but we are here. 

And many of us have read the articles, studies, and the references of the studies. Which is why it is so hard NOT to post when some of these things are not saying what it is thought they are saying.

AND - always looking for good articles, studies, etc - instead of either way overdoing it.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> The studies that appear to evidence altered dogs living longer are not controlling for dogs dying as a result of being permitted to roam in response to reproductive urges, which is an owner failure, not a health risk.


Agreed - well, in as much as the decisions we make for our own pets. 

I think that statistic is still worth noting when it comes to making recommendations to unknown people on the board because they might end up with dogs who escape/roam and die as a result. Not that anyone should skew the science on health, I think we just need to be careful how we offer advice because it might really be that their dog would be safer if altered. 

In terms of the health question, their dog might be safer altered too but there doesn't seem to be good science to address that question one way or the other and most of us are left with anecdotal evidence and trying to make the best decisions we can.


----------



## SchDDR (Dec 29, 2010)

Oh, I agree.
If you search through my recent posts, you'll find that I recommended a member alter their dog just yesterday.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

SchDDR said:


> I've yet to see any compelling evidence that doing otherwise has any health benefit for the animal, and what little information you can find that appears unbiased indicates that the health risks outweigh any health benefits, and the majority of benefits to the animal are actually related to the responsibility of the owner, not the healthiness of the procedure.


I had sort of the opposite reaction because to me the scientific evidence, at least for spaying, is quite compelling and it checks with my personal experience working at a vet clinic and seeing thousands of dogs come through rescue. I see many many long lived altered animals, and a lot of mammary cancer in intact ones. So for me, it makes sense to spay for health and longevity until someone shows me good evidence that doing so actually reduces health/longevity. I'm always open to new information and I read all the studies that come my way pretty carefully. 

My concern, and the reason I was dragged out of retirement, is when people rely on second and third hand information to make potentially life and death decisions for their dogs - especially if they do so without realizing it. So many non-scientists don't understand the difference between an article and study or an overview and an op ed. People don't read the original data and are easily swayed by random opinions on the internet. They're not taking the time to go back to the source material and evaluate it critically or they're relying on intuition that runs counter to actual fact.

I think we all of us want to make the best decisions we can and if someone reviews all the evidence and comes to a different conclusion than I have, well, that's certainly their prerogative. Or if they have a fundamentally different philosophical position, as Selzer does, then I can respect that too.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> One factor alone, such as neutering, will not cause hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia is a multi-facet disease that is at least partly heriditary. There is no evidence, or any indication, that early spay/neuter causes hip dysplasia. If you know of a study then I would love to read the source.


There is no evidence that early s/n does NOT though either. There are larger incidences of it in those that were, that doesn't sound strange to you? We don't know that only one factor (such as s/n) can't cause HD. It's just too hard to have a controlled experiment to test it.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

DJEtzel said:


> There is no evidence that early s/n does NOT though either. There are larger incidences of it in those that were, that doesn't sound strange to you?


No, not given the way they did that study. It doesn't surprise me a bit. Look at this way, suppose you sent out a survey to bunch of pet owners and asked them what their dog died of. Some subset of those people are going to say cancer. But that doesn't necessarily mean that anything they were doing was more likely to cause their dogs to get cancer. It might actually be that those were the people who were better pet owners, more likely to take their dogs to the vet, where they were _diagnosed_ with cancer. The other people's dogs might have had cancer too, they just didn't know it. Or they might have died because they got hit by cars long before they could ever get cancer. Correlation does not imply causation. 

It's not a good methodology precisely because owner report doesn't control for those sorts of variables.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

DJEtzel said:


> We don't know that only one factor (such as s/n) can't cause HD. It's just too hard to have a controlled experiment to test it.


Well, we do know that intact dogs often have HD and we know that early altered dogs often do not. Not occasionally - often, in both cases. So we can at least be pretty assured that early s/n is not a primary factor in the development of HD and we know that it doesn't in and of itself cause HD. Whether it's an exacerbating factor in a dog with a genetic predisposition or not isn't so clear but at the moment there's not much good evidence that the two are associated in any causative way.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have a question though. 

Most people DO NOT x-ray dogs that are not having an issue. 

So, unless the animal is intact and intended for breeding, there would be NO reason to x-ray a healthy dog, neutered or not. 

We KNOW that dogs can be dysplastic with no signs of dysplasia. 

So isn't this however you manage to tally the data, a train wreck?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

selzer said:


> I have a question though.
> 
> Most people DO NOT x-ray dogs that are not having an issue.
> 
> ...


Yup. Showing that HD has a correlation to early spay/neuter would be virtually impossible considering all the other factors involved. We have genetics, early diet with the proper balance of calcium/phosphorus, I've read studies that vitamin c could play a large role in preventing it. There are just so many unknown variables that to state that early spay/neuter causes HD is just not proven. 

