# Sigh. I wish you all knew.



## AddieGirl

I wish everyone who is anti-spay/neuter or against pediatric spay/neuter could work one day in my job as front office coordinator at a spay neuter clinic in the southern US. 

I understand that we (we as in responsible, informed, educated pet owners) are more than capable of successfully raising an intact dog without unwanted litters (most of the time). However, the people I see on a daily basis are not. My phone rings off-the-hook every single day with people who's dogs are having multiple litters a year. These are mixed breed dogs and purebred dogs. We actually had a German Shepherd being spayed yesterday whose owner told me that she was still stuck with 3 of her puppies at home that she couldn't sell and they are now 6 months old. And guess what? On her paperwork she spelled shepherd: sheppard. She is breeding our beloved GSD's and can't even spell the name of the breed. 

This is NOTHING compared to the dogs we see whose nipples drag the ground and have had countless litters. We do an average of around 30 surgeries per day and are not even putting a DENT in the problem in our area. 

I understand the research against early spay/neuter. My point is, there is a bigger problem. Yesterday I got a call from a nice young woman whose dog had a litter of puppies 8 weeks ago. She told me that her dog had complications with delivery and 3 were stillborn. There were 8 that survived and she noticed today that one of them was dragging its legs and can't walk. All of their gums are white and they seem sick. I gave her the number to the lowest priced full service vet in our area but she said she had absolutely no money. Her only option is if it gets really bad, and the puppies are suffering, our local animal control will euthanize them free of charge. 

This is not an isolated case, these people are countless! I get calls like that every day because people know that we offer low-cost spay/neuter and they think we offer full service care. If her dog had been spayed before her first heat, those puppies wouldn't even exist and wouldn't be suffering. 

It's just hard to live in an area where there is so much overpopulation and the shelters have to euthanize most of the animals just to make room for more. 

I love helping people and it makes me so happy when I get to help someone have their dog spayed or neutered for only $5 when they have no money. My job can be extremely rewarding. I just get discouraged sometimes when I think about someone googling "should I spay my dog" and possibly deciding not to, when they are not responsible enough to keep her from getting pregnant. 

Thanks for reading if you've made it this far! If you have any questions about our organization or what it's like living in an area with such pet overpopulation I'd be happy to talk.


----------



## Lilie

Addie - I certainly appreciate what you do for a living and hope that today will be one of your 'good' days!


----------



## AddieGirl

Well I am off today, so it will be GREAT!!! LOL, j/k I love my job but I do enjoy my days off.


----------



## msvette2u

> My job can be extremely rewarding. I just get discouraged sometimes when I think about someone googling "should I spay my dog" and possibly deciding not to, when they are not responsible enough to keep her from getting pregnant.


:thumbup: 

So do I. I cringe when people go on tirades about the "dangers" of early s/n when they don't even know if this person has a fenced yard, or if their dog runs loose all day.
The truth is, the average pet owner (see other thread LOL) has no business owning an intact animal.


----------



## AddieGirl

Exactly! I won't get in to the cat problem since this is not the place, but we see pregnant KITTENS every day. I'm talking about 4 month old babies, pregnant. And we have a huge problem with feral cats and inbreeding. We see deformities and its very sad.


----------



## qbchottu

Here is a small problem with your argument. Those of us (at least in my case) that advocate leaving animals intact ONLY do so in cases where the owner is knowledgeable, capable, and willing to manage an intact animal. Your examples are all of ignorant, cruel, and careless owners that neglect to care for their animals properly. *Nobody* advocates that these type of people leave their dogs intact - but it is an issue of people being uneducated and ignorant. Do you really believe that these type of owners have read or know the research on intact animals and health benefits? These people don't care to even spell the name right, they don't refer to veterinary studies to gain ammo for a intact/speuter argument - they just don't care or wish to do as they like! I commend you for your work, but the intact argument has little to do with ignorant owners because these owners are not doing even the most basic research into caring for their animals properly...


----------



## Courtney

I enjoyed reading this article in the recent issue of WDJ.

(qbchottu-good post)

Risks and Benefits to Spaying and Neutering Your Dog - Whole Dog Journal Article


----------



## AddieGirl

That's not accurate. There are the in-between people who have maybe been raised by truly ignorant parents who let their pets have litter after litter. They may decide to consider spaying or neutering and almost everyone has internet access. If you think that the internet is limited to responsible intelligent people, then I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## AddieGirl

I am in NO way implying that the actual reason for our problem is because of anti-spay/neuter research. I am just saying that seeing it praised and spread around makes me cringe.


----------



## msvette2u

Before flinging out articles that rely on that phony report from Dr. Zink, read the REBUTTAL to their paper.

