# Fix 3-year-old male GSD?



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

I am interested in any arguments for or against fixing him.

I have heard things like "he will be less aggressive" but I haven't seen any studies to support this. If you have an argument and a source to back it up that would be great.

Thanks


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

I don't have a source for it, but I honestly don't believe neutering a dog will make him less aggressive, genetics are genetics, environment is environment and training/socializing is training/socializing..

My opinion is, there are enough dogs in the world, IF they are not going to be bred or shown, there's no reason to NOT spay/neuter.


----------



## Ryder&SophieSue (Nov 25, 2008)

ya know we use to breed dachshunds just a couple years ago, and now that we have gotten out of it and i go to these rescue sites and i see all these helpless animals....I will never own another animal that won't be fixed...


----------



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

Hmm.
I don't really understand that argument. My dog will not be breeding, so he will not be bringing any puppies into the world that might end up in shelters.


----------



## HeidiW (Apr 9, 2009)

Will you be with your male dog 24/7 to make sure? I know some people who said the samething, but the young unspayd female down the street would not tell who the father was of her puppies.
Male dogs can smell a female in heat far away and will try to get to her.


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

i was never for neutering just to neuter...i always knew that cash would not be fathering any puppies and that i was able to make absolutely sure of that...however, at about age 5 he began to have some urinary tract/prostate problems, and neutering was recommended. that motivated me, even tho i was reluctant for him to have anesthesia. i notice no difference in his temperment/personality at all, but i do notice that since he was neutered he's dropped and widened and i had to cut back a bit on his food. i think there are health advantages to spaying/neutering but, as with everything, there are disadvantages that must be weighed on a personal individual basis.

hope you arrive at a decision that's comfortable for you and good for your boy.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

It's really up to you. At this point I have no plans to breed OR neuter my male dog. No, I do not let him wander the streets. I've been to dog competitions where there are intact males AND females in heat and there are not dogs running wild, mating. A responsible owner is a responsible owner, regardless of whether their dog has his balls. JMHO


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

lies,







...but you are SO right on.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje A responsible owner is a responsible owner, regardless of whether their dog has his balls. JMHO












Wrangler turned 10yo today. He is intact, has never had a seconds worth of "issues" due to being intact and has NEVER sired a litter.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

LOL thanks. I just don't like the "if...then" implication that if you choose to leave a dog intact then you are automatically not responsible enough to control their whereabouts 24/7. I have owned altered animals for years and do not allow them to roam at large. That doesn't suddenly change because my puppy is intact. I'm not going to have a surgery performed on my pet because other people are irresponsible or make stupid mistakes.


----------



## HeidiW (Apr 9, 2009)

No, that is not what I meant to imply, I don't want you or anyone else to think I meant that. I did not say that everyone is automatically not responsible. I agree, it is a responsibilty to have a pet, no matter if they are altered or not. I assume they are responsible like you are, wish everybody was. I know that people who compete/show don't alter and they are responsible.

Sadly, some are not but those people are not looking for advise on this board. I guess what I was trying to say is that you need to be cautious and this dog is 3 years old so sounds like she is. Some unwanted pregnancies in my area, people trying to sell these dogs has me all concerned.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I see no reason to alter a healthy adult dog. I do not believe it will help with behavior. For behavior modification, you need to increase leadership, exercise and training.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

We neuter all our dogs before placement and many come in as adults, so I've neutered a lot of dogs in his age range. In some it made absolutely no difference in behavior. In other dogs it reduced marking dramatically, which is nice. I've also seen it help in dogs who are aggressive towards other males - or dogs who seem to draw aggression from other males. If none of those things are problems, then it might not make any difference. 

I'm with the other poster who cautioned about unplanned litters. No, having an intact dog doesn't make you irresponsible and it certainly doesn't mean you'll ever have an oops litter, but the reality is that plenty of people on this board and in the world do NOT keep an eye on their dog every second. Gates get left open, dog sitters or kids slip up, accidents happen. And plenty of dogs whose owners said would never reproduce go on to father litters. SO, while neutering is not necessary to prevent reproduction, neither should we assume that every poster on this board will be as vigilant as necessary to prevent that from happening.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

I'm sure that many people with intact males are sure that they are not going to sire any pups. However, to an intact male, there is something almost universally irresistible about a bitch in heat. Not every human companion of unspayed females is aware of this. Even those that are sometimes think that their pen, yard, enclosure is secure enough they can turn their back for a minute. 

As I understand it, in males it is thought that the reduction in testosterone that comes from neutering does decrease their male dog/male dog aggression. Spaying a female doesn't work this way because it doesn't diminish the testosterone levels in her but increases them proportionately.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

No owner can 100% prevent everything (same goes for being a parent, IMO). But after having worked in a shelter and done some things for rescue, I really do not believe that the pet overpopulation is due to good owners losing sight of their dog for a few minutes and an oops litter happening. There's so many unwanted pets because people breed this way intentionally, or they simply just don't care if their dog is at large and it's "nature's way". Those are not good owners and they don't take any responsibility for their pets. Even if my dog was somehow responsible for an oops litter I would never allow ANY of those puppies to end up in a shelter (save for people who dump dogs without contacting the original owner/breeder first).


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't disagree with this. I guess my question is how people know which category the various posters who come onto this forum and ask for advice about spaying or neutering their pets fall into? Because having worked at shelters and done rescue myself, I have seen an awful lot of people bring in litters who didn't think their dog was in heat, didn't think he/she could get out of that fence, only left the door open for a minute etc. Maybe by your standards they aren't "good owners" and other people would have been more careful, but when someone joins this board and posts, I don't feel like we can safely assume just how careful those posters are going to be.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

And to be on the safe side, dog owners can always opt to getting a vasectomy in lieu of neutering a male.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

You are believing them?

I am sorry, but I bet 95% of the litters spawned are from people who clearly did not care, or actually WANTED to have puppies -- left the bitch tied out 24/7 and wow she got preggers. Or, like my neighbors three litters in eighteen months with multiple sires, did not care at all and liked having them for the kids. Too bad she didn't bother to kee the pups out of the road.

When they drop off the litter, are they going to say, yeah, well we wanted her to be bred and have pups. No. They will say, they tied through the fence, or the dog climbed an eight foot privacy fence or chewed through a wall or whatever.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

I won't bet on anything but I know personally of a case where the owners opted to spay abort their bitch because a loose intact male came over the fence.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: pupresqI don't disagree with this. I guess my question is how people know which category the various posters who come onto this forum and ask for advice about spaying or neutering their pets fall into? ...but when someone joins this board and posts, I don't feel like we can safely assume just how careful those posters are going to be.


Yes, maybe on all of your computers you have some kind of little bell and buzzer system that can tell you who is telling the truth, who is not, who is responsible who is not, but I don't.









So when someone asks about something that involves good judgement, I don't assume. 

_At the very least_ I read old posts and try to make an effort to base an answer on those. 

I think you can be responsible and have intact pets. I think you can be irresponsible and have intact pets. I think you can be responsible and have speutered pets. I think you can be irresponsible and have speutered pets. 

But if I have no clue who it is I am talking to here...I am cautious.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresqI don't disagree with this. I guess my question is how people know which category the various posters who come onto this forum and ask for advice about spaying or neutering their pets fall into? Because having worked at shelters and done rescue myself, I have seen an awful lot of people bring in litters who didn't think their dog was in heat, didn't think he/she could get out of that fence, only left the door open for a minute etc. Maybe by your standards they aren't "good owners" and other people would have been more careful, but when someone joins this board and posts, I don't feel like we can safely assume just how careful those posters are going to be.


True but I've also seen people take a lot of heat as a newbie because we want to assume the worse.

Why don't we just give them the pros and the cons, as far as the medical implications, and let them decide what is best? I think there are risks and benefits on either side, and beyond that I don't care to speculate about how someone else contains their pets.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:But if I have no clue who it is I am talking to here...I am cautious.


Agreed! This is all I'm saying. I'm not assuming the worst but I'm not assuming the best either. And I just think too many people on the board tend to answer these questions without considering that perhaps the person they're talking to isn't quite as cautious as they need to be to have an intact pet without risking an oops. 

As to Selzer's comment - plenty of people who bring their animals into shelters simply don't care. I never implied otherwise. But even if only 5% or whatever are genuine products of an oops, heck, even if 1% are genuine products of an oops, that still a LOT of dead animals. And we see on this board all the time that even caring owners can have lapses of judgement when it comes to containment. It puzzles me why we can urge caution and care when it comes to so many topics and we don't assume that people are going to do things absolutely perfectly, but when it comes to speutering, the assumption of most responders is that they will be.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Quote:
> Even if my dog was somehow responsible for an oops litter I would never allow ANY of those puppies to end up in a shelter


I KNOW you wouldn't Lies, but doesn't that assume you knew about the mating? 

A couple years ago, I was home and my dogs were safe -- I thought -- in my 6 ft fenced back yard. It was a nice day, and the slider was open so I could hear them playing. I went out there to check on them every 20 min or so, and the girls were there, and Camper wasn't. The back gate was opened. The meter reader had come and gone, and left the gate opened. 

Fortunately, my good boy had only wandered on to another part of our property. Well, I ASSUME he never left our property. I really don't know. 

I now lock my back gate (and the gas company guy -- the same guy, I'm pretty sure -- complains all the time.). The gate is locked and my dogs are never outside unless I'm out there with them, right by their sides. For most people, it's not realistic to assume they'll stay outside with their dogs every single time they're out in the yard. Some of us do, but many won't. 

I consider myself obsessively responsible -- ok, paranoid -- when it comes to my dogs. And yes, I too wouldn't let pups that my dogs had sired go to the pound. But that assumes I knew they existed.









And forget about percentages that end up at shelters. One puppy is too many.


----------



## Myamom (Oct 10, 2005)

"Why don't we just give them the pros and the cons, as far as the medical implications, and let them decide what is best? I think there are risks and benefits on either side, and beyond that I don't care to speculate about how someone else contains their pets."

Because tragically...million upon millions of animals are dying every year. The only way we could ever hope to bring those numbers down is through education on how to be responsible.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Well I still think that responsibility is larger than just spay/neuter. I know plenty of really bad, irresponsible owners who have altered animals. I just don't agree with such a narrow focus or surgically removing an animal's organs just in case. But the way I was raised with regard it animals is much more like how things are in Europe, where it is far more common to leave animals intact and yet most places are much more pet friendly and you see people walking their dogs off leash through the towns. They are not all running at large and mating.


----------



## HeidiW (Apr 9, 2009)

Hey, I guess this OP got her arguments!! LOL.

This OP also posted on another thread that this same dog pees all the time on walks and it was so bad he actually pees on her in the process, her pants and shoes as she trys to make him keep a heel.

Not sure if you read that. It seemd like he was marking and leaving his sent. I have been told that nuetering can lesson this by vets and trainers etc. I will find out as my male is now neutered and he never marks and leaves his sent but he is 7 months old too.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Nope, didn't see that. I'm not defending the OP, just myself and my decision. I don't allow my dogs to mark excessively on walks (once or twice, to actually relieve themselves). My in-laws dog is neutered and tries to mark every half block. Again, I wouldn't do surgery on a dog for a training issue.


----------



## HeidiW (Apr 9, 2009)

I have a 4 yr old spayd Jack Russell Terrer and she marks excessively on our walks, I let her do it for a little bit since it makes her happy but then enough and I tell her plus she is only 18 pounds. My GSD never go potty on walks, total opposite. In fact Bo was sniffing and Daisy peed on his nose. Daisy actually has no more left and still lifts her leg as if she was a guy dog.


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

Vets love it when you neuter because they rake in $300 for a 10 minute operation. Then there are people who want everybody to spay and neuter because they seem to think that every intact dog procreates.









Having had an intact male, he was no problem at all. Loved to sniff about when there was a female in heat, but never left the security of his own property. My current male is neutered only because his testicles never descended, otherwise, it would be the last thing I'd be doing to my dog.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje I don't allow my dogs to mark excessively on walks (once or twice, to actually relieve themselves). My in-laws dog is neutered and tries to mark every half block. Again, I wouldn't do surgery on a dog for a training issue.












Completely agree with this. I do neuter my males when they're done growing, but I don't let them (nor my confident little females) mark when we're on walks. They don't "own" our community. It's not THEIR territory. 

And this is a training issue.


----------



## Riley's Mom (Jun 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: amd1ya know we use to breed dachshunds just a couple years ago, and now that we have gotten out of it and i go to these rescue sites and i see all these helpless animals....I will never own another animal that won't be fixed...


Yayyyyy amd1! What a great new attitude!


----------



## Riley's Mom (Jun 7, 2007)

We seem to have replies here from people pretty much absolutely guaranteeing their intact male will NEVER sire a litter. I'm sorry but there isn't a soul in this world who can make that guarantee reliably. Nobody is that perfect. If you feel you are, you need to get your head out of your butt and accept the fact that you are NOT perfect. Humans are not born into this world to not make mistakes. That's part of life, part of being human. An attitude like this tells the world you feel you're superior to the human race.

Now, as long as the dog is in your sight you may be able to make this guarantee, but since none of us knows what the future holds so your dog being in your sight 24x7 x 365 for the rest of it's life is a totally unrealistic train of thought with a big dose of arrogant "I'm better than you are and I'm better than human" tossed in. Do the math on the number of days, hours, weeks and months that could be even on a dog that lives to be 8 or 10 years old.