If they started with a line of dogs, of several different breeds, that genetically did not have a large occurrence of HD, fed them from puppies the proper diet and gave them supplements then they would have an idea of the true correlation between HD and early speuter. Way to many unanswered questions especially when the basis for the study were shelter dogs with questionable everything.

Mine was spayed at about 6 months. X-rayed last summer because she was bunny hopping. One vet said mild HD, the other vet said OFA Fair, so the diagnosis is subjective to begin with. Adjusted her back with chiropractic treatment and she was just about perfect. So is the possible HD causing back problems? Or is the back being out causing hip problems? Who knows....


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

SchDDR said:


> Ultimately, however, if you don't *have* to alter your animal, that choice is in their best medical interest.


i have yet to find compelling evidence that not spaying my dog is absolutely in her best medical interest. the incidence of mammary cancer and the % of those cancers that are malignant is something to consider as well. i understand the physiology as it relates to female humans. that doesnt necessarily mean it translates to female dogs.

i would like to see more studies on females being less muscled due to spay at 6 months vs later. many of the most well muscled, agile females ive ever seen were earlly spayes.....im not saying they were well muscled because of early spay, just that it didnt prevent them from being well muscled. i suspect diet, exercise, and genetics were the primary factors regardless of early spay or not.

as far as them being "leggy" because of early spay, the only well done study i have found confirmed this...they are leggier by a small fraction of one centimeter (and even that conclusion was questionable), which i have trouble believing anybody would even notice.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I agree that nobody would probably notice, but how can we say that the bones would fit into the joints the way they were intended if they did not grow they way they should have?


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

selzer said:


> I agree that nobody would probably notice, but how can we say that the bones would fit into the joints the way they were intended if they did not grow they way they should have?


iive just never seen any evidence connecting significant skeletal growth problems with early spay.

kimba scored in the 99th percentile for all scored GSD's on her Penn Hip evaluation and she was spayed at 6 months, though im sure that had mostly to due with genetics.

i honestly dont care if people spay/neuter or not, as long as the only breeding going on is done by responsible professional breeders.

now, if we could spay or neuter all the dopes that dump dogs at the shelters, we would be on to something.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

selzer said:


> Most people DO NOT x-ray dogs that are not having an issue.
> 
> So, unless the animal is intact and intended for breeding, there would be NO reason to x-ray a healthy dog, neutered or not.


At one point or another I have x-rayed the hips of all of my dogs and all of them are altered, so I would disagree that breeding is the only reason anyone would check out asymtomatic hips. I also often x-ray rescue Shepherds or other HD prone breeds at the same time they're altered, just to get an idea of what's going on in there, and give myself some idea of what kind of activity level and home is appropriate. The study didn't just look at Penn-Hip or OFA ratings, which I'd agree are mostly used by people thinking of breeding, they counted any dog whose owner said they had HD. 

So they're going to count a lot of dogs who are symptomatic and were x-rayed because of that. Hip x-rays are a very normal and standard thing to do if you've got a dog who is acting painful back there. I'd bet you money that a lot of the same people who would pay for those diagnostics also altered their pets, whereas a huge percentage of the unaltered dogs in the study are owned by people who just wouldn't bother. I'm not saying everyone with an unaltered pet is an irresponsible owner, I'm just saying that statistically - people who don't want to spend the money on altering aren't likely to spend it on x-rays or a trip to the vet either. 

I mean, some of the rural counties I work with here would probably report a next to zero rate of HD or cancer either one and almost none of the pets are altered, whereas I bet you'd find much higher reported rates of those problems in an affluent more urban area where more of the pets are altered. Does that mean that altering caused the cancer and HD? Of course not! You're not accounting for the difference in diagnostics and who is reporting what. Correlation but NOT causation.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

selzer said:


> I agree that nobody would probably notice, but how can we say that the bones would fit into the joints the way they were intended if they did not grow they way they should have?


Yeah, but what's is "should" in this case anyway? I mean, dogs are so artificially selected that it's not like you're looking at any kind of natural evolutionary hip anyway. For all we know, altering makes them fit better. I don't actually think it does, I'm just saying there's not much of a "natural" when it comes to dog skeletal anatomy.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

roxy84 said:


> iive just never seen any evidence connecting significant skeletal growth problems with early spay.
> 
> kimba scored in the 99th percentile for all scored GSD's on her Penn Hip evaluation and she was spayed at 6 months, though im sure that had mostly to due with genetics.