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

And truth is, pets don't live to be 80yrs. old. If they did I could see the concern over early s/n.


----------



## qbchottu

AddieGirl said:


> That's not accurate. There are the in-between people who have maybe been raised by truly ignorant parents who let their pets have litter after litter. They may decide to consider spaying or neutering and almost everyone has internet access. If you think that the internet is limited to responsible intelligent people, then I don't know what to tell you.


So by your logic, those ignorant parents raised children ignorant of repercussions of having indiscriminate litters, hence the cycle of misinformation. You've just echoed my sentiments. 

Where did I say the internet is limited to intelligent people? My 6yr old niece can access the internet too, but is she looking up scientific research on spay/neuter? *Just* because someone HAS access to the information, does not mean they will seek it out or even be able to comprehend it properly. You say these people are too ignorant and incapable of even basic animal care - how could a spay/neuter argument even remotely factor into their decision making? Fear mongering is not effective crowd control. Educate and inform those that are ignorant and perhaps there can be a change, but to attack the discussion, research, and awareness of the topic itself? Nah.... 



AddieGirl said:


> I am in NO way implying that the actual reason for our problem is because of anti-spay/neuter research. I am just saying that seeing it praised and spread around makes me cringe.


Praised because of health benefits indicated or supported by research? Or is the research just presented and extremists use it as ammo? Spread? Knowledge and research *should* be spread. I am glad we have discussions and varying opinions on the topic. BUT nobody here advocates that *everyone* leave their pets intact. Only those that can handle and manage the responsibility of having intact animals. The flaw with your argument is that those that ignorantly and carelessly manage their pets are not even HAVING that discussion to begin with....so why would a intact/speuter argument factor into their reasoning or decision making??


----------



## Freestep

AddieGirl said:


> I understand the research against early spay/neuter. My point is, there is a bigger problem.





msvette2u said:


> :thumbup:
> I cringe when people go on tirades about the "dangers" of early s/n when they don't even know if this person has a fenced yard, or if their dog runs loose all day.
> The truth is, the average pet owner (see other thread LOL) has no business owning an intact animal.


I see average pet owners every day, and I have to agree.

I too cringe when people advise total strangers on the internet to wait until age 2 to spay/neuter. To me, it seems to border on irresponsible to say this to the general public. How many times has someone started a thread by saying "Oops, my 9 month old female is pregnant!" By age 2, a bitch can have three litters! 

Believe me, I know the "average pet owner", and they do not have the wherewithall to prevent unwanted litters. They don't always recognize the signs of heat, they don't always have a fenced yard, they have kids which let dogs out, etc. etc. etc.

I'm not saying research shouldn't be done. But if they are going to shout "don't spay/neuter" from the rooftops, perhaps more research should be done to find alternative ways to prevent unwanted litters.

I'm not a fan of pediatric spay/neuter, but in light of the larger problem, I understand why shelters are doing it. I think it's the lesser of two evils.

I personally have always gritted my teeth and allowed my dogs at least a year before spay/neuter, but I'd never advise the average pet owner to do so. 

In a perfect world where everyone is responsible and vigilant, I wouldn't give a dang whether people spay/neuter or not. It's really none of my business as long as no one is creating a burden on society with unwanted litters. But our tax dollars fund shelters, rescues, and animal control, so it really is a social issue.

I know I'll get blasted for my opinion, but you have to realize I see average pet owners every day, I know their habits and how they think, and most of them (fortunately) realize that they aren't equipped to safely handle an intact dog, and don't want the responsibility anyway. It grinds my gears when people chastise others for choosing to spay/neuter at 6 months. 

It's not just about the health of one dog, it's about the well-being of dogs as a whole. When shelters are empty and rescues are bored, I might change my opinion, but for now, we've got to get pet overpopulation under control. Like it or not, the most effective way of doing so is spay/neuter.


----------



## AddieGirl

I am not talking about people getting online and delving into scientific research and published articles. I am talking about things like this:

When should I spay my dog? - Yahoo! Answers

Read the top answer, and then read through the comments. Several recommend waiting until after first heat or 12 months.


----------



## msvette2u

> I know I'll get blasted for my opinion, but you have to realize I see average pet owners every day, I know their habits and how they think, and most of them (fortunately) realize that they aren't equipped to safely handle an intact dog, and don't want the responsibility anyway. *It grinds my gears when people chastise others for choosing to spay/neuter at 6 months.
> *
> 
> It's not just about the health of one dog, it's about the well-being of dogs as a whole.


Exactly this!

And yet over and over on this board, and others, (this one isn't the only one) people waltz in here and are told NO omg, NO you're killing your dog to alter it at 6mos!