You may go to dog shows where females are in heat and intact males are in the same room and no puppy making is going on. What you're looking at is EXTREMELY well trained dogs that won't make that move unless their owner allows it. Leave those intact males alone in a back yard with a female in heat even miles away and they WILL do what Mother Nature intended for them to do and that is to go forth and procreate. Male dogs have been known to go to great lengths that people would not believe their dog was capable of in order to get to that female. There is no such thing as a perfect dog as there is no such thing as a perfect owner.

When a man says they're not having their intact male fixed and they're not a breeder that to me is a man who's mistakenly fixated on what the function of the testicles is for (a sign of masculinity!) and that by fixing the dog they're taking away that masculinity. Get over it and get over yourself. It's a piece of equipment used to urinate and make puppies. As much as you might like to think it is, it's not a toy, it's not something that makes the dog any less male just like a human male getting a vasectomy makes them any less a man. The dog won't even know it's testicles are gone, like he doesn't know they're there in the first place unless it's time to make puppies. Other than that, they have no use for them. Have you ever seen a dog parading around showing off his dingleberries to other dogs and talking about size and how often they get to bump uglies??? That's a HUMAN male thing. If your dogs needs to have its testicals in order for you to love him and be proud of him, I'm very glad I'm not your dog because that is a very superficial owner. If it makes you feel more like a man that your dog has its testicles you are a very sad specimin of the male race.

Get off your superiority complex soap box and take a good hard look at all the dogs out there that don't have homes, that are in shelters and rescues, are being abused, neglected and the list goes on. Now, just how many of those poor creatures do you think had owners that carried around the same superior "my dog would never do this" attitude? You can bet there are PLENTY of them. The problem is, YOU don't pay the price ... THEY DO. Not only that but it's attitudes like yours that help keep rescue and shelter workers overworked and overcrowded and leaving to them the work and pain of cleaning up the mess you helped make and of putting animal care workers through the heartache every day for the poor dogs they will have to KILL because there aren't enough good homes and responsible owners to go around. 

Now, I've probably managed to tick off an awful lot of people, but you know what ... I really don't care and you can hate me if you want. It's not about PEOPLE it's about the animals and their suffering when it comes to attitudes like this. It's this kind of thing that helped get us where we are today with all our animal suffering. If they could talk, I'll bet our furry friends would say "Take these things off meeeeee so I don't make more puppies that might suffer!" because THEY would be looking our for their species but since they can't it's up to us and from what I see, we're doing a pretty freakin' lousy job of it.

Now, on the other hand, as much as I (obviously) believe in spaying/neutering I do *not* believe in the ridiculously young ages that some people and organizations do this. I totally understand there are health and other risks involved. We do what we can to make the procedure as safe as possible and at the safest ages possible. The fact that your dog is under anesthesia for what 10-15 minutes is a pretty low risk when you consider the alternatives. I haven't done any research but I'm betting the number of animals that die under spay/neuter procedures is minimal.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

also, even if your male dog doesn't leave his yard, it can still happen. There are LOTS of loose dogs in our neighborhood. And man, they are little sluts when they are in season! Rayden will be in the yard and they will walk right up to the fence and present themselves to him. 
He was neutered at 1 1/2, and has never mated, but he is still happy to sniff at them through the fence. and I guarantee that if I wasn't right there and he was intact, he would have the deed done in 2 seconds.
So, in even if you are WITH them, it can happen in literally the time it takes you to scoop some poop.

my friend who breeds yorkies says her females are the same way. She puts all the males in kennels outside because the females go seeking them out (females stay in the house) She tried crating the males in the bedroom, but the door didn't latch securely one time and TADA tied between the bars of the crate.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Until I see a tie between bars of a crate or through chain link fencing, I just refuse to believe it; because I have been present in many a tie and this is so next to impossible that I cannot even come up with an anology for it. 

Without getting way gross, the dog has to haunch up over her back and get his parts underneath, the tail has to not be in the way and the back legs need traction and the front legs hold onto the bitch during the thrusting motion. This is yet another LIE that people tell when they do not want to ADMIT how they ALLOWED their dog to mate their bitch. 

If you think a dog can position his penis behind him and stick it repeatedly through the chain link fencing to the bitch who is eagerly waiting with her neck practically on the ground and her tail up and off to one side (yes they do flag on their own) -- I have to see it to believe it. The change in position where they are stuck tail to tail happens AFTER the tie. 

Ok, by your standard, I am better than you Riley's Mom, because I know my boy will not impregnate a bitch without my consent. When I am not LOOKING at my dog he is kenneled in a kennel made of nine gage chain link, with a concrete base, and covered over with eleven gage wire. The neighbor in the adjoining kennel is Arwen who is spayed. The other eight bitches have been in heat many times and my dog has sniffed their urine spots and sniffed their butts, but when I put him back in his kennel he has never molested his kennel. 

Let's say he can get out of his kennel, I did not drop the latch properly. Tori would have to be in heat AND I would have had to not latch hers properly either. The latches are made such that they cannot just be lifted open, both the far and the near side have to be lifted together to push the latch into the open position. This is not possible with a nose on the latch. I have tested this thoroughly. 

My yard is securely fenced and all the rest of the bitches are also kenneled. So it is simply not possible for him to climb over, crawl under, or break through the fencing to get to a bitch in heat. 

I had Dubya for nearly five years, and Rushie for almost four years without a slip up yet. 

In fact, if you cannot guarantee that you can keep animals intact and not bred, you have no business breeding animals. 

While my boys have shown interest in bitches through the fence, neither have tried to mate through a fence or through a crate. 

And I am not a guy, but I prefer my boys to have their pieces parts. I believe the testicals and the hormones related to them DO have more to do with their lives than simply their sex drives. But if I had a dog that was so affected by females in heat that he would hurt himself if the attempt to escape, I would go ahead and get him fixed. So far, that hasn't been my problem, so for me I would say that that is abnormal and such a dog should not be bred. 

Oh, and the class scenario with bitches in heat is again erroneous. The dog is not going to push his way past owners and rape a bitch while his owners are standing their unable to keep them separated. First the dog has to know the bitch is in heat, then he tries to sniff her parts and find out if she is ready. She will generally try to run away, this gets him in the proper position, but also gives her owner time to cut him off. They play a little, she sometimes tries to mount him to show him how it is done. But personally, I can handle a dog and a bitch in heat without a problem. No way would I let a classmate's dog get to my bitch. 

In fact, unless it is a silent heat, she may be spewing blood one day, and the next class you leave her home because she is in heat. If she starts during a training class (Tori did, twice), she is certainly not ready to be bred that day. 

There may be one or two litters a year created by people who truly watched, truly were diligent to keep them apart, and shtuff happened. However, these pups will not land in your shelter, because these diligent individuals will take responsibility and either spay/abort or they will have the pups and find them homes. The rest of the litters created every year that are turned in unwanted are turned in by people who either wanted to have puppies, found out after the fact how much work or trouble it was; or people who simply did not care. The people who do not care are not on this site, and they are not going to speuter whether you make it mandatory or not.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I've been to multiple Sieger shows where there are over 400 intact animals and the only breedings I saw were intentional. People make it into such a big deal when it's really not. If I had a male dog that was out of control because there was a female in heat miles away I guess I'd just put him in boarding, but I know several breeders and fanciers who own intact males and females and have personally never heard of or witnessed any of the craziness mentioned in this thread. If that's how all intact animals acted all the time you'd think even a small club dog show would be chaos, lol! And yet...it's not. Nor are any of our SchH training sessions, where there are many intact males and usually a female in heat. *gasp*

If the pet overpopulation is to be blamed on intact male dogs then why does western Europe not have the same problem? 

Nothing is 100% guaranteed, obviously. 

Even a neutered male can escape and tie a female.....

If all dogs must be neutered, how do we expect our breed to thrive in the future?

I'm sorry, but no one will preach at me about medical decisions I make and expect me to suddenly change my mind. I'm not having my dog, who is not even mature yet, neutered just to satisfy anyone else's soapbox. When my dog is a mature adult, he will be evaluated and likely remain intact barring any medical reason to alter him. I have been to countless shows, trials, and other dog events and competitions and I have never seen accidental ties or dogs behaving in ways described in this thread. I will not give that up, sorry.


----------



## Riley's Mom (Jun 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: LiesjeNothing is 100% guaranteed, obviously.


There you go. Proof positive from someone who doesn't 100% believe in speutering. Thank you for having the common sense and foresight to say this in public. You at least admit and are aware that unwanted breeding can happen no matter what precautions are taken. There will never be 100% agreement on this topic no matter what. 

Maybe Western Europe has much more conscientious people than we do here in the States, I dunno. I'm not saying one can't do their best to prevent this from happening and that does help I'm sure and for those that do - GOOD FOR YOU! and I mean that 100%. But one's best is still not a 100% guarantee. I don't know the people or pet population in Western Europe, but if their people population is down from the US that would also have something to do w/it.

Not to continue any arguments, but I honestly don't believe this decision is totally medical in nature. It could be a major factor for some people, but I don't believe it's the total reason for *everyone* who refuses to speuter.

I'm also not saying one's dog should not be mature before getting it fixed. I said that in my post, there are definitely to many shelters, people etc that speuter WAY to young and I totally believe that causes medical and physical issues. Most definitely wait until your dog is mature, when their growth plates are closed. Even if we went to that as "the norm" we'd cut down on the pet overpopulation tremendously.

I don't consider my comments as preaching, they're just my feelings and we're all entitled to our own feelings. I'm sorry you took it that way. You are all still going to do your things in your own ways. I don't pretend to be able to change the world, that's impossible. But if even one or a few people take notice and do change their ways, all the better and it won't be just because they read my post.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

IMHO you can look at it both ways. Perhaps a dog who's not fixed cannot be 100% guaranteed that it will never accidently produce offspring, but on the other hand, you cannot 100% guarantee that a surgical procedure such as spay/neuter will not end in a medical mishap resulting in a medical emergency or death of the patient. What's that old saying, nothing in life is guaranteed except death and taxes.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

very interesting...ive just read some people pretty much guaranteeing that there dogs would NEVER be able to procreate....

.........but, in a previous thread, where some of us were accused of being holier than though, i recall someone admitting no one is perfect, mistakes can be made...and, IN FACT, admitting accidentally leaving a gate unlatched.

i guess mistakes can happen.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

As for as I know, a complete tie isn't necessary for a bitch to get pregnant? just back it up to the fence and there ya go.

"I have a fence, so don't need to spay/neuter" is also listed on most pet adoption sites as one of the most common myths. 

My female dog stays inside and I have a fence, so I don’t need to get her spayed.”

Fact: 
Male dogs will dig under or jump a fence to breed with a female dog. Female dogs in heat will do likewise. Dogs are
also able to actually breed through fences, especially chain-link fences and any fences that have some kind of
breech or spacing in them.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I hate the term "fixed"! That makes it sound like a dog or bitch with sex organs is broken. They are not broken.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

When someone comes on this board asking for advice about whether or not they should breed their dog, they get a lot of questions about the background of their dog, titles, health screening, their knowledge and experience etc. People don't just say "oh, well I breed my dogs so you should too." They try to tailor their answer to the needs and level of the _poster_. And I guess my question is why we don't do more of the same thing when it comes to a newbie poster asking for advice about whether they should spay or neuter their pet - and I'm speaking about these threads in general, not just about this one specifically. 

Yes, some people can have intact dogs that never reproduce but lots of people have intact dogs that do reproduce or that they have no way of knowing if they've reproduced. I don't know what board some folks are reading, but I see choices on this board week after week that could easily lead to oops litters and the fact that some people are especially diligent about supervising their dogs doesn't mean that everyone is or that we should assume people will be. I'd say the evidence is that both on this board and off of it, plenty of people are NOT diligent at all about supervising their dogs and even if they have good intentions lack the knowledge or proactiveness to keep their dogs from procreating. 

I wish that basic reality was more often reflected in people's answers. We can all agree that altered dogs don't reproduce and that intact dogs can. Whether they do or not is going to depend on the owner - an owner who we don't know and shouldn't assume has the same set up or knowledge that we do.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

I plan to keep Shane intact even though he will not be used for breeding. I guess I think Im better than everyone else...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Pupresq, an altered dog CAN reproduce for a short while after the surgery, or so I have heard. It is a lot more believable to me than dogs doing it through crates or fences. 

Fact: My dog cannot dig through concrete to go under his kennel fence, and he cannot jump over his fence as it is fenced over top. My bitches are housed in the same situation and cannot do the impossible either.

Again, until I witness it, I refuse to believe that a dog can turn his penis around and shove it behind him to mate with a bitch. That is just not the order in which it happens. Those of you who have not witnessed the procedure really have to stop, just stop saying stuff like this. It is a bigger myth than flashing the headlights and you will get killed.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think you guys have both fundamentally missed the point of what I'm trying to say. I'm not harping on those truly bizarre situations where a dog reproduces against the odds, I'm saying that when someone new joins this board and asks for advice about altering their pet, the stakes are too high to just assume that they'll be as careful as they need to be with no extra information, questions, or caveats. 

Let me put it another way - Selzer - I know you have a pretty elaborate set up for your dogs so they can be outside and yet stay safe while you're at work. In your opinion, is your set up and level of carefulness typical of the dogs owners you encounter both on and off this board?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I never believe it is right to lie to people or to encourage them to do something that is against my own better judgement because maybe they are not as responsible as I am. 