Yeah, Grace was spayed at 4-5 months (before I got her) and is now almost 11 and we found out recently that her hips are spectacular. She had extensive x-rays and MRIs done for a ruptured disc so they looked at her hips in the course of that. The ortho guys at the vet hospital were calling other people in to come see her hip rads because they couldn't believe they came from a senior GSD. 

Leo, in contrast, I had x-rayed at the time of his neuter at 8 months (because I was considering training him in SAR) and he had bilateral HD. We did double TPO surgeries and he's now almost 7 years old and asymtomatic, but in neither of my dogs' cases did alteration play a role, or at least not a negative one. 



> i honestly dont care if people spay/neuter or not, as long as the only breeding going on is done by responsible professional breeders.


Honestly me either - if the only breeding were being done by truly reputable breeders. However I see way too many oops litters and poor breeding to think that's realistic. And the thing I _do_ care about is people making informed decisions based on facts. I get all het up in these threads because I see people misreading or not reading studies, relying on 2nd and 3rd hand info that has lost important content at each iteration, and using intuition and analogies that don't apply to dogs or aren't born out by facts. I don't think it's an entirely clear cut issue and I think you can do all the research and come to different conclusions - especially with different philosophical viewpoints to start with, I just hate seeing people base important decisions on misinformation and misinformation has a way of spreading like wildfire on the Internet.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

pupresq, you are not normal. Not a dig. Just saying. People on this site are not the average pet owner. They are people who have researched the breed and have looked into possible health concerns, etc, etc, etc.

One more than half of my dogs are x-rayed. All are intact. So I did not bother to speuter but did bother to x-ray. The reason the rest are not x-rayed is because three of them are under two and the other two just turned two. And not all of these dogs will be used for breeding, but it is good information to have. 

Also, people who want to do strenuous sports or train the dog for SAR or police work will probably x-ray, even if they do not speuter. But it is not the norm. 

Most people will just leave well enough alone unless there is a problem.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

People such as our vet or other dog owners(thats are knowledgeable) have always commented on Molly having good healthy strong hips. Never had her x-rayed. I might talk to my parents about getting both dogs checked.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> People such as our vet or other dog owners(thats are knowledgeable) have always commented on Molly having good healthy strong hips. Never had her x-rayed. I might talk to my parents about getting both dogs checked.


There's no way that they could form such an opinion without x-rays. If my vet was telling me my dog had good hips without x-raying, I'd be finding a new vet asap! Definitely no way a dog owner could tell.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

selzer said:


> pupresq, you are not normal. Not a dig. Just saying. People on this site are not the average pet owner. They are people who have researched the breed and have looked into possible health concerns, etc, etc, etc.


:silly: LOL. No, I know. I'm not saying everyone randomly x-rays their asymtomatic dogs, although a certain subset of people do, now that there are HD treatment options that depend on early (pre-symptomatic) intervention.


> Most people will just leave well enough alone unless there is a problem.


Agreed! But when there IS a problem, any responsible pet owner is going to get it checked out, and part of that check is likely to be hip x-rays. So when you ask people "does your dog have HD?" the more responsible pet owners are going to be more likely to answer yes (if their dog does) whereas the less responsible pet owners are not going to have any idea. And I'm guessing the first group is statistically more likely to have altered dogs than the latter. 

I think in the same way that I'm not normal, you're not either :toasting: You don't alter your pets and are a very responsible pet owner, but a HUGE majority of unaltered pets aren't owned by people like you, they're owned by people who simply don't bother or can't afford it or don't care or all of the above. 

So statistically, I think knowing your dog has HD or that it died of a certain type of cancer is likely to be correlated with having an altered pet and not having the faintest idea if your dog has HD (or even what HD is) or having your dog die of something preventable long before it ever got a chance to develop HD or cancer is correlated with having an unaltered pet. Neither state causes the other, they're just statistically correlated. And that's what the study didn't control for. 

Said another way - the study didn't look at the relative incidence of all those problems in relation to whether or not a dog was altered and when, they looked at _the beliefs_ of the owners in relation to whether the dog was altered or not, and that's a BIG difference. It doesn't tell us a darn thing about what those dogs actually had going on and therefore can't tell us anything useful about whether altering is related to any of those problems.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> There's no way that they could form such an opinion without x-rays. If my vet was telling me my dog had good hips without x-raying, I'd be finding a new vet asap! Definitely no way a dog owner could tell.


They were just saying that she nice looking hips because alot of the GSDs around here are very angulated, and walk funny. They were mostly surprised and complimented how she had very little angulation. This wasn't the vets final opinion, he even suggested we get hips done anyways. By reading other people's issues with HD on their dogs, she has no issues, but doesn't mean she doesn't.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> They were just saying that she nice looking hips because alot of the GSDs around here are very angulated, and walk funny. They were mostly surprised and complimented how she had very little angulation. This wasn't the vets final opinion, he even suggested we get hips done anyways. By reading other people's issues with HD on their dogs, she has no issues, but doesn't mean she doesn't.