The first question one should ask when people bop in here to ask about s/n at 6mos. is, "how confident are you that you can prevent an unwanted litter?" 

The average breeder doesn't think heats are a picnic, why advise [going through it] it to your average pet owner??


----------



## martemchik

Yeah the problem with pointing people in the direction of do some research is that current research is pointing towards how the health benefits are to leave them intact. But current research papers do not state anything about males climbing fences to get out of yards, people going to dog parks and just letting their dogs run wild (not knowing if they're in heat or not), living in areas where there are a lot of stray dogs and just leaving their animal in their back yard since its "their property."

Or the ones that come onto this forum and say...well so and so was dog sitting while I was on vacation, and they had no idea that their bitch was in heat! Now we have puppies!

I know some of you don't want to believe that the majority of new members on this forum are the irresponsible/non-knowledgeable average dog owners, but when your first post on this forum is "should I spueter?" My first thought is...if this forum is the first resource you went to in order to get an answer to this question...it means you don't know anything about responsible dog ownership. To want the opinion of a bunch of strangers...that you've never met, and have no idea how knowledgeable we are on anything...and value it over the opinion of your vet...is kind of crazy!!!


----------



## msvette2u

> But current research papers do not state anything about males climbing fences to get out of yards, people going to dog parks and just letting their dogs run wild (not knowing if they're in heat or not), living in areas where there are a lot of stray dogs and just leaving their animal in their back yard since its "their property."


OMG another gem. TOTALLY!!!!
Nobody wants to talk about the "oopsies".

As stated in another thread (again I've referenced it, can you believe it!?) we see the world though our own biases and if you're a good, responsible pet owner who'd never let their bitch get knocked up, or let their boy impregnate the neighbor's intact bitch, then you think EVERYONE is like you!!

They aren't!! In a very big, bad way they are not!! 
Trust me, I hear from them every **** day!

Like the guy who called wanting to know if, because we're a rescue, we'd pay for his dogs to get quills pulled out of their faces - when I said, "no, just bring them to the vet", he said they didn't have money to do that!

I said, well, how do you manage to feed them, and vet them, spay/neuter? He said "OH they've had a number of litters now, we just take them down to the Walmart and they are gone in 10 minutes!"

Egads. 
My head hurts.


----------



## AddieGirl

Oh, the Walmart people. We have those every single weekend. They set up in the back of their pick up truck or SUV and they have huge handwritten signs. Usually they are giving them away, but sometimes trying to sell them. :-/


----------



## qbchottu

So what exactly _is _your point? It is just as irresponsible to ignorantly mismanage intact animals as it is to dole out blanket advice to anyone without a proper vetting of the asker's capabilities. BOTH are incorrect - nobody said otherwise, but what is your solution? There should be a discussion and spread of knowledge/research. Advice should be given with proper consideration. Proper education and awareness is the issue - not the research and topic itself.


----------



## martemchik

And you know what...I consider myself responsible...I do a lot with my dog...he's intact...and although I'm pretty well off and don't need extra income, at this point if someone with a pretty good female asked me for a stud...I'd think about it (just to get another puppy)...if I wasn't looking for a puppy...I'd think about an extra $500-$1000 in my pocket for a stud fee. If you decrease my current income by $10000 I'd think about it a bit harder, and if you decrease it by $20000, I wouldn't even hesitate.


----------



## AddieGirl

qbchottu said:


> So what exactly _is _your point? It is just as irresponsible to ignorantly mismanage intact animals as it is to dole out blanket advice to anyone without a proper vetting of the asker's capabilities. BOTH are incorrect - nobody said otherwise, but what is your solution? There should be a discussion and spread of knowledge/research. Advice should be given with proper consideration. Proper education and awareness is the issue - not the research and topic itself.


My point is that in a LOT of areas the truly responsible pet owners are vastly outnumbered by those who are not capable of managing an intact dog. Therefore, advising someone to wait on s/n or not do it at all, is frustrating to me. I never said anyone was right or wrong, just that it is disheartening to see so many look for advice and to be told that s/n is dangerous, or bad for their dog. In my OPINION the overpopulation problem is more urgent and the average pet owner should s/n.


----------



## msvette2u

> it is disheartening to see so many look for advice and to be told that s/n is dangerous, or bad for their dog.


:thumbup:

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on; that is, if you're responsible with your pets, then don't feel people are preaching at _you_ to not own intact animals.

The responsible homes are few and far between.


----------



## irickchad

Thanks for the work you do. I know how things can be in those situations, and work with a lot of low income families and individuals myself. At the end of the day, there's still going to be a problem, but just know when you go to bed at night you're helping at least a little!