My dog is in close proximity to bitches in heat most of the time. And I do not spend nearly the time with them individually that a family with one or two dogs would. So while they may not have a concrete Kennel, they also may never leave their dog or bitch outside unattended. 

A family is a problem in itself. One can always blame the husband or child for the animals being turned out together at that time. 

I think we need to preach containment more than spay/neuter though. Because dogs DIE from getting loose whether they are going after a female down the road, or chasing a deer or squirrel out of the yard. 

Too often neutering is encouraged because without neutering the proponents suggest the dog will roam, or they suggest that the dog will not roam if it is neutered. This encourages IRRESPONSIBILITY, and may be the cause of a dog's demise. 

Frankly, I think dog owners on this board are kind of the elite, people who really care about their dogs and want to learn and do things right. The people I encounter off the board, many of them should not own a gerbil or a goldfish, and they should not try to raise mice for snake fodder. I would still not try to tell them that the dogs can mate through a fence because then they will not believe me when I tell them something that I know can help them and their dogs. 

I prefer to give people the best dose of the truth I can muster, and trust them to make their own choice.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: I think we need to preach containment more than spay/neuter though.


I think preaching containment if people want to recommend against neutering would be a great step in the right direction. Actually, I've seen you say that which is all I'm talking about. My concern is that people need both messages but too often on this board they only get the don't neuter half. 

While I'd agree that people on the board are probably more responsible in general that the wider public, there are still daily examples of board members doing things that could easily result in oops litters, not to mention people who are considering altering but also considering breeding - and shouldn't be. To assume that because someone is on this board that they'll practice excellent containment is a pretty big assumption with potentially life and death stakes. And I don't see people make those assumptions when it comes to other topics - boundary training, invisible fences, to breed or not to breed, what food to chose etc. Just with S/N advice. It's perplexing.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I guess I am less worried about the occasional oops litter from relatively responsible people, than the dead dog in the road and the dog dead due to his exersions into a neighbor's chickens, etc. 

I find the fear of testicals and uterine horns rather frightening. 

I understand that people are working with rescue dogs and trying to ensure that GSDs do not get euthanised soley because people are irresponsible.

I am that individual that does not believe the "overpopulation" problem is a problem with dogs being bred. It is a problem with irresponsible people dropping off pets when they grow tired of them or when they no longer want to fork out for their veterinary costs. A responsible owner would deal with an oops litter (if there is such a thing).

Responsible pet ownership is generally used interchangeably with spay/neuter and THIS is a tragedy. 

Responsible pet ownership should be about:
1. Safety / Containment
2. Diet and Health
3. Training / Socialization
4. 'til death do we part
5. Keeping the neighbors happy and the neighborhood clean.
And so many other things

But week after week people post proudly about how this one or that one is now a member of the missing parts club. That makes them responsible, and the rest of us irresponsible, ignorant vermin.
And like rehabilitated smokers, now that their dog is no longer intact, everyone else should make their dogs likewise.

When I sell puppies, I have in my propaganda the pro's and con's of spay and neuter. I also discuss with my people both sides of the coin and when I think they ought to spay or neuter. 

It is a little unsettling to me as a breeder, when people look at an eight week old puppy and ask the question, "when can I nueter him" or "when can I start with a prong collar?" The vast majority of the people I have sold puppies to have neutered/spayed under 1 year of age. I refuse to add a clause in my guarantee that voids it if they speuter under a certain age, because if they are so bent on speuter, than they should not own an intact dog in my opinion. 

I am much happier to hear them ask, "when can we start puppy classes?"


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

> Quote:I am that individual that does not believe the "overpopulation" problem is a problem with dogs being bred. It is a problem with irresponsible people dropping off pets when they grow tired of them or when they no longer want to fork out for their veterinary costs.


A local ACO said much the same thing several years ago. She worded it in a way that was (to me at least) perplexing which caused me to think on it much, much longer than I usually would. I think it's largely true. The real problem is the appalling lack of deep commitment so many have with their pets. 'Problem pets' are disposed of & all too often promptly replaced. Often with another 'problem pet'. And the cycle continues...


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: selzer
> 
> I am that individual that does not believe the "overpopulation" problem is a problem with dogs being bred. It is a problem with irresponsible people dropping off pets when they grow tired of them or when they no longer want to fork out for their veterinary costs.


this proposes there are enough responsible owners to go around in relation to the number if dogs being produced. responsible dog owners already own dogs, and in a vast majority of cases own as many as they feel they can reasonably take care of. add to that the vast number of irresponsible people who own dogs that dont actually produce litters (some by luck, some that actually get altered when said owner thought getting a dog seemed like a good idea) and actually keep dog to the end of their life.

that still leaves a massive overpopulation of unwanted dogs. it is a problem of too many litters being produced in relation to the number of people in existence who should actually own a dog(s). the existence of people who should never own a dog is static, it will always be there. there are simply not enough conscientious dog owners to go around to even come close to keeping up with the amount of breeding going on.

so, the argument that the problem is irresponsible owners dropping dogs at shelters makes less sense to me than the problem of irresponsible people producing litters in the first place. even the responsible breeders cannot prevent some members of their litters from eventually ending up in the hands of irresponsible people. the number of us responsible owners wont realistically change. maybe this is just fantasy, but the numbers of litters being produced at least could have a chance of being altered (pun intended).

now, if the proposal was that if every adult in the country was willing to be a responsible dog owner and would own as many dogs as possible, maybe there is a chance that there would not be very many unwanted dogs. that is much more of a fantasy than a scenario in which more dogs get spayed/neutered.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

The problem lies with the puppy mills/pet store sales, get rid of those, and you'll see shelters not over their capacity!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: RubyTuesday
> 
> 
> > Quote:I am that individual that does not believe the "overpopulation" problem is a problem with dogs being bred. It is a problem with irresponsible people dropping off pets when they grow tired of them or when they no longer want to fork out for their veterinary costs.
> ...


Agree 100%. Having volunteered in a shelter, this is exactly what I saw. I did not see masses of accidental litters from so-called responsible owners, I saw stray dogs whose owners didn't give a flip, and lots and lots and lots of really nice dogs of all sizes and breeds whose owners dumped them the second they started barking, or chased the cat, or had too many accidents.....


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

so, it is still too many dogs in exisitence in relation to the number of responsible owners, right?

doesnt that make the real problem too many dogs being produced in relation to the demand from responsible people? (ie the supply FAR exceeds the demand)

of course it is a problem that people dump dogs at the shelter, but if the supply didnt exceed the demand so disroportionately then those dumped off dogs would be grabbed right up by one of us responsible owners.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> 
> Agree 100%. Having volunteered in a shelter, this is exactly what I saw. I did not see masses of accidental litters from so-called responsible owners,


the problem is, is that its likely that you did. you just saw it years after the fact, on an individual basis, when they were grown adults.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: roxy84
> 
> the problem is, is that its likely that you did. you just saw it years after the fact, on an individual basis, when they were grown adults.


? I'm not sure what this means.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: roxy84
> ...


i meant you see dogs coming into the shelters from unintended litters, just not in the form of a litter of puppies. plenty of those puppies get homes, but somewhere down the road, as they have become adults and ended up with an irresponsible owner, they end up at the shelter.

my general point was that the supply is overwhelmingly greater than the demand. im not trying to argue that irresponsible byb types arent the main culprit, im just saying the overwhelming supply creates the environment that makes it too easy for irresponsible people to end up with dogs in the first place. people dumping dogs at the shelter then becomes a byproduct of the excess supply. 

if supplies were more limited, who would be the people that would end up with dogs? likely those willing to be patient, jump through the right hoops, and, yes, even make a financial commitment. imo, in most cases, these arent going to be the same types of people who end up surrending their dogs for ther sake of convenience.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't know where the dogs come from, what matters is that they are dumped in shelters. I guess I don't see how that really factors in? If we are talking about how many dogs end up in shelter or rescue I think it's really important to know why they ended up there, and in my experience the majority ended up there because the owners were moving and didn't care to find a dog-friendly place, the owners were having a baby and felt the dog was a "risk", the owners' kids grew up and no one had time for the dog anymore, the dog chased the cat, the dog barked too much, the dog had too much energy, the dog ate the couch.... 

In fact, at our shelter the supply of puppies did not at all meet the demand. In all my time there I don't think I ever saw the same puppy available for adoption for longer than a week. Generally each time I went in, there were new puppies (save for the ones too young to go home yet, but often they went home right at 8 weeks and were brought back for their spay/neuter). There were always people on waiting lists for puppies.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I worked in a large, regional animal shelter for years. We had in excess of 17,000 animals come through the door the first year I worked there and the numbers only went up.

There are very, very few people who tell the truth about why they are surrendering an animal. The excuses are endless, and usually include some variation of "moving, can't take with", "having a baby and worried about dog", "got a new job, don't have the time any more", "lost the old job, can't afford". Although I am sure that there are people out there that have very valid excuses as to why they are surrendering, the cold fact is that MOST reasons can be translated into "I don't want to be bothered anymore". The work I did in the shelter, running the foster program, meant that I was sometimes called on to see if we could help the owner out in order for them to keep their dog. Guess what? Most often, when offered alternatives to surrendering to the shelter, owners would come up with even more reasons why keeping the dog just wouldn't be practical or reasonable. 

In most areas of the country, puppies are adopted very, very quickly. Doesn't matter how big they will get in adulthood. Or what the breed mix is. There are almost always homes available for the puppies. Disclaimer- I have heard that in the South this is NOT the case, but we are talking in general terms here, right?

So, shelters don't usually see the effects of pet over population until that puppy becomes a bigger, out-of-control adolescent dog. The cute puppy has gone home with the new family. Family is busy, and after the first couple of days the puppy is put out in the yard because Family just hasn't been able to get the housebreaking thing down. Puppy still gets played with, but is now living in the back yard. 

Puppy is now 5 months old. The kids have been back in school for two months, puppy is lonely and becomes so excited when anyone opens the patio door that he jumps on kids. Kids decide this is unpleasant and spend even less time outside with the dog. Puppy is now 10 months old. The neighbors are complaining about the non-stop barking, the landscaping is a distant memory because bored puppy has dug holes and ripped out the sprinkler lines. Animal control comes out to deal with barking complaints and tells Family to walk the dog and take the edge off the energy level. Dad tries it and the 70 lb. 10 month old drags him through the sub-division, barking and lunging at everyone in his frantic efforts to make friends.

Family feels bad, but they have to do something quick. Elderly Grandmother is coming for Christmas and they really don't want to spend the money on boarding the dog for the Holidays. Plus, they have decided that having this dog is a pain in the butt. They have heard that the local animal shelter does a great job, they have seen the news spots about the great adoption program, so they take the dog down to the shelter and surrender him. They don't say on the surrender form that they don't want the dog any more. They write down that the dog needs more time than they can give, or that it barks too much, or is destructive. Whatever. I have never seen a surrender form that had the "I am An Idiot" option for the reason for surrender.

This dog is every much a victim of irresponsible breeding. It just took this dog and the shelter he got surrendered to 10 months to really feel the full impact of it. In my region, most dogs surrendered to shelters/rescues are between the ages of 7 months and 4 years.
Sheilah


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Right, but these are people/families that wanted a dog in the first place. So we cannot simply say that the supply far exceeds the demand. These people sought out a dog to get (there was a "demand" for a dog), whether it came from the shelter or rescue originally, a breeder, a pet store, a friend, etc. They never should have gotten a dog in the first place, regardless of how they obtained it.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: LiesjeRight, but these are people/families that wanted a dog in the first place. So we cannot simply say that the supply far exceeds the demand. .


sure we can. the reason that adult dog may now go unadopted is precisely because there is now a new batch of puppies at the shelter. if the demand exceeded the supply, those surrendered dogs would eventually make their way into the hands of someone who was responsible instead of being (too often)euthanized. if the demand exceeded the supply, there would be very few cases where shelters were even needed. 

demand exceeding supply would not keep people from being irresponsible, but it sure would ensure homes all but the most severely problematic dogs.

in my ideal world, id have to get on a year long waiting list just to get a mixed breed dog. yes, i would happily make that sacrifice if it meant every dog that was born had someone already waiting to give it a good home.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I see what you are saying but not sure I agree. People will wait on a list for a puppy and pass up dozens of great adult dogs in the shelter, this already happens plenty. So not being able to supply a puppy does not mean people will start adopting the adult dogs. That is how it should be, but not what I have seen. Adoption counsellors do what they can to push the adult dogs but we can't *make* someone adopt an adult dog, nor can we deny them waiting for a puppy if they meet all the criteria.