Uh, angulation does NOT equal bad hips...  You can have a straight backed GSD or a slope-backed GSD with GREAT hips or crappy hips.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> Uh, angulation does NOT equal bad hips...  You can have a straight backed GSD or a slope-backed GSD with GREAT hips or crappy hips.


I know. They were just commenting on that, and they just said they looked nicer that most they have seen. But that doesn't mean they are perfect.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

Jessiewessie99 said:


> I know. They were just commenting on that, and they just said they looked nicer that most they have seen. But that doesn't mean they are perfect.


Then what's your point? That entire blurb meant nothing. Just because they like the appeal of her straight back doesn't mean she's healthy. It has no merit at all.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

let it go, DJ....


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Yes, let it go. The vet could be talking about general structure, inclusive of the hips.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

She just said that the vet and people like how her dog looks. I don't understand how that had anything to do with this thread. Does anyone else?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Does it really matter? If Jessie wants to say something, she has the right to do so. Doesn't seem to be important enough to make a federal case over or to go out of your way to try to make her feel stupid.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

DJ - stop trying to start a pile on of someone - are you the thread police? Is every comment in every thread pertinent? No. Let it go. And don't keep pushing.


----------



## DJEtzel (Feb 11, 2010)

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to start a pile on of anything OR be the police of anything, I just don't understand her point or why I'm being jumped on.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

DJEtzel said:


> Then what's your point? That entire blurb meant nothing. Just because they like the appeal of her straight back doesn't mean she's healthy. It has no merit at all.


Seriously let it go. Jean said what I meant, overall structure she looked good compare to other GSDs they have seen.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that Jessie kind of punctuated the point that people are not necessarily going to check hips if there is not an apparent problem with them. 

That got started because we were talking about studies and I was wondering how we could ever prove or disprove that speutering can affect hip dysplasia, since by and far the good hips will be dogs intended for breeding, since MOST people will not bother to x-ray unless they intend to breed. There are other subsets of people that will check hips just 'cause, people doing SAR, and police work, serious schutzhund or agility competitors, and another subset that might want to deal with a problem early with surgery if it exists. 

I think A LOT of these dogs will come from lines that are good hip producers. Dogs selected for a purpose usually are selected with many factors taken into consideration, stacking the deck so to speak in their favor. So chances are, the dogs with no symptoms that are checked for HD will be mostly those dogs that are chosen with greater research and diligence.

Anyhow. I am wondering if we are going a bit off on a tangent with all the stuff about HD. But it kind of fits as does Jessie's post.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

selzer said:


> I think that Jessie kind of punctuated the point that people are not necessarily going to check hips if there is not an apparent problem with them.
> 
> That got started because we were talking about studies and I was wondering how we could ever prove or disprove that speutering can affect hip dysplasia, since by and far the good hips will be dogs intended for breeding, since MOST people will not bother to x-ray unless they intend to breed. There are other subsets of people that will check hips just 'cause, people doing SAR, and police work, serious schutzhund or agility competitors, and another subset that might want to deal with a problem early with surgery if it exists.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is alot of what I was saying, just better.You and Jean said it better.

Also the vet did suggest getting her x-rayed because she is a GSD which is prone to have HD. But since we aren't breeding, showing, SAR, etc we have no need to get her x-rayed. Never said she didn't have HD, but we have no need, or has Molly showed any physical signs of having HD, but we do keep an out for anything as she gets older.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

selzer said:


> I think A LOT of these dogs will come from lines that are good hip producers. Dogs selected for a purpose usually are selected with many factors taken into consideration, stacking the deck so to speak in their favor. So chances are, the dogs with no symptoms that are checked for HD will be mostly those dogs that are chosen with greater research and diligence.


That's the point. If you look only at PennHip scores or OFA ratings you run the risk of under-sampling HD because you're probably more likely to be getting dogs who have been bred by people who care about HD. Conversely, if you just survey random dog adopters from some shelter (which is what the study in this thread did) and ask them "is your dog altered?" "does your dog have HD (or whatever other list of problems)?" you're going to over-sample HD in association with other types of vetting - like altering because you're going to miss it in all the dogs who might have HD but were owned by people who never got it checked out - the same people who are less likely to alter them. 

So in both cases you're going to see associations that aren't reflective of ACTUAL HD percentages in the population. 

What you need is a more random selection of dogs, some altered and some not, but similar _in all other respects_ (diet etc.) which are then all uniformly sampled for HD (via one consistent objective standard).


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Early Dog Spaying and Neutering Effects


----------