----------



## Jack's Dad

I think in most cases if people are responsible enough to keep an intact animal then they wouldn't need to ask about S/N in the first place.

Citing research is somewhat useless because you can find research to support either position. 

It's human nature to look only for that which supports your own view and to dismiss anything that doesn't.


----------



## LARHAGE

qbchottu said:


> Here is a small problem with your argument. Those of us (at least in my case) that advocate leaving animals intact ONLY do so in cases where the owner is knowledgeable, capable, and willing to manage an intact animal. Your examples are all of ignorant, cruel, and careless owners that neglect to care for their animals properly. *Nobody* advocates that these type of people leave their dogs intact - but it is an issue of people being uneducated and ignorant. Do you really believe that these type of owners have read or know the research on intact animals and health benefits? These people don't care to even spell the name right, they don't refer to veterinary studies to gain ammo for a intact/speuter argument - they just don't care or wish to do as they like! I commend you for your work, but the intact argument has little to do with ignorant owners because these owners are not doing even the most basic research into caring for their animals properly...


 
EXACTLY!!!! I work in the Health care field and despite free birth control, girls still get pregnant as well, you can't fix stupid! essentially there comes a point you just have to go on doing your best to educate the ignorant, as trying and frustrating as it is.


----------



## msvette2u

Jack's Dad said:


> *I think in most cases if people are responsible enough to keep an intact animal then they wouldn't need to ask about S/N in the first place.*


:thumbup:



Jack's Dad said:


> Citing research is somewhat useless because you can find research to support either position.
> 
> *It's human nature to look only for that which supports your own view and to dismiss anything that doesn't.*


As it is to believe everyone lives like we do 

I'd err on the side of caution every time and recommend earlier than later s/n.

As for early s/n making animals unhealthy...diet and genetics play a larger role, IMO (and experience) and no matter how healthy an animal (or human) is, it's still going to die at some point. 
Nobody, and nothing, gets out alive.


----------



## Franksmom

Freestep said:


> I see average pet owners every day, and I have to agree.
> 
> I too cringe when people advise total strangers on the internet to wait until age 2 to spay/neuter. To me, it seems to border on irresponsible to say this to the general public. How many times has someone started a thread by saying "Oops, my 9 month old female is pregnant!" By age 2, a bitch can have three litters!
> 
> Believe me, I know the "average pet owner", and they do not have the wherewithall to prevent unwanted litters. They don't always recognize the signs of heat, they don't always have a fenced yard, they have kids which let dogs out, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I'm not saying research shouldn't be done. But if they are going to shout "don't spay/neuter" from the rooftops, perhaps more research should be done to find alternative ways to prevent unwanted litters.
> 
> I'm not a fan of pediatric spay/neuter, but in light of the larger problem, I understand why shelters are doing it. I think it's the lesser of two evils.
> 
> I personally have always gritted my teeth and allowed my dogs at least a year before spay/neuter, but I'd never advise the average pet owner to do so.
> 
> In a perfect world where everyone is responsible and vigilant, I wouldn't give a dang whether people spay/neuter or not. It's really none of my business as long as no one is creating a burden on society with unwanted litters. But our tax dollars fund shelters, rescues, and animal control, so it really is a social issue.
> 
> I know I'll get blasted for my opinion, but you have to realize I see average pet owners every day, I know their habits and how they think, and most of them (fortunately) realize that they aren't equipped to safely handle an intact dog, and don't want the responsibility anyway. It grinds my gears when people chastise others for choosing to spay/neuter at 6 months.
> 
> It's not just about the health of one dog, it's about the well-being of dogs as a whole. When shelters are empty and rescues are bored, I might change my opinion, but for now, we've got to get pet overpopulation under control. Like it or not, the most effective way of doing so is spay/neuter.


:thumbup: 
Well said!
Totally agree!


----------



## Blanketback

Where I live, there seems to be only 2 types of owners. Either the dogs are all altered, and I'm criticized for not neutering my puppy yet (he's just over 1 yr) or the dogs are all intact and I'm questioned on my logic for not breeding a purebred. I can't win, lol. But both sides think they're absolutely right and it's tiring to explain myself to them. Now I just smile and nod and change the subject. I'm not going to tell the speuter crowd they're wrong, and I can't reason with people who refuse to see the overpopulation problem. I'd love to meet someone who considers the dog's health in the equation and have a conversation with them, but that's never happened.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

This is a very lopsided argument and I certainly appreciate those that do the kind of work that msvette2u and Addiegirl do. However, I get tired of hearing about being wrong for wanting my dogs to fully develop mentally and physically. I am quite able to insure my female (who was left intact for one cycle because I believe it beneficial) stays safely away from being impregnated.