Personally I think it's a cultural problem of people wanting a certain thing like yesterday and not being willing to do the appropriate research, wait for the right dog, or go to a good rescue or good breeder. Too many people treat dogs like novelty items rather than a 15 year commitment.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: LiesjeI see what you are saying but not sure I agree. People will wait on a list for a puppy and pass up dozens of great adult dogs in the shelter, this already happens plenty. So not being able to supply a puppy does not mean people will start adopting the adult dogs. That is how it should be, but not what I have seen. Adoption counsellors do what they can to push the adult dogs but we can't *make* someone adopt an adult dog, nor can we deny them waiting for a puppy if they meet all the criteria.
> 
> Personally I think it's a cultural problem of people wanting a certain thing like yesterday and not being willing to do the appropriate research, wait for the right dog, or go to a good rescue or good breeder. Too many people treat dogs like novelty items rather than a 15 year commitment.


i agree. everything you stated here is part of the problem, but those scenarios would not be able to exist without the excess supply. if breeding were curtailed enough (i know, difficult to get rid of byb and the like) and years down the road the demand exceeded the supply nationwide, the shelters would have people on waiting list just to get any dog, period. people would take what was surrendered to the shelter, and if they didnt someone would be in line right behind them. in that scenario of a short supply, there are enough dog lovers, such as myself, that would take a dog of any breed, size, sex, and age just to have a dog.

keep in mind, i know im talking about a fantasy world where demand would exceed supply by so much that the waiting lists for a puppy (from any source-breeder, pet store, shelter...) would be excessively long, and there would even be a waiting list just for a 5 yr old mutt. oh well, i can dream.

i know, at the crux of my fantasy is the question: how to effectively legislate and enforce responsible breeding (and dog ownership, for that matter), which is too complex of a topic to discuss here.


----------



## FredD (Jul 5, 2009)

I agree....


> Originally Posted By: LiesjeI see what you are saying but not sure I agree. People will wait on a list for a puppy and pass up dozens of great adult dogs in the shelter, this already happens plenty. So not being able to supply a puppy does not mean people will start adopting the adult dogs. That is how it should be, but not what I have seen. Adoption counsellors do what they can to push the adult dogs but we can't *make* someone adopt an adult dog, nor can we deny them waiting for a puppy if they meet all the criteria.
> 
> Personally I think it's a cultural problem of people wanting a certain thing like yesterday and not being willing to do the appropriate research, wait for the right dog, or go to a good rescue or good breeder. Too many people treat dogs like novelty items rather than a 15 year commitment.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:and in my experience the majority ended up there because the owners were moving and didn't care to find a dog-friendly place, the owners were having a baby and felt the dog was a "risk", the owners' kids grew up and no one had time for the dog anymore, the dog chased the cat, the dog barked too much, the dog had too much energy, the dog ate the couch....


I have worked in the shelter/rescue world in three different states for the past 20 years and I don't think you should take those "reasons" as the gospel truth nor do I think even those reasons represent the majority of owner give ups. We see tons of dogs surrendered simply because the owners have "too many" are tired of bitches having puppies and can't afford to spay her or just don't want the dogs anymore. Next time you're volunteering at the shelter and get some of the excuses you listed, try offering solutions to the owners and see if they even consider changing their mind. My experience is that they don't. I have even offered free obedience training to people and still had no takers. They simply don't want the dog. 

There's no shortage of pups here nor was there when I worked in a shelter in NC. Shelters are euthanizing puppies daily and plenty of those were the products of oops litters. 

As far as this whole issue or "responsible" or "not responsible" I think it's beside the point and circular logic. If the idea is that "responsible" owners can have intact dogs without them reproducing, then I agree, but that's just saying that people who make sure their dogs don't reproduce have dogs that don't reproduce - circular. 

My point is that that people don't come with a big stamp on their forehead (or avatar) as "responsible" or "not responsible." And there are a LOT of people who are basically okay dog owners but still take risks that can and do result in unintended pregnancies. And when we advise strangers not to alter their pets with no extra info, questions, or caveats, we're gambling with awfully high stakes. 

And as far as people asking for advice on this board, I agree they're probably a cut above the average dog owner in terms of their interest in their dog, but that doesn't mean that they are going to take all the precautions they need to to keep an intact dog from reproducing. Are people like them producing the majority of unwanted dogs in this country? No, probably not, but how many unwanted puppies is an acceptable number? I challenge anyone who thinks only in terms of "majority" numbers to spend some time in the euth room holding healthy dogs while they're put down because there simply aren't enough homes for them. My guess is that you'll come away thinking that even one oops litter is too many.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Shelters were going out of the country to bring back puppies because of the demand for puppies. They actually brought back pups with rabies and with no quarantine, adopted them out. 

What I think some would want is puppies costing 5 or 6 thousand dollars so that nobody who could not afford to have a dog and did not really, really want a dog would get one. 

But then you have the yayhoo with the mercedes a couple of years ago that dropped the dog for scratching his car. Just because people are rich and have plenty of money mean they will spend it on their dog. They may get a dog because it would be a status symbol, but caring about it is another story. And many other people who have plenty of good things for dogs, would be unable to own one simply because the demand was so high that the price was so high that it is impossble for them. That isn't the answer. 

If all the little people in the world spayed or neutered their pups, when the demand spikes, the puppy mills will increase their output to supply it. This is in effect giving over the breed to the puppy mills. I won't play that game. A pup should not be free, but should be affordable. And it is the small breeders, who work with their own dogs, and know the history and lines of each dog, this is where our future lies.

The BYBs or people having a litter for the kids, etc. who are not the ideal, still supply a lot of the people with good pets and are still a whole lot better than the puppy mills. In a perfect world you would not have BYBs or puppy mills, but if you get rid of all the BYBs you will increase the number of dogs and puppies in puppy mills.


----------



## Baby Byron (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: LiesjeLOL thanks. I just don't like the "if...then" implication that if you choose to leave a dog intact then you are automatically not responsible enough to control their whereabouts 24/7. I have owned altered animals for years and do not allow them to roam at large. That doesn't suddenly change because my puppy is intact. I'm not going to have a surgery performed on my pet because other people are irresponsible or make stupid mistakes.











Agreed 100%. I've had GSDs for 25 years now (really. Just this week turned this milestone. Yuck... I'm getting old...). Most of them lived long intact lives and never, ever were allowed to roam or got into trouble. Neighbors on both sides had intact females and it was never an issue. I guess it all depends how folks handle the responsibility of pet-ownership. I'm not for unnecessary general anesthesia. Cripes, some folks cannot handle having their own kids for Pete's sakes...

Ana


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

Maybe a lot of the communication is getting lost in the context of how we all spend time with our dogs. For people that volunteer/work in a shelter/rescue environment, the responsible owners are the exception and not the rule. For those owners that train/compete, most of the people you are in contact with are going to fall more on the responsible end of the spectrum. Experiential context can be everything with these types of debate.
Sheilah


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> My point is that that people don't come with a big stamp on their forehead (or avatar) as "responsible" or "not responsible." And there are a LOT of people who are basically okay dog owners but still take risks that can and do result in unintended pregnancies. And when we advise strangers not to alter their pets with no extra info, questions, or caveats, we're gambling with awfully high stakes.


Exactly to the point, and very well put.
Sheilah


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> My point is that that people don't come with a big stamp on their forehead (or avatar) as "responsible" or "not responsible." And there are a LOT of people who are basically okay dog owners but still take risks that can and do result in unintended pregnancies. And when we advise strangers not to alter their pets with no extra info, questions, or caveats, we're gambling with awfully high stakes.


I would never advise someone NOT to alter their dog with "no extra info". That is exactly the_ opposite_ of what I'm saying. I just think it's an individual decision that someone should make based on their situation, their goals for the dog, their dog's health and development, and after considering all the pros and cons. I have intact pets and altered pets, pets from rescue and pets from a breeder. Each pet I make decisions about on an individual basis.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: roxy84everything you stated here is part of the problem, but those scenarios would not be able to exist without the excess supply. if breeding were curtailed enough (i know, difficult to get rid of byb and the like) and years down the road the demand exceeded the supply nationwide, the shelters would have people on waiting list just to get any dog, period. people would take what was surrendered to the shelter, and if they didnt someone would be in line right behind them. in that scenario of a short supply, there are enough dog lovers, such as myself, that would take a dog of any breed, size, sex, and age just to have a dog.


See and I just find more value in educating people to be better dog owners, or helping people discover that they wouldn't make a good dog owner, rather than just cutting off the supply of dogs but never really changing people's attitudes.


----------



## Myamom (Oct 10, 2005)

but Liesje...you did say this..

""Why don't we just give them the pros and the cons, as far as the medical implications, and let them decide what is best? I think there are risks and benefits on either side, and beyond that I don't care to speculate about how someone else contains their pets."

I think that is what pupresq is addressing.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

It seems like she is implying that I said people shouldn't alter their dogs, period. That's a lie, I have five altered pets at the moment so why would I not want anyone to alter their pets? As you can see in the bit I quoted, there are pros and cons both ways, and people should be aware of them before they decide.


----------



## Myamom (Oct 10, 2005)

I agree with what Sheila said...in the end...I think alot of what our perspectives are on this subject are due to what we are exposed to. 

I think alot of the people involved in competition and such are exposed to awesome owners and situations...while those of us in rescue see the horror and death. Even just the regular public...really cannot even fathom what really goes on in this country...the magnitude of the death...or even the manners of death. From doing many pet events...and having endless conversations with the public...I have found that most have no clue that animals are dying in shelters to the degree that they are. Quite frankly...I was not aware that it was so overwhelming...until I really delved into the world of rescue...and now daily cry over endless (and I do mean...overwhelmingly endless) emails with lists of dogs, cats, puppies and kittens that are on death row. It truly overwhelms you. The magnitude of the problem is that huge.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: roxy84everything you stated here is part of the problem, but those scenarios would not be able to exist without the excess supply. if breeding were curtailed enough (i know, difficult to get rid of byb and the like) and years down the road the demand exceeded the supply nationwide, the shelters would have people on waiting list just to get any dog, period. people would take what was surrendered to the shelter, and if they didnt someone would be in line right behind them. in that scenario of a short supply, there are enough dog lovers, such as myself, that would take a dog of any breed, size, sex, and age just to have a dog.
> ...


i see value in that too, and it is critical since my scenario is such a fantasy. my opinion was simply that the massive overpopulation of dogs is even a greater problem than uneducated, irresponsible pet owners. they are certainly not mutually exclusive problems.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: myamomI agree with what Sheila said...in the end...I think alot of what our perspectives are on this subject are due to what we are exposed to.
> 
> I think alot of the people involved in competition and such are exposed to awesome owners and situations...while those of us in rescue see the horror and death. Even just the regular public...really cannot even fathom what really goes on in this country...the magnitude of the death...or even the manners of death. From doing many pet events...and having endless conversations with the public...I have found that most have no clue that animals are dying in shelters to the degree that they are. Quite frankly...I was not aware that it was so overwhelming...until I really delved into the world of rescue...and now daily cry over endless (and I do mean...overwhelmingly endless) emails with lists of dogs, cats, puppies and kittens that are on death row. It truly overwhelms you. The magnitude of the problem is that huge.


And being involved in both the shelter/rescue and the show/competition I see how rarely these circles intersect. However I've never believed that they are mutually exclusive, or that just because I train and compete with one dog I am not capable of understanding the magnitude of the peril of animals shelters. I have nothing but absolute respect for shelter, rescue, transport, and foster volunteers, but whenever the "thousands of unwanted puppies are dying and it's all your fault if you do/don't......" card gets played it will get people's backs up. I know it may be getting off topic slightly, but I always feel like by owning a dog from a breeder there are people that will accuse me of killing a puppy in a shelter. The truth is that I have a lot of different pets for a lot of different reasons, and when I was looking to purchase my youngest dog, I was looking for something very specific and was prepared to wait a looong time for the right dog. I would have waited years rather than go to the shelter. However the opposite was true when we got Coke. We simply wanted a nice family pet and did not care about size, breed, energy level, drives, conformation...so we went to the nearest rescue and got Coke that day.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Throughout this whole thread though I think that the focus, or where we are trying to put the focus, is on the person who is posting, their anonymity, and our lack of knowledge about them when we say...whatever it is we say. 

And that this can be dangerous because we don't know if they can be the kind of person who can be watchful and careful. We can read their old/other posts and hazard a guess-not sure anyone did here-but we can't know. 

The focus isn't on us, what we do, how we do it, but on this person and just giving them the answer we would give ourselves, isn't enough, or possibly even fair to their dog. 

So erring on the side of caution has been all that many of us are saying, unless you truly know the person asking.


----------



## gtigger719 (Feb 27, 2006)

Testicular cancer. I know of someone who had a Golden who didn't neuter & didn't breed him so they didn't see a problem with it... he died because he had testicular cancer & it spread. Why let your dog die from something easily preventable. Not to mention how much more prevalent prostate issues are in unneutered dogs.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:It seems like she is implying that I said people shouldn't alter their dogs, period. That's a lie


You know, I really don't appreciate having words put in my mouth and then called a liar for them. 

ALL I AM SAYING, and I have said over and over again in this thread is that when people post to the board and ask for advice about altering their pets we need to be asking the same kinds of questions and offering the same kind of comprehensive advice that we do on other topics, such as diet, invisible fencing etc. instead of PEOPLE (and that isn't aimed at anyone in particular) offering wholesale advice against altering without knowing anything about the poster, their plans for containment etc. 

Selzer - I am not sure where you're getting your info but in your own state there are thousands of locally produced puppies being offered at very modest adoption fees at shelters - and dying there because of the lack of adopters for them. We are so far from a puppy shortage it is laughable - or would be, if the situation weren't so tragic. 