Would you do a total hysterectomy "just because" on a 7 or 8 year old girl to insure she does not have an unwanted teen pregnancy? No - then don't insist my dog have it done.


----------



## martemchik

Kayos and Havoc said:


> This is a very lopsided argument and I certainly appreciate those that do the kind of work that msvette2u and Addiegirl do. However, I get tired of hearing about being wrong for wanting my dogs to fully develop mentally and physically. I am quite able to insure my female (who was left intact for one cycle because I believe it beneficial) stays safely away from being impregnated.
> 
> Would you do a total hysterectomy "just because" on a 7 or 8 year old girl to insure she does not have an unwanted teen pregnancy? No - then don't insist my dog have it done.


Again...you're someone with more than 17,000 posts on this forum. If you asked that question, its clear that you probably know something about dogs and how to be responsible about it. The majority of this issue is discussing the fact that many times its a first time poster, that just got their first GSD 4 months ago, and now the vet is telling them to speuter because that's what vets do. 

The core of that issue is that someone that "knows" or is "responsible" probably won't look to complete strangers on an internet forum for that kind of advice. They'll either have someone to go to...or they'll find someone to go to. If you're a first time poster how do you know if the answers you're getting are from a knowledgeable person or someone that asked the question a week ago and now has formed their own opinion based on the answers they received?

The majority of pet owners cannot handle an intact animal. So why is it wrong to assume that the majority of first time posters (and many time only time posters) are also not capable of handling an intact animal?


----------



## San

It is a lopsided argument when we compare female dogs to human girls, we EUTHANIZE "unwanted" dogs and cats on a daily basis, we don't do that to "unwanted" babies. 

Hubby and I foster for a GSD rescue. Our last foster was adopted a month ago, just as we told our rescue that we wanted a little break, a Dutchie mix came up on the euthanasia list at our local animal shelter, we had to take him in. We've had him for two weeks, he is young, healthy, energetic, very very smart, and extremely loving. Hard to believe he was only 3 hours away from being euthanized. 

I am not a big fan of neutering or spaying at a young age, but then again, I consider myself a responsible pet owner. If all pet owners were responsible, there wouldn't be so many of these dogs and cats getting killed everyday.


----------



## Axel'smommy

qbchottu said:


> Your examples are all of ignorant, cruel, and careless owners that neglect to care for their animals properly. *Nobody* advocates that these type of people leave their dogs intact - but it is an issue of people being uneducated and ignorant. Do you really believe that these type of owners have read or know the research on intact animals and health benefits? These people don't care to even spell the name right, they don't refer to veterinary studies to gain ammo for a intact/speuter argument - they just don't care or wish to do as they like! ...


Ignorance is not cruelity and does not mean the person doesn't care. I live in Louisiana and we have many people who love their pets, but are ignorant and uneducated and do as their parents did. That does not make them mean nor does it mean they don't love and care about their dogs. Im sure they are not trying to intentionally harm their pets.


----------



## NancyJ

I think people have to be armed with the truth and be allowed to make their decisions. I appreciate the health counterpoint document and will review it. My own experience has been that I prefer the temperament of an intact male. Period.

You also have to realize there are plenty of folks who don't want to accept the fact we can control our intact animals and want to force a surgery on them because others cannot control their own dogs. It really is getting that way.....

I get angry when only the pros of early spay / neuter are offered and we are assumed to be stupid. I left a vet because, among other things, I was concerned that somehow if I ever left my male there for any process involving anesthesia, he would be accidentally neutered because the guy was always after me to neuter my males. FWIW I have *never* been responsible for any breedings, let alone "oopsies".

How does this play out in Western Europe? I know the vast majority of animals over there are left intact. Just curious.


----------



## N Smith

10 years ago I was an "average pet owner". I didn't want to compete with my dogs, and just wanted well behaved pets.

My male husky was neutered at 6 months as per the HS contract, but when I got my Leonberger a few years later, I started researching when to spay/neuter as she was going to be my first competition dog.

I asked my breeder and training mentor for their views on spaying/neutering. Both said wait until at least 3 years, and really neither of them would do it unless it was medically required or once a female gets to about 8 years.

I had never had an intact animal before, they had all been s/n, because like I said, I was "the average pet owner" and my vet had always said no later than 6 months or your dog will drop dead of cancer. So I did some internet research of my own too. I found a thread on a board similar to this where someone else had asked the "uninformed therefor can not learn and because they asked hurry up and tell them as early as possible" question about when to spay/neuter.