Jean had it exactly right.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

As a Vet Tech I will weigh in on this one. There are several reasons to neuter your male dog.
Testicular and prostate cancer. Have seen it and it is ugly and easily preventable. 
Behavioral- neutered male dogs are more likely to roam, mark their territory and exhibit other unwanted and annoying hormone related behaviors.
Some intact male dogs will worry themselves into quite a state if an in heat female is nearby. I've seen dogs lose a large amount of weight refusing to eat worrying about getting to the girlfriend they smell. 
A friend of mine who runs a local animal control facility says 90% of the dead dogs they pick up are intact male dogs. 
The only reason to have an intact dog is IF you are breeding. We won't go into the reasons why I think people should or shouldn't breed their animals but I think it is cruel to keep a male intact knowing he can smell intact females as far as 5 miles away and can't do a thing about it. Talk about frustrating! 
As a Vet Tech I feel it is irresponsible NOT to spay/neuter your pets. We jokingly refer to testicles as "tumors needing removal." 
Neuter! For the health of your pet.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Are you serious???

Please list the percentage of dogs that get testicular cancer. I heard less than 1%. It is also VERY easy to fix, you neuter, at that time. 

Behavioral -- sorry, roaming is a containment issue, NOT an issue of having parts. It is just as dangerous for alterred animals to be left loose. When I buy a dog, I buy the tail, the bark, the testicals. Sorry, but marking is not the problem that the testical-phobic portray. 

Doesn't it stand to figure that if someone does not care enough about their dog to keep them at home, they are not going to bother with eliminating the nads? This is still an irresponsible owner problem, a containment issue, not an intact issue. 

You cannot show a dog that does not have testicals or a bitch that is spayed. Many people that do schutzhund or police work feel that the dog should not be neutered. I currently have a therapy dog that does not mark and is not aggressive and does not roam and has all his parts. 

Since I have seven intact bitches, besides my intact dog I suppose you could look animal cruelty up in the dictionary and see a huge picture of me. My boy NEVER misses a meal. He ALWAYS eats it all. He does not whine or scratch or carry on. And the bitches live twenty feet away from him -- ten feet, tori is on the other side of Arwen and her Kennel is ten by 15. 

Rushie is almost four, laid back, sweet, not bothered by the bitches at all. 

So frankly you are all wet. There may be SOME dogs that have and overactive sex drive. Perhaps this is a problem for THOSE dogs. It is certainly not for mine. Nor was it for my last dog, nor was it for the other dog I had. Nor has it been for my parents English Setter who is 15 and still has all his parts. 

As a vet tech, your salary is dependent on getting speuters. Spay/neuter surgeries are a good part of what comes in in any vet clinic and of course Vets are all about nicking the nads. If ANY of the techs and my vet let me hear them joking about my dogs that way, I would be looking for another vet. 

Mine are staying intact -- for their health.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Quote:
> As a vet tech, your salary is dependent on getting speuters


As someone who breeds dogs, your income depends upon keeping your dogs intact. So? Does that mean you are misinformed? Why do you imply that she is misinformed then? 

My vet's office (and probably GAVetTech's employer as well) has a lively practice after you subtract out the relatively few spay/neuter surgeries that they do. These are such a small percentage of their practice. They get a handful of puppy clients each year, but they keep their clients most of the dogs' lives (decades in my dogs' cases). This is one relatively inexpensive surgery. They make plenty of money out of providing good attentive care throughout the life of the dog. 

My vet's office techs don't earn their salaries from the onetime spay of my puppy. Their salary is earned with the weekly (or more often) visits when my seniors were ill, when my GSD had SIBO and we were there frequently, when my puppy caught a respiratory infection this week. Most vets know that suggesting ONE ill-advised surgery doesn't create life-long clients who provide long-term business. They're not stupid. I've never had a vet (and I've moved around a lot in the last 2 decades that I've had dogs, so I've had numerous vets) that told me that I *had* to alter my dogs, especially as young pups. We talked it out and made decisions based on what's best for my dogs.

The cynicism that I hear, that vets simply do spay/neuter surgeries for the income, is sad. If people feel that way about vets, they should be changing their vets. "Oh, not MY vet," people say. Well, then, how did you get such a terrible view of the profession? 

I just saw this in another thread where a member complained about tests that were run that the member felt weren't necessary. Several knowledgeable members suggested maybe they were. And in fact, these tests did in fact, seem to be very important. 

Too often, it's assumed that the vet is doing something to line his own pocket instead of doing what's best for the dog -- or what's best for both the dog AND his peers in his community, in the case of both vaccines and spay/neuter. Of course there are greedy and incompetent vets. But there are greedy and incompetent breeders... and cheap and incompetent dog owners... I think the rush to assume the worst of every vet (which is what you do here) is rather tragic.

I get tired of reading on this board (in spay/neuter threads) that mammary cancer isn't much of a risk. Testicular cancer isn't a risk. Prostate cancer isn't a risk. We're told by some members that all of this is made up by vets who want to line their pockets with spay/neuter surgeries.

So why is cancer the #1 killer of dogs? Cancer DOES metastasize. If caught early, removal of the testicle MAY reduce the chances that testicular cancer will be lethal. But if it's not caught early, this form of cancer, like others, can spread. It's not a simple easy cancer. There simply is no such thing. If someone we love (human or canine) contracted testicular cancer, none of us would be casual about it. We'd be worried and scared. 

Spay/neuter reduces the probability of contracting each of these cancers substantially. 

If people -- especially those who fancy themselves breeders -- don't want to alter their dogs, that's fine. But there are plenty of *legitimate* reasons to alter a dog if someone doesn't have any plans for the dog's future that requires him to be left intact. 

Either way, insulting someone who added information to this conversation (her first post on the forum, by the way) based on her professional experience, is just .. well... <shakes head>.....


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

Yes Selzer, I am serious. I will be sure and tell the dog I just euthanized that testicular cancer is an easy fix. Seems the cancer did not know that and metastized to his lungs and other organs. And I will also tell the little 12 year old Shih Tzu who has a belly full of cancer from mammary tumors, because her irresponsible owner never saw fit to spay her, that cancer is an easy fix, and the GSD police dog who died of a horrible prostatic infection related to being intact even after retirement. 

And I will have to disagree with you on marking. We do see intact male dogs here at the clinic and they mark every vertical surface they can find. It in in their nature to do so. I do not fault the dog, it is only doing what instinct tells it to do but it is extremely annoying and not a problem we have with neutered male dogs. 

You brag about your intact dogs and their escape proof kennels. I feel sorry for your dogs if that is their existence. My dogs are my pets and my companions. They are not inmates in solitary confinement who supplement my income from the puppies they produce. Their value is in who they are, not in what parts they have. 

Spay/neuter surgeries provide for a very small portion of my salary. And a healthy spayed/neutered pet provides even less income to our clinic because we are less likely to see it hit by car, attacked by dog or with reproductive organ cancers. But I think the point you miss is anyone who has to come to this message board and ask if they should neuter, is the type of pet owner who should most definitely neuter their pets.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I don't think that spays and neuters should always be lumped together. Each carry their own risks and benefits. Personally I see far more reasons to spay a female than neuter a male.

As for marking, the worst markers I know are males that are neutered and were neutered early on. I've even seen females that mark. I cannot fathom an owner allowing ANY dog to mark surfaces indoors. That's just rude and gross. IMO you have every right to be annoyed about that!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote:It seems like she is implying that I said people shouldn't alter their dogs, period. That's a lie
> ...


OK I did not mean to call you a liar. I get upset because people (not here but in person and other boards) like to tell me that I killed a puppy when I got Nikon from a breeder, so it gets really old having to constantly defend my dogs and my decisions about my dogs, like simply owning a purebred dog from a breeder automatically erases the fact that I have 5 other adopted pets and spent more time volunteering at the animal shelter than I have training my own dogs. Again, this is not *you*, but this has happened to me enough to get my back up.

Bottom line is, every owner should make informed decisions about their pets based on factors individual to that animal. That is not restricted to simply spay/neuter. Ideally, every owner is informed about diet, medical decisions and vaccinations, how their animals are kept safe and restrained, training methods, behavior modification, etc. Ideally....*sigh*


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I can understand having your back up, but as I've never said boo about you "killing a dog" or anything about you buying Nikon, stereotyping me as "implying" something that I definitely didn't because I'm a rescue person isn't any better than someone stereotyping you for buying your dog.











> Quote: Bottom line is, every owner should make informed decisions about their pets based on factors individual to that animal. That is not restricted to simply spay/neuter. Ideally, every owner is informed about diet, medical decisions and vaccinations, how their animals are kept safe and restrained, training methods, behavior modification, etc. Ideally....*sigh*


I totally agree with this. My concern is that a great many people are not ideally informed and they come to sites like this looking for advice and accept what they get - so as an online community who theoretically cares about GSDs and dogs in general, I'd like to see us trying to give comprehensive answers rather than more off the cuff "here's what's right for _me_" type responses that assume more than we should about what's right for _them_.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

It was not really a response aimed at you but other responses in this thread, such as saying that being involved in competition means I "cannot fathom the magnitude of the death". That is not true, as I have said I have spent more time, hour for hour, working in an animal shelter than I have competing with dogs.

I really don't have anything against neutering (hey my dog was neutered so young he pees like a girl and even looks like a girl), but personally I just don't agree that assuming every new member is not a responsible owner is a "comprehensive" answer either. I don't think that breeders, sport, and working people are the only ones capable of keeping intact animals. I think it's something that any truly responsible owner can handle, but the decision is really up to them and their vet. I don't agree with using guilt and a bunch of "what ifs" to make the decision. I would consider the age of the animal, the health of the animal (is it a monorchid or crpytorchid, does it have any history of prostate issues, etc), how the animal is contained, whether the animal is a show or breeding prospect, etc and I would ask any person on this forum to do the same thing for their own dog and their own situation. Whether I am involved at the animal shelter or in competition does not really factor in other than both sides having scads of anecdotal evidence in support of doing this or that.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not assuming anything about the people coming on and asking for advice. I'm saying that a comprehensive answer would include questions of the type you mention - what is their containment like, what are their plans... Too often on this board I don't see people even addressing those issues it's just "oh - don't neuter!" or "don't neuter until 2 years of age" etc. And I don't think that's a comprehensive answer that takes into account the very real possibility of oops litters for many folks.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> As for marking, the worst markers I know are males that are neutered and were neutered early on.


Wait a sec, Lies. You're the one that said marking is a training issue. And it IS. 

We can't blame marking on the dog NOT being neutered, and we can't blame it on the dog having been neutered. It's about training. Period.


----------



## Myamom (Oct 10, 2005)

btw Liesje...I DID NOT say this:

"such as saying that being involved in competition means I "cannot fathom the magnitude of the death".


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

Liesje,
I personally don't believe that you "can't fathom the magnitude of the problem" if you compete or purchase a dog from a breeder. I happen to think I can fathom the magnitude, and I purchased Tanner from a breeder (and did it when I was working in an open admission shelter) and I have competed with him. Believe when I say that they aren't mutually exclusive. 

My point about those who breed and compete their dogs is that, most often, those people tend to see and interact with other people like themselves. The way they see a problem is through the lens of their own experience. Just like those who do a lot of rescue or shelter work view the situation through their own experiences. If you tend to spend most of your time around other responsible owners, then having an intact dog is no big deal because the question of responsibility is a given. If you spend most of your time dealing with people who cringe and grab their own crotches when excusing their own dog's reproductive status, then the lack of responsibility is a given.

When you first replied to the OP, you said that it should be up to the individual person. As you have clarified since then, there are so many different factors that go into making an informed decision regarding keeping an intact animal. Simply saying "It is up to you" lacks the nuance of an informed decision making process. And I think everyone can agree that the decision should be an informed one. If we (speaking about this board in general, nobody in particular) can ask a hundred questions when someone joins and wants to know how to find a good breeder, shouldn't it follow that a lot of questions should be asked prior to answering when someone joins and asks about neutering their dog?
Sheilah


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Don't go losing sleep about my poor dogs. 

In the past five years, Arwen has had two litters, Jenna one litter, Babsy/Rushie one litter. I am really pumping them out. They stay in their little cells 24/7 except when they are competing, or in training classes, or sleeping in my bed, or playing in my field, or running with my bike, or walking the bike path, or going to the pet store, or hanging out up town, or going to street fairs, or crashed on my couch, or in their recliner, or molesting company, or sleeping in their room. 

When my eyes are not on my dogs, they are kenneled. I think crating dogs for many hours is cruel. In my kennels, they have more room, are safer, and are much more comfortable than they would be in my house. And there will be no oops litters. 

People who do not own intact animals should not be giving out the canned intact animal spiel. The problem with this approach is that those of us who have bred animals KNOW they cannot breed through fences and crates whatever ANYONE says, and those of us who own intact animals, KNOW that those pieces parts DO NOT CAUSE roaming, marking and all the rest. We live just fine with our intact buddies and do not believe a WORD you all are saying because we have been lied to. 

When we go for each new person asking the neuter/spay question and spew forth rediculous remarks and reasons to spay/neuter, than anyone who has any experience at all will not believe anything we are saying. 

There are reasons to spay neuter and I provide these to my puppy buyers. For me the reasons for speuter do not overpower the reasons not to. 

Currently, I have two bitches that I intend to breed and two bitches that I have not decided whether they are breedworthy -- one is ten weeks, the other is 13 months. They rest of them save Arwen are intact and will remain intact unless there is a problem. 

As for supplementing my income,









In each of the past four years I have spent close to or over 20k on the dogs. Getting 20k out of one litter would have to be some type of record I would think. 

I think what I paid for Heidi, Whitney, and Tori's OFAs/Von Wilbrand's screening cancelled out the total intake of their litter. What a trip, LOL!


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Sue,
Do you have any pups left from the last litter, besides the female you are keeping, and what did you name her?? Haven't seen any pics of them lately!
As long as this has changed into a debate and not the OP's question who seems to have vanished...... 
My thoughts on this is from working at the adoption events. Many people come in asking if the dog they are interested in has been fixed as they see it as a source of income if they are still intact, especially the purebreds. 
The rescue, of course has a policy on spay/neuter, but the mindset of certain people will have them breeding if they get the chance to make $$ and of course they don't even have a clue to what OFA or titles mean. They just look at it as a source of income.
This is why it is important for the majority of the population to NOT have a dog that is intact.
I have two spayed females, my male will not be neutered, maybe in the distant future.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

From DVM News.... 

<span style="color: #003300">_Treatment(testicular cancer): Treatment usually consists of surgical neutering. Because of the success of testicular removal and the low rate of metastasis, neutering is often the only treatment needed. Some dogs have been treated successfully with chemotherapy and in dogs that have metastasis chemotherapy is sometimes recommended.

The prognosis for dogs with treated testicular cancer is usually very good. The low rate of metastasis makes surgical neutering very successful and curative in most dogs. Dogs that develop hyperestrogenism from Sertoli cell tumors will often have a regression of signs, once the tumor has been removed. In severe hyperestrogenism that results in anemia, some animals may require transfusions and more aggressive treatment with erythropoietin therapy. The prognosis for testicular tumors that have metastasized is more guarded and the outcome varies widely depending on location, type and treatment._</span>

And if you want some other reasons AGAINST prophylactic neuter, take the time to open this link....
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

For the majority of pet-owners, neuter may be the best option. But there are definite cons that really should be relayed to people.

Do I want an increased risk of a mostly deadly cancer like osteosarcoma, or a greatly increased risk of a mostly curable one like testicular cancer?


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

I KNOW what OFA xrays cost. And the correct spelling would be Von Willebrand's disease. I also know what that testing costs. And please don't think I don't know that these tests are one time for each dog and don't have to be repeated for repeated breedings. 

I did notice though all the fancy lettering after your dogs. 
CD=Companion Dog--Novice Obedience title
RN= Rally Novice--Novice Rally Obedience title
CGC=Canine Good Citizen--Not really a title, an AKC certificate that a dog can earn by passing a test to prove he has had the training & socialization to be a good pet.
TDI-Therapy Dogs International-again, not really a title but a certificate. 

Makes me wonder why you feel the need to keep them intact or breed them at all. Neither is required for the titles your dogs hold. But keeping them intact can jeopardize their health. Spaying and neutering completely prevents testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and pyometras and greatly diminishes the risk of mammary cancer and prostate cancers when done at an early age. These are not ridiculous remarks, but fact.


----------



## gshephlvr (Feb 21, 2006)

Ugh I cant even read all these posts makes my head want to explode.

yes dogs get testicular cancer, and an enlarged extremely painful prostate. And anyone who thinks that neutering males doesnt help with aggression and marking is clearly not had enough rescues coming in and out of their house. Or that spaying females doesnt make them more stable and healthy well I dont know what to say to you. Google is your friend ,use it, and do some research on reputable sites. And dont even bother coming back with those asinine studies saying spaying females actually makes them more aggressive. Because those of us that actually read the WHOLE study know that these dogs were aggressive and had a bite history prior to the spay. 

The way I see it this forum has a few main groups of people. Rescuers/backyard breeders (yes I said it and it does simply disgusting/responsible breeders. Those who do not rescue and have large numbers of dogs in and out of their house do not have the same experience we do. Sorry you simply dont

And anyone who thinks that the overpopulation problem in shelters is not directly related to spay/neuter is clueless. Look at the states that spay/neuter EVERYTHING before it can be adopted including pediatric. Our state does it and we dont have nearly the problem with overpopulation that the southern states who do not require it do. [heck] we dont even have very many animal controls. matter of fact I was at our huge humane society the other day and you know how many dogs we had on the floor????? 12 and ZERO puppies. And this is a multicounty humane society. 

And for the VERY FEW of you who have intact dogs that have never had a health problem, behavioral problem or an unwanted litter are in the very teeny tiny minority. Most people have oops litters including people on this very forum that are long timers. In general people are busy, distracted and not nearly as diligent as they need to be, its just safer to have the dogs altered. If you arent showing and your dogs isnt a pristine speciman of its breed there is simply no reason not to spay/neuter.

And you can NEVER guarantee your pups wont end up in a shelter. That is impossible. People violate contracts all the time, and even if they are chipped that means nothing. Most shelters do not scan owner surrenders so you would never know.

There are enough pet quality purebreds in practically every shelter in the country. We dont need anymore.


----------



## 3K9Mom (Jun 12, 2006)

> Quote:
> People who do not own intact animals should not be giving out the canned intact animal spiel. The problem with this approach is that those of us who have bred animals KNOW they cannot breed through fences and crates whatever ANYONE says, and those of us who own intact animals, KNOW that those pieces parts DO NOT CAUSE roaming, marking and all the rest. We live just fine with our intact buddies and do not believe a WORD you all are saying because we have been lied to.


I own an intact dog.









I have a full registration and am not obligated to neuter him. The status of my dog doesn't affect what I know or don't know about this or any other veterinary subject. 

I spend a lot of time researching health matters. I buy and read books, subscribe to journal articles, attend seminars, and am constantly bothering my vets and my human doctor friends for information -- for my dogs AND other members' dogs -- as many here may attest. This isn't the only health matter I chime in on. I think that gives me a bit of credibility. Maybe not with you, but perhaps with some of the others.

I don't have to worry about "being lied to." The truth is there. But it takes a lot of time and energy to go find ALL of the truth. And you have to be willing to consider all of it, not just recoil when someone gives you data that you don't want to consider. 

Anyhow, that's it for me. I'm done arguing. If someone wants health-based facts and data, I'd be willing to provide ALL of the info via pm.


----------



## Remo (Sep 8, 2004)

From my experience, which is having well over 400 GSDs pass through my home over the last 15 or so years, neutering makes a HUGE difference in males marking their territory. It might not for some, but let me tell you, it certainly does for most. I don't care what studies someone wants to quote, I have lived it firsthand and know what I have witnessed. 

And if you have EVER been through the horror of having to watch a wonderful dog lose her life to mammary cancer, you will rethink getting your female dog spayed. We had the masses removed from her twice, and it came back. They could not operate on her a third time or we would have had it done. As the cancer advanced, you could smell this poor soul before she entered the room. Her under-carriage looked like someone had used a melon-baller on her. I should have taken photos to show others the nightmare of this disease, - but I can assure you that the horror Kookala's cancer is engraved forever in my mind.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: sit,stay
> Simply saying "It is up to you" lacks the nuance of an informed decision making process. And I think everyone can agree that the decision should be an informed one. If we (speaking about this board in general, nobody in particular) can ask a hundred questions when someone joins and wants to know how to find a good breeder, shouldn't it follow that a lot of questions should be asked prior to answering when someone joins and asks about neutering their dog?
> Sheilah


Well personally I do not think it's a decision that should even be made based on information on a message board. The OP should discuss it with their vet, their trainer, their breeder....people that actually KNOW them and know their dog, the dog's health history, the dog's behavior, etc. It's one of those things I personally would prefer to be intentionally vague about because I don't feel it's a decision that should be made based on Internet research.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Now that would be a good basis for a response! 

"The OP should discuss it with their vet, their trainer, their breeder....people that actually KNOW them and know their dog, the dog's health history, the dog's behavior, etc."

And if you don't have any of those three...speuter! 

And in my opinion if you have only 1 of those three (the vet)...speuter.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I should say, I don't feel there's anything wrong with discussing it or posting health or behavior articles, but I just don't feel I would make the decision based on that alone. Both sides can claim this or that and find plenty of studies and vets and behaviorists to back them up. For me it's similar to the issue of vaccines (human, I mean). There's plenty of conspiracy theories and people who can "prove" this or that but IMO is something best left between the individual and their health care providers. There are no "one size fits all" answers.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje There are no "one size fits all" answers.


 I totally agree. That's why I don't participate in spay and neuter discussion anymore even though I have my own opinion. 

The very first thing for OP is to realize that this is your dog, your life, your responsibility, and if you make a choice, any choice, then you accept dealing with the consequences that may arise. You, not your vet, or trainer, or people on this board. After this realization it doesn't really matter if the dog is intact or neutered, what matters is how well you are prepared to deal with whatever happens in life with your dog. Because things happen and you cannot protect your dog (or your loved ones) from anything anyway no matter how hard you try.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> Well personally I do not think it's a decision that should even be made based on information on a message board. The OP should discuss it with their vet, their trainer, their breeder....people that actually KNOW them and know their dog, the dog's health history, the dog's behavior, etc. It's one of those things I personally would prefer to be intentionally vague about because I don't feel it's a decision that should be made based on Internet research.


I wouldn't leave anything intentionally vague about this statement. You covered everything very well. A huge improvement, to me, over "It really is up to you" statement.
Sheilah


----------



## Baby Byron (Aug 20, 2002)

As much as I totally understand the rescuers' frustration with the ultimate end result of irresponsible pet ownership, this whole mess is just that: the culmination of irresponsible pet ownership. I don't see speutering interferring that much with that. I've lived overseas in countries where there's no such thing as spay/neuter unless the dog has a health-related issue. In both places the issues with overpopulation of unwanted dogs are non-existent. Again, I've had GSDs for 25 years, most of them intact (when I was living overseas...) and never once any of the listed issues was observed. The only agressive & marker I've ever had was a neutered male (neutered at the "recommended" young age). Again, I really am not adding to the fire here. Just am reporting my life experiences. 
As for "preventive" care for potential cancers... The incidence of breast cancer in humans nowadays is several times higher than testicular cancer is male dogs. Should we just go ahead and do double-mastectomy in all teenagers right at puberty to prevent future potential problems? Not quite huh? Sorry but I am not a big supporter of non-health related surgical procedures.
The most important factor with rescues and aggression has nothing to do with presence or absence of gonads but with all the abuse the animal endured prior to being rescued. The abuse and the trauma will turn any animal with or without testosterone into a killing machine. It takes a ton of patience and diligent training to "break" the cycle in an abused animal. Unfortunately sometimes not even with all the love in the world.
I guess the terrible trend we see nowadays rests solely in education and responsibility. Having a pet on a tv show looks really nice and your average Joe goes for it to regret it soon after that and subsequently dump the poor thing. In a 300-million people nation the average is still a looooot of folks and so is the unwanted-pet population. I cannot believe that all or the majority of the rejected animals out there is the product of "Oops" breeding. 
Ana


----------



## Raziel (Sep 29, 2009)

Baby Byron 
Very well put!!


----------



## mysablegsd (Aug 7, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: myamom"Why don't we just give them the pros and the cons, as far as the medical implications, and let them decide what is best? I think there are risks and benefits on either side, and beyond that I don't care to speculate about how someone else contains their pets."
> 
> Because tragically...million upon millions of animals are dying every year. The only way we could ever hope to bring those numbers down is through education on how to be responsible.


There have been education programs for years. You can't turn around without finding info about speutering. But basic human
nature will never change. A lot of people just don't care and they never will.


----------



## roxy84 (Jun 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Baby Byron I've lived overseas in countries where there's no such thing as spay/neuter unless the dog has a health-related issue. In both places the issues with overpopulation of unwanted dogs are non-existent.


Ive lived in quite a few locations overseas where this is not the case, so for my own curiosity id like to know what countries dont have a problem with unwanted dogs. id be curious as to what types of policies (if any) might be in place in those countries to help bring about such a scenario.


----------



## Fafhrd (Dec 3, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Riley's Mom
> When a man says they're not having their intact male fixed and they're not a breeder that to me is a man who's mistakenly fixated on what the function of the testicles is for (a sign of masculinity!) and that by fixing the dog they're taking away that masculinity. Get over it and get over yourself. It's a piece of equipment used to urinate and make puppies. As much as you might like to think it is, it's not a toy, it's not something that makes the dog any less male just like a human male getting a vasectomy makes them any less a man. The dog won't even know it's testicles are gone, like he doesn't know they're there in the first place unless it's time to make puppies. Other than that, they have no use for them. Have you ever seen a dog parading around showing off his dingleberries to other dogs and talking about size and how often they get to bump uglies??? That's a HUMAN male thing. If your dogs needs to have its testicals in order for you to love him and be proud of him, I'm very glad I'm not your dog because that is a very superficial owner. If it makes you feel more like a man that your dog has its testicles you are a very sad specimin of the male race.


This is the most mean-spirited rant I've ever read on this board. Your purpose doesn't seem to be to provide any information about dogs or dog owners or the health issues of neutering or anything else relevant to this thread. Your purpose simply seems to be to insult men.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: FafhrdThis is the most mean-spirited rant I've ever read on this board. Your purpose doesn't seem to be to provide any information about dogs or dog owners or the health issues of neutering or anything else relevant to this thread. Your purpose simply seems to be to insult men.