I followed the thread read papers and studies for and against, for but at 2-3 years, against completely etc. From that I decided I would never spay/neuter another dog as long as it was not a health requirement (monorchid/cryptorchid, Pyo etc). I BECAME a responsible owner, because I knew that I had no plans to breed that Leonberger, so I learned everything I could find about heat cycles, whelping, breeding and how to keep her safe during her heats.

Now I am a competition/sport dog handler, going in 10 weeks for my FCI Certification as a Training Director and will have my first litter next year once my female is done competing this year. 

So I guess what I am saying is - there IS nothing wrong with spreading the knowledge. Yes, have both sides answer, so that the OP can have something to think about. But jsut because the OP doesn't know how to be a responsbile owner YET, doesn't mean they can't learn.


----------



## Muskeg

My problem is with the average responsible pet owner who adopts a puppy from a rescue that was speutered at, say 8 weeks of age.

I do not adopt from rescues that pediatric speuter because I want to give myself the best odds for a healthy, long-lived companion. I have suffered through my "heart" dog and complications from his early speutering. Never again. It's a shame, because that means I am buying a pup from a breeder instead. 

My point is- this can go the other way. Where responsible, loving owners get a puppy with a predisposition to expensive health problems because they believe they are doing the right thing. Not fair to them to lump them together with the irresponsible owners. It's like telling every male (human) between the ages of 16 to 40 that they should not drive because they are in the most likely category to be involved in a reckless accident. 

And the onus for population control is on the owners of female dogs. Put out information on the signs of heat and how to contain a dog during that time. 

I know the stray dog issue- I adopted a stray directly myself. My first dog was from the pound. That doesn't mean I will speuter my dogs at 8 weeks just to prove a point or be a good example.


----------



## Jack's Dad

So N Smith do you not see what happens. In so many words you just said that as an "average pet owner" you did S/N your dogs. When you were enlightened, you became a "responsible pet owner" and kept them intact.

I think I was a responsible pet owner. I've owned more than a dozen dogs in my life and Jack was the only one I waited on. He was neutered somewhere between 18 mths. and 2 years.

As far as the health issues go. I lost three pups over a period of years when distemper was rampant. Many years ago. All the rest of my dogs lived in health until at least the the average age of the breed or longer.

Thank God I didn't realize that my males were sissy boys and my females were all going to get some horrible cancer and die young.

I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I adopted my GSD from the shelter, where she was spayed. She lived to be 14.5 years old. Seems many, many, GSDs do not live that long. She was very healthy up 'til about 13 and then DM hit her.

My current pup is a hound mix from a high kill shelter in SC. This shelter gets in thousands of dogs and puppies. Most never even make it to the adoption floor. Those that do, don't necessarily get adopted. My puppy was on the urgent list. He came to me neutered. He had been adopted out at 8 weeks and was neutered then. He was returned to the shelter and adopted by me. So far he is none the worse for wear. I expect him to live close to 20 years, so I'll let y'all know how that early neuter affected him at that time.


----------



## AddieGirl

Kayos and Havoc said:


> This is a very lopsided argument and I certainly appreciate those that do the kind of work that msvette2u and Addiegirl do. However, I get tired of hearing about being wrong for wanting my dogs to fully develop mentally and physically. I am quite able to insure my female (who was left intact for one cycle because I believe it beneficial) stays safely away from being impregnated.
> 
> Would you do a total hysterectomy "just because" on a 7 or 8 year old girl to insure she does not have an unwanted teen pregnancy? No - then don't insist my dog have it done.


Obviously no one in this thread is insisting that you have your dog spayed. This is about the average pet owner, not the one who goes above and beyond to be responsible. And comparing unwanted animals to unwanted humans is ridiculous.


----------



## AddieGirl

N Smith said:


> 10 years ago I was an "average pet owner". I didn't want to compete with my dogs, and just wanted well behaved pets.
> 
> My male husky was neutered at 6 months as per the HS contract, but when I got my Leonberger a few years later, I started researching when to spay/neuter as she was going to be my first competition dog.
> 
> I asked my breeder and training mentor for their views on spaying/neutering. Both said wait until at least 3 years, and really neither of them would do it unless it was medically required or once a female gets to about 8 years.
> 
> I had never had an intact animal before, they had all been s/n, because like I said, I was "the average pet owner" and my vet had always said no later than 6 months or your dog will drop dead of cancer. So I did some internet research of my own too. I found a thread on a board similar to this where someone else had asked the "uninformed therefor can not learn and because they asked hurry up and tell them as early as possible" question about when to spay/neuter.
> 
> I followed the thread read papers and studies for and against, for but at 2-3 years, against completely etc. From that I decided I would never spay/neuter another dog as long as it was not a health requirement (monorchid/cryptorchid, Pyo etc). I BECAME a responsible owner, because I knew that I had no plans to breed that Leonberger, so I learned everything I could find about heat cycles, whelping, breeding and how to keep her safe during her heats.
> 
> Now I am a competition/sport dog handler, going in 10 weeks for my FCI Certification as a Training Director and will have my first litter next year once my female is done competing this year.
> 
> So I guess what I am saying is - there IS nothing wrong with spreading the knowledge. Yes, have both sides answer, so that the OP can have something to think about. But jsut because the OP doesn't know how to be a responsbile owner YET, doesn't mean they can't learn.