I agree. In fact I thought the entire post in question was extremely rude, but I guess that's what happens when you're discussing a topic where people have strong opinions. My only comment is that the poster should learn what a dingleberry is before using the term in a discussion about male anatomy.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

Go back and READ Riley's Mom's entire post. Think about it from a rescuers POV. She's right about some men - my father and my own dearly departed husband were exactly the same way. 

We had a cryptorchid pup when I was a kid. I still remember being in the vet's office at 9 years old and the vet saying 'Do you want your dog to die?' to my father. Dog was neutered.

We used to do rescue - most of my fosters were shelter pulls which in RI are either neutered before leaving the shelter or if the shelter doesn't have the means, you have to pay a big fat fine if you don't have the dog done within a month.

One dog however, I pulled directly from a private home. Bobby and I fought and fought over having that dog snipped. He was a wanderer too. Bobby wasn't hearing it. One weekend he announced he was going to Maine with his buddies. I had the dog done.



> Originally Posted By: gshephlvrAnd anyone who thinks that the overpopulation problem in shelters is not directly related to spay/neuter is clueless. Look at the states that spay/neuter EVERYTHING before it can be adopted including pediatric.


Thank you.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

So why is cancer the #1 killer of dogs? Cancer DOES metastasize. If caught early, removal of the testicle MAY reduce the chances that testicular cancer will be lethal. But if it's not caught early, this form of cancer, like others, can spread. It's not a simple easy cancer. There simply is no such thing. If someone we love (human or canine) contracted testicular cancer, none of us would be casual about it. We'd be worried and scared. 

Spay/neuter reduces the probability of contracting each of these cancers substantially. 

[/quote]


I am trying to make an informed decision. i will likely neuter Benny at age 2 because I think he has a retained testicle. The vet could not feel it 6 weeks ago and I don't know what I am feeling for down there to tell









From what I have read neutering does reduce the risk of testiclar cancer but also increases the risk of other less curable cancers. Why now that more people are neutering and spaying and doing so at a younger age are more dogs dying of cancer?


Rileys mom is right about some men, My son refused for 5 years to have his Pit Bull neutered because he felt it unnatural and unmanly . He was forced to have him neutered last July when it became a law that all Pits be neutered. Our was sweet tempered, totally no agressive. The dog died four days after neutering of unsuspected hemophila. His new pup, a Pit rtescued from the pound was spayed before being released to him at 4 months and seems fine.


----------



## Baby Byron (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: roxy84
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Baby Byron I've lived overseas in countries where there's no such thing as spay/neuter unless the dog has a health-related issue. In both places the issues with overpopulation of unwanted dogs are non-existent.
> ...


Scottland, Germany & Portugal.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

And again, although I feel that neutering is probably best for most owners..... neutering has been related to increased incidents of:

Osteosarcoma
CCL injuries
hip dysplasia
hypothyroidism
prostate cancer
vaccine reactions
and more

So those who make an informed decision to NOT neuter, should be respected for doing so. And, IMO, owners ought to be informed of potential risks beyond those of the surgical risks.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Baby Byron
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: roxy84
> ...



What is the rate of cancer deaths in these countries were the dogs are not neutered excpet for health reasons?


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

7 yr old intact mixed breed male dog seen at clinic today with enlarged prostate and dribbling urine. Will know more tomorrow after diagnostics are done.

10 yr old female, intact, bulldog seen at clinic today for mammary tumor removal and spay. Will know more after pathology of tumors is done. Highly suspect cancer. 

I've not seen the research that proves neutering can lead toward a greater tendency of

Osteosarcoma
CCL injuries
hip dysplasia
hypothyroidism
prostate cancer
vaccine reactions

But I have personally seen the link between intact dogs and mammary cancer, testicular cancer, prostate cancer and infection, pyometras, perianal fistulas and perianal hernias

All of the issues listed above seem to occur more frequently in certain breeds. Are breeders going to quit breeding those breeds? Doesn't seem likely. 

Leaving your dog intact is like playing russian roulette. Maybe you'll get lucky and your dog will never have problems or maybe it will. My bet is it will.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I am not belittling the definite link between neutering, and the elimination or lowering of risk in regards to:

testicular cancer (obviously)
mammary tumors
pyometra
for a short list.

However, if you want to take a strong stance on something, you need to research things with an open mind. 
For example, neutered dogs are 4 times more likely to develop *prostate cancer.* (without a subscription to science direct you can only view the abstract)
article 

and another study with similar results.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19379330

My vet, who I like and trust, had NO idea this was the case. She assumed that prostate cancer in dogs, would be linked to testosterone level as it is in humans. But that is turning out to not be the case and the reasons are not known yet.

*Osteosarcoma*, this study shows a 2 fold increase for neutered dogs (there is another study in Rottweilers showing an increase of 4X in that breed)
link 

If you take the time to look for the medical/scientific publications, you can. And you will learn that there are pros and cons. And then you take that information and weigh it with your lifestyle and your dog's behavior and make a decision for YOU.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Hypothyroidism 

Cognitive function of aging dog 

CCL rupture 

Now, out of the 3 adult male dogs I have raised, 2 have been castrated. One of the 2 females I have now is spayed.
So I am NOT against neutering. 
But if one is to discuss a subject as an expert, then some factual, scientific evidence is nice. I don't know that the studies cited are proof of causal relationships, but several are highly suggestive that sex hormones are important to physical well-being in ways that we do not fully understand.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

You do realize some of the studies you quoted were 15, 16 yrs old?


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

I'm choosing NOT to neuter Shane (6 month old Dalmatian) because it is healthier for him to remain intact as long as possible. Dalmatians, especially males, are prone to stone formation. Early neutering can cause the os-penis (where the dog will often "plug up") to be smaller than normal, as the dog is not fully matured and can block up easier than a dog that has not been neutered prematurely.

I think its rediculous to label someone irresponsible based on only knowing the fact that their pet is intact.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

this thread seems to have two different topics,
1. how to stop unwanted litters and the suffering and euthanasia of millions of animals

and

2. the risk vs benefit of neutering or leaving our dogs intact

When it comes down to it, sadly, We many soon not have choice

In the county where I work there is an ordinance where all dogs must be neutered or spayed unless you are a breeder or have a medical exemption.I live in the neighboring county that only requires the neutering and spaying of Pit Bulls and my son got a "fix it" ticket for not having his 5 year old Pit Bull dog neutered. This dog was very sweet tempered and had never threatened anyone. My son was forced to have him neutered and he died five days later from unsuspected hemophilia ( rare in a Pit Bulls.)


i agree that something must be done to stop unwanted litters which leads to the killing of so many animals but how can this be done without forcing people who wish, for health reasons to leave their pets intact have to have them have this surgery?


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ShatteringGlassI'm choosing NOT to neuter Shane (6 month old Dalmatian) because it is healthier for him to remain intact as long as possible. Dalmatians, especially males, are prone to stone formation. Early neutering can cause the os-penis (where the dog will often "plug up") to be smaller than normal, as the dog is not fully matured and can block up easier than a dog that has not been neutered prematurely.
> 
> I think its rediculous to label someone irresponsible based on only knowing the fact that their pet is intact.


Below is an excerpt from Tracy Land DVM who pioneered pediatric spay/neuter addressing the very issue you mention.

Quote from the Dalmatian Club of America - Study now appearing on website states
For physiological and anatomical considerations that are logically and medically sound, the development of the os penis is incomplete until about 12 months of age in males. Castration prior to this age impedes the development of the os penis, and the resulting immature, small os penis size may contribute to the development of clinically relevant obstructive urinary stone disease in these animals. This subgroup analysis would be very important to conduct, if possible, from the survey results as it may support the recommendation to breeders, owners and others to delay male Dalmatian castration to one year of age. "

Response from Dr Tracy Land
Castration prior to this age impedes the development of the os penis, and the resulting immature, small os penis size *may* contribute to the development of clinically relevant obstructive urinary stone disease in these animals.

That "may" is pretty telling. I can give you a stack of scientific studies like a phone book showing no problems. So the question is, do they have even one study to support their supposition? If they did, wouldn't they quote it instead of saying "may" - which also means "maybe not". Where is the study? 

And where is the logic? It doesn't intuitively make sense to me that a smaller bone would cause more of a problem. If the theory is that the bone causes the stones to block, wouldn't a smaller bone be a good thing? Actually, I don't think it's the bone that causes the blockage at all, but soft tissue swelling, though I'd have to consult a urologist to confirm that. 

Seems to me another case of someone reaching to support a position that isn't backed up by the science. 

Tracy Land, DVM


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

Excellent article addressing some of the concerns mentioned above.


http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal%20.pdf


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Debbiegthis thread seems to have two different topics,
> 1. how to stop unwanted litters and the suffering and euthanasia of millions of animals
> 
> and
> ...


I'm very sorry to hear about your son's dog but I do agree with the neuter. Was your son leaving the dog intact because he knew there was a clotting problem? If you were aware of the problem then there were steps that could have been taken to minimize the risks of surgery. If you were not aware of the clotting problem then the dog was in danger from ANY surgery or injury. A canine neuter is a relatively bloodless procedure especially if done with laser.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Debbiegthis thread seems to have two different topics,
> 1. how to stop unwanted litters and the suffering and euthanasia of millions of animals
> 
> and
> ...


Yes, the OP asked for any arguments. There are moral and medical arguments for spaying and neutering and they are intricately intertwined.


----------



## new_wind (Oct 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Debbieg
> 
> i agree that something must be done to stop unwanted litters which leads to the killing of so many animals but how can this be done without forcing people who wish, for health reasons to leave their pets intact have to have them have this surgery?


you can't, no matter how many responsible owners exist there always be lot more irresponsible owners making the damage and the "control measures" always will affect responsible owners.
As long there is not a REAL rigid program to register all dogs and substantial fines for those who doesn't there is no way to control animal breeding and the result will be authorities going for the easy exit imposing laws to take away your rights in look for a "better common good for all"
All arguments in favor or against are just that, arguments to justify the real problem which is the massive existence of unwanted pets.
Truth is, there are health issues with spayed dogs, there are health issues with non-spayed dogs, if we didn't have so many unwanted dogs crowding the shelters I wonder what would be the real arguments in threads like this.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I do not understand the moral reasons to perform a spay or neuter. If you have the means to protect your dog or bitch from an unwanted pregnancy, than you are not immoral for not performing the surgery. 

I personally think that immorality is nicking the nads in order to allow a dog less supervision and shoddy containment. 

We are faced with a far greater problem than dogs in rescues and dogs being euthanized in shelters. That is BSL, breed bans, requiring insurance to own dogs, land lords and homeowners associations that ban specific breeds, insurance companies that blacklist our breed. 

Some of this comes out of clueless, ignorant people who let their dogs run and do not bother to train or socialize them. The rest of it comes out of people who truly believe they are responsible owners, but fail to contain properly or to supervise properly and fear of our dogs, bites, poperty damage, and the like are the outcome. 

Because I can contain intact dogs whether any bitches be in heat or not, I know my system works. If everyone of my dogs were speutered, I would want them contained in like fashion. The immorality is in being irresponsible, not in the choice to perform surgery or not.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: GAVetTech
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: ShatteringGlassI'm choosing NOT to neuter Shane (6 month old Dalmatian) because it is healthier for him to remain intact as long as possible. Dalmatians, especially males, are prone to stone formation. Early neutering can cause the os-penis (where the dog will often "plug up") to be smaller than normal, as the dog is not fully matured and can block up easier than a dog that has not been neutered prematurely.
> ...


Why is "may" okay in that situation, but not when where talking about testicular cancer? My dog "may" get testicular cancer, he "may" also get stones (which is more serious in my eyes considering he is HIGHLY predisposed to it because of his breed).

If I let his urinary tract fully mature by not neutering, he has a better chance of passing stones than if I were to neuter him before he is fully matured. 

there is also a study on the DCA website, over 15 years of data, and out of 2,651 Dals studied, 62% of the stone formers (1,637) where NEUTERED dogs, 34.6% (924) where INTACT dogs. 2.6% (69) where SPAYED bitches and .08%(21) where INTACT bitches.

The same study also shows that the ages where most dogs formed stones was between 1 to 4 years.

I dont think you are aware how serious this problem is in Dalmatians, just cause some vet said small os penis size "may" contribute isnt enough for many Dalmatian owners, SORRY, neutering early is NOT WORTH THE RISK.


----------



## new_wind (Oct 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: selzerI do not understand the moral reasons to perform a spay or neuter. If you have the means to protect your dog or bitch from an unwanted pregnancy, than you are not immoral for not performing the surgery.
> 
> I personally think that immorality is nicking the nads in order to allow a dog less supervision and shoddy containment.
> 
> ...



Yes I agree 100% with you, but the problem is what the responsible people do in order to save their rights to not be enforced to neuter or spay our dogs?
While Extremist associations are moving forward and getting politicians to endorse their agendas, responsible people committed to protect our dogs don't have any defense or voice to be heard, that is why all those places are passing laws, and the saddest point is they are winning, so don't be surprised if very soon they knock on your door to see if your inside dog is already spayed while your neighbor hast thrown out his 3rd neutered dog in the street because is not longer a puppy.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

Actually, I'm quite familiar with the problem as I have 3 Dals of my own. Mine are speutered. 