The fact that you even had a training mentor to begin with puts you in the above average category... 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AddieGirl

N Smith said:


> 10 years ago I was an "average pet owner". I didn't want to compete with my dogs, and just wanted well behaved pets.
> 
> My male husky was neutered at 6 months as per the HS contract, but when I got my Leonberger a few years later, I started researching when to spay/neuter as she was going to be my first competition dog.
> 
> I asked my breeder and training mentor for their views on spaying/neutering. Both said wait until at least 3 years, and really neither of them would do it unless it was medically required or once a female gets to about 8 years.
> 
> I had never had an intact animal before, they had all been s/n, because like I said, I was "the average pet owner" and my vet had always said no later than 6 months or your dog will drop dead of cancer. So I did some internet research of my own too. I found a thread on a board similar to this where someone else had asked the "uninformed therefor can not learn and because they asked hurry up and tell them as early as possible" question about when to spay/neuter.
> 
> I followed the thread read papers and studies for and against, for but at 2-3 years, against completely etc. From that I decided I would never spay/neuter another dog as long as it was not a health requirement (monorchid/cryptorchid, Pyo etc). I BECAME a responsible owner, because I knew that I had no plans to breed that Leonberger, so I learned everything I could find about heat cycles, whelping, breeding and how to keep her safe during her heats.
> 
> Now I am a competition/sport dog handler, going in 10 weeks for my FCI Certification as a Training Director and will have my first litter next year once my female is done competing this year.
> 
> So I guess what I am saying is - there IS nothing wrong with spreading the knowledge. Yes, have both sides answer, so that the OP can have something to think about. But jsut because the OP doesn't know how to be a responsbile owner YET, doesn't mean they can't learn.


I seriously hope you aren't saying that I (the OP) am not a responsible owner. The only dog I've ever owned that wasn't spayed or neutered was my childhood poodle who my parents never had spayed. She died from mammary cancer. I have never contributed to any litters, planned or unwanted and my pets are treated as family members. So again, I hope that's not what you meant. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AddieGirl

Ok I re-read and I think you are referring to a new poster on the forum. Apologies if that's the case.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## N Smith

AddieGirl said:


> I seriously hope you aren't saying that I (the OP) am not a responsible owner. The only dog I've ever owned that wasn't spayed or neutered was my childhood poodle who my parents never had spayed. She died from mammary cancer. I have never contributed to any litters, planned or unwanted and my pets are treated as family members. So again, I hope that's not what you meant.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Nope not what I was saying at all - hence the " " around average pet owner. Just because someone is an average pet owner does not mean they are irresponsible or responsible - and just because someone comes here asking for advice on spay neuter does not make them irresponsible or not worthy of getting "all" the information.


----------



## AddieGirl

"Yes, have both sides answer, so that the OP can have something to think about. But jsut because the OP doesn't know how to be a responsbile owner YET, doesn't mean they can't learn."

^^ That is the sentence I was referring to. 

Anyway, I don't care one bit whether your dogs are intact or not. What matters to me is that people as a whole spay and neuter their pet animals. It is the ONLY viable way at this time to stop pet overpopulation. If you want to ignore the fact that thousands of pets die every day in shelters, then that's fine. You don't have to inject the Euthasol so why should it bother you.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

AddieGirl said:


> Obviously no one in this thread is insisting that you have your dog spayed. This is about the average pet owner, not the one who goes above and beyond to be responsible. And comparing unwanted animals to unwanted humans is ridiculous.


The "average pet owner" should be responsible enough to go above and beyond or they should not own a dog. The 'average pet owner' far out numbers to person that competes with dogs. 

And comapring unwanted dogs to unwanted humans in my VERY humble opinion is NOT ridiculous.