Right from the DCA website:

a gender shift to almost 97 percent male Dalmatians may be explained because stone-forming symptoms and most certainly urinary obstruction in males is immediately visible to the observer as a result of their urinary anatomy. Bitches uneventfully pass many stones including urates without detectable symptoms because their urinary anatomy permit passing of large stones more easily than males. Many female stone-formers therefore remain undetected and unreported but these data nonetheless dispel the misconception that bitches do not become stone-formers. 

This study you are referring to was simply a collection of data. Nowhere does it imply that the spaying or neutering was instrumental in stone formation.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

what you quoted doesnt refer to altered dogs, it just states that males are more prone to have serious problems with stone formation than females, that is not what I was talking about or what this thread is about. It is about the pros and cons of altering a male dog. After many posts about how altered dogs are healthier than intact dogs, I put in my opinion about where I believe it is healthier for a male dog of a specific breed (Dalmatian) will have a greater chance of being healthier if he is allowed to fully mature before neutering or not being neutered at all.

Then what do you do with a collection of data? You look at it and make an informed decision. When the data shows that the largest number of stone formers are neutered (and by a large percentile), Im not going to act like it isnt a factor. 

So do you think it is more likely for a male Dalmatian to get stones if he is neutered pre-maturely or for him to get testicular cancer? I think it is more likely he would get stones.

Many reputable Dal breeders reccomend to wait at least till the dog is 12 months old before neutering.

BTW, My female Dal is spayed, she was spayed at 6 years old.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ShatteringGlasswhat you quoted doesnt refer to altered dogs, it just states that males are more prone to have serious problems with stone formation than females, that is not what I was talking about or what this thread is about. It is about the pros and cons of altering a male dog. After many posts about how altered dogs are healthier than intact dogs, I put in my opinion about where I believe it is healthier for a male dog of a specific breed (Dalmatian) will have a greater chance of being healthier if he is allowed to fully mature before neutering or not being neutered at all.
> 
> Then what do you do with a collection of data? You look at it and make an informed decision. When the data shows that the largest number of stone formers are neutered (and by a large percentile), Im not going to act like it isnt a factor.
> 
> ...


You are making assumptions about stone formation without the research to back it up. The DCA has not even done the appropriate research. They are making assumptions that _delaying_ neutering MAY be beneficial to male dogs who are or will be stone formers. Nowhere has anyone said that neutering _contributes_ to stone formation. The voluntary survey regarding who has stones does not tell you anything. Perhaps the dogs were neutered *because* they were stone formers. 

It makes sense to me that a stone would pass by a small os penis much easier than it would pass by a large os penis.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Ummm, urine passes THROUGH the os penis, not BY it. Like water through a pipe. The larger the os penis, the wider the "hole in the pipe". Early neutering keeps the os penis from fully developing, meaning a smaller pathway for urine, meaning it will block up easier than a fully developed, wider, os penis.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Some people just want to fix everything on four legs. It is sad really. I agree with your logic ShatteringGlass, and would not neuter. 

I find it funny that years ago, very few dogs were speutered and they lived long, happy lifespans.

I find it more funny that now, with speutered dogs the rage, immune system problems, vaccination problems, and cancers are also seem to be on the rise. 

When I was a kid, our spayed bitch was the only dog I ever heard of with cancer. Now it is everywhere. Where I do not see it so much is in intact dogs, like Pip. At fifteen, were he to develop testicular cancer or an enlarged prostate, well, the dog will have to die someday, and we would put him down when he is suffering. But so far, the prostate and the testicals are still functioning ok.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ShatteringGlassUmmm, urine passes THROUGH the os penis, not BY it. Like water through a pipe. The larger the os penis, the wider the "hole in the pipe". Early neutering keeps the os penis from fully developing, meaning a smaller pathway for urine, meaning it will block up easier than a fully developed, wider, os penis.


Actually the urine passes through the urethra which is surrounded by the os penis. 

Again, no research has been done to prove this theory. It is only a theory that MAY have validity. Once sexual maturity is achieved, around 11-15 months, the os penis does not continue to mature or get bigger. Neutering a dog at 6 yrs of age (or never) versus 12 months of age has no benefit.

In addition, there is NO evidence that neutering at any age *causes *a Dal to develop stones.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Regarding cognitive abilities, this is a statement from a study in people:

"Rebecca Wood, Chief Executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust said: "This is a large study with interesting results. There may be a hormonal link to explain the difference between the incidence of dementia in men and women after the age of 90.

Previous research has shown that testosterone in men appears to be protective and has positive effects on mood and thinking skills, while a number of studies have shown that low levels of oestrogen during menopause increase a women’s risk of Alzheimer’s."

Interesting.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

The problem is that that's unlikely to transfer to dogs. Physiologically and in terms of lifespan people and dogs are extremely different. Also, to the best of my knowledge dogs don't suffer from Alzheimers.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: selzerSome people just want to fix everything on four legs. It is sad really. I agree with your logic ShatteringGlass, and would not neuter.
> 
> I find it funny that years ago, very few dogs were speutered and they lived long, happy lifespans.
> 
> ...


Perhaps these problems are _everywhere_ due to lousy breeding practices.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: GAVetTech
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: ShatteringGlassUmmm, urine passes THROUGH the os penis, not BY it. Like water through a pipe. The larger the os penis, the wider the "hole in the pipe". Early neutering keeps the os penis from fully developing, meaning a smaller pathway for urine, meaning it will block up easier than a fully developed, wider, os penis.
> ...


Again, I dont care if its "only a theory that MAY have validity", its not a risk I would reccomend a male Dal owner take, given the studies and FACT that male Dalmatians are not mature at 6 months (when most vets reccomend neuters) and that they are born genetically different than other breeds of dogs and are at a HIGH RISK of developing stones. But you seem to want to snip a dog as soon as it can stand on its own feet.

I never said that neutering at 6 years is better than neutering at 12 months, Ive been talking against neutering male Dalmatians before they are fully matured. If you want to neuter your dog after he is done maturing, go ahead! I just personnally prefer to keep my current male intact.


----------



## GAVetTech (Oct 8, 2009)

Did I really say to snip a dog as soon as it can stand on its feet? I don't think so. We were discussing the benefits of speutering and you used the example of Dals and stone forming as a health reason not to neuter. Once mature, there is no reason not to speuter. In the end, the health benefits of speutering outweigh the risks. 

I used the reference of neutering at 6 yrs of age due to your mention that you spayed your female at 6 yrs old. She received no health *benefits* from that delay. 

*PREFERRING* to keep your dog intact is not a valid "health" argument.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Of course you didnt say that word for word, but your so into neutering everything on four legs no matter what, thats how it comes off in your posts. You took my post too literally, I said "you seem", meaning thats the impression I am getting.

My female was spayed at 6 years old because that is when I got her. 

Did i say that "preferring" is a health argument? NO that is why i said "I personnally prefer".

Im so done with this thread....


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The spayed bitch was a mutt, no idea what lousy breeding practices she was subjected to. Probably the old "dog got her when she was tied out" standby.

I expect that years ago there were lousy breeding practices too. At this point, I really do not know of any genetic testing that screens for cancers. Hip/elbow dysplasia, Cardiac, Thyroid, VWd, and Cerf testing. If a dog develops cancer at 6 months to two years, they great the breeder can choose not to repeat a breeding perhaps. But if the dog develops cancer at six to nine year, his sire and dam may be long retired. 

So is the shoddy breeding practices aimed at people choosing to keep their dogs intact because they breed dogs?

They do not neuter and spay humans just for the fun of it. 

There is a decreased cognitive problem dogs get as they age. I would accuse Pippy of having it, but then I have to remember that the English Setter was only given two brain cells and they only get together on something once in a blue moon. 

Not performing an UNNECESSARY surgery Is a valid "health" argument.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:There is a decreased cognitive problem dogs get as they age.


Agreed. I should have been clearer in my post. I just mean that we can't conclude that the kind of dementia sometimes seen in elderly dogs has the same causes as the kind they were studying in people and therefore really really can't make the double leap to infer that it's hormonally mediated. 

Sidebar - Anyone know if the average inbreeding coefficient for dogs has changed over the past 50 years or so?


----------



## jfisher (Dec 29, 2005)

Not trying to pass this off as scientific evidence or anything, but think of the incidents where a human female has had a complete hysterectomy...My mother had to have an ovariohysterectomy 15 years ago due to cysts and she STILL has to take hormone pills every day. She had a lot of problems afterward. Just something I was thinking about...

-Jackie


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm still pretty hesitant about the dog/human parallels because we're very different. But are the problems your mom is having similar to problems that spayed dogs experience or totally different stuff? Because it seems like a lot of the issues with hormone replacement therapy (which of course can cause its own problems) are to address issues that aren't issues for dogs.


----------



## jfisher (Dec 29, 2005)

Oh I definitely agree that you can't parallel dogs to humans as well. I was just thinking about it and wanted to add a new viewpoint to the thread. (Is this still a thread?! I think it's more like a rope at this point!







)

I actually don't know if spayed bitches go through the same issues...That's one disadvantage of owning dogs...They can't tell you what's wrong and they're so stoic they won't show some pain. 

I agree that most pet dogs should be spayed or neutered AFTER they mature properly, however I can also understand the choice to not spay/neuter with regard to a breeding (obvious) or working dog.










-Jackie


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have no intention to breed many of my bitches, and I have no intention of spaying them either. I am not in agreement of medical advantages being greater than the disadvantages. 

Everyone pretty much agrees that mammary cancer risk goes way down if you spay before the first heat cycle. And is still advantageous if you spay before the second heat cycle. Beyond that there does not seem to be any advantage. The problem is that I do not make a decision on my girls as to whether they are breedworthy until they are two and sometimes three. They have their second heat cycle usually be 16 months. If there is an obvious heritable conformation fault, like Milla's light eyes, well maybe I have already made the decision on her, but I do not like the idea of changing something that may affect their temperament or growth until they are fully mature. By that point the mammary cancer improvement is non-existent.

So after they are mature bitches and I have made the decision not to breed this one, I could spay to prevent pyometra, and I could lose the bitch in the surgery, or I can have adverse affects, spay incontinence or siezures as complications from spaying. I just do not like the idea of having a surgery to prevent a possible problem.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I posted the info about the human dementia study, to be considered in conjuction with the link I posted on canine cognitive impairment.
For myself, I found it interesting and I do see parallels.

None of the scientific "health" studies will account for crappy owners, determined dogs, poor training, or just owners who would rather take the easier route. 
My dog Domingo was the pure devil when it came to females in heat. When he repeatedly caused self injury, it was time to castrate. Could I have trained him better or excercised him more? Probably. 
I made the choice to castrate. But I was able to make that choice with KNOWLEDGE.
Imagine that


----------



## Raziel (Sep 29, 2009)

I know some people who should be neutered!
LOL


----------



## Raziel (Sep 29, 2009)

Most of those "unwanted" dogs are people that let their animals fun free. They dont care what they are doing. Not everyone is like this with their pets. Our neighbor down the streets female is not spayed and Kilo does not try to hump her. Or go into a CRAZED mating frenzy, and foam at the mouth etc!
He always stays with me, and our neighbors are always watching their female. 
People just need to take responsibilty for their animals.
Just b/c some people dont bother to watch their pets....doesnt mean everyone is like that.
If anything people should RAISE the prices of puppies so people cant get one for 20$.


----------



## littledmc17 (Apr 9, 2008)

Just wait until he is 2 
watch out then you'll think twice about not having him neutered


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: Angel ROur neighbor down the streets female is not spayed and Kilo does not try to hump her. Or go into a CRAZED mating frenzy, and foam at the mouth etc!
> He always stays with me, and our neighbors are always watching their female.


With Kilo being one year old, odds are against your neighbors bitch having been in season when he was aware.

Just my anecdote from when I was a kid, it was pretty hard to give away the rediculous looking puppies when your black sable GSD decides to hook up with the neighbor's Samoyed. There's no stopping him once decides he wants some of that...


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: SunCzarina[There's no stopping him once decides he wants some of that...










Too funny!

I will say that my oldest male Kenju, intact, no problems. Whines some and goes a little off his food when a female is in heat. But really no big deal.
Domingo, otoh, was HORRIBLE! Screaming, crying, pacing, would not eat. Destroyed crates, doors, and fences. Pushed through concreted-in-the-ground chainlink. Just a nightmare of a dog when a female was in heat.
So those with Kenju-type dogs can easily live with and control their dogs with basic safety precautions. The Domingos of the world need Alcatraz


----------



## allieg (Nov 4, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Angel RI know some people who should be neutered!
> LOL


An spayed.....


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: gagsd_pup1The Domingos of the world need Alcatraz


I heard that!

One of our rescue GSDs came from a private home so he didn't fall under RI Law that all shelter dogs must be snipped. My DH and I fought and fought for months over that - my husband had completely fallen for this particular dog and wanted to keep him. 

Gideon could get out of anything I had nightmares of him hooking up with that skanky mutt bitch up the other end of the block who was always either nursing puppies or getting ready to drop another litter.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

My dog is almost 4, has been bred once, and does not act like a nut even today, when three of my bitches have been in heat for about a week. 

In fact, in class on Thursday -- the first class he's had all year save one outdoor session before his therapy test, he acted like a little old gentleman doing everything I asked of him. 

I am sure glad I did not neuter him. It may have changed his personality, and he is about as close to perfect as anyone could hope for.


----------