----------



## AddieGirl

The reason I said it is ridiculous is because human babies are not put in cold steel cages and euthanized. You are implying that I meant a dog and a child do not deserve the same amount of love and that is not the case. My dogs are asleep in my bed right now and they are member of my family. Every dog SHOULD be given that amount of love but the reality is that most aren't.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AddieGirl

This is my last post in this thread. I think we are ALL on the same page. None of us wants euthanasia due to overpopulation. We all want people to be responsible. My opinion is that spay and neuter education is the best way to control the problem at the moment. I appreciate all the replies. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Addiegirl this is a topic that has a lot of emotion connected to it for various reaosns. No one has been rude or said things intended to hurt another person here. 

You have to understand that you started the topic and when you start a topic that is emotional there are going to be differing opinions and some, including me, can be vocal. It goes with the territory. I meant no offense to you personally despite disagreeing with you. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## msvette2u

Jack's Dad said:


> So N Smith do you not see what happens. In so many words you just said that as an "average pet owner" you did S/N your dogs. When you were enlightened, you became a "responsible pet owner" and kept them intact.
> 
> I think I was a responsible pet owner. I've owned more than a dozen dogs in my life and Jack was the only one I waited on. He was neutered somewhere between 18 mths. and 2 years.
> 
> As far as the health issues go. I lost three pups over a period of years when distemper was rampant. Many years ago. All the rest of my dogs lived in health until at least the the average age of the breed or longer.
> 
> Thank God I didn't realize that my males were sissy boys and my females were all going to get some horrible cancer and die young.
> 
> I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss.


Excellent post!!!


----------



## msvette2u

Kayos and Havoc said:


> This is a very lopsided argument and I certainly appreciate those that do the kind of work that msvette2u and Addiegirl do. However, I get tired of hearing about being wrong for wanting my dogs to fully develop mentally and physically. I am quite able to insure my female (who was left intact for one cycle because I believe it beneficial) stays safely away from being impregnated.
> 
> Would you do a total hysterectomy "just because" on a 7 or 8 year old girl to insure she does not have an unwanted teen pregnancy? No - then don't insist my dog have it done.


I wish people would stop internalizing when I say (or any other rescuer or someone who deals with the "general public" A LOT, like Freestep, says) "spay/neuter your pets". If you're an above average owner, who is ultra responsible, then the shoe does not fit so stop trying to cram it on your foot!

As for hysterectomies on 7-8yr. old girls...REALLY??
To compare the two is wrong on so many levels as to be...well, it's wrong, there's absolutely no comparison. 

I've said before but perhaps some missed it - there's no comparison between human maturation/growth and animals for dozens and dozens of reasons, a few of the top being 1) animals do not live as long - at best they'll make it an _average_ of 13yrs. of age. The average human has barely begun puberty at 13! 
And also we routinely neuter farm animals to make them...what? Easier to live with! Who leaves all those male pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, etc. intact, for "looks"?? 
The _only_ reason they are ever left intact is to reproduce. They are nicer, neater, cleaner, safer, with those testicles whipped off. And if we could spay girls just as easily, we'd do that too, except the reproducing ones. Heck, we just spayed a litter of pigs, it can be done safely when they are young! I've not talked to many mare owners, in fact, that don't wish they could spay their mares! All those hormones are a pain in the patootie, and even more of a pain when the animal in question gets to be over 100lbs. 

And as others have said already, when the shelters are cleaned out, and I stop getting daily phone calls to take dumped animals (yes dumped, they show up on people's doorsteps in the country) then I'll stop telling people _in general_, spay/neuter no later than 6mos. of age.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Thanks for sharing your experience, OP. This is a hot button issue but so important to discuss. I think a lot of people have absolutely no idea how severe the pet overpopulation problem is in this country and therefore cannot truly understand why people would still advocate speutering even when there is a growing body of evidence that indicates it may be harmful to longterm health. 

When I volunteered with gsd rescue in Wisconsin I visited full to overflowing rural shelters that had only 3 solid walls (when temps outside were routinely below zero). I also helped raise an oops litter of gsds who were given over to rescue because the family couldn't deal with having the puppies past 4 weeks old (they were irritating the husband). This particular family couldn't afford to spay or neuter their gsds and didn't think the male was old enough to get the female pregnant. 

Because of the magnitude of this problem I am thankful for low-cost speuter clinics and for shelters and rescues that do not adopt out unspeutered animals. Around here it's really easy to adopt from a shelter and I see families in my neighborhood who are not responsible pet owners getting dog after dog. I see those dogs getting out all of the time. If they were unspeutered I would be seeing their puppies too. My own brother (raised in the same well educated family as me) had an unneutered male gsd mix who got out all of the time and was often gone for a week or two. This dog was the puppy of his old girlfriend's dog. Several times I saw dogs in the neighborhood who looked exactly like my brother's dog and who were undoubtedly his offspring.  

My own take on it is that if I adopt an animal who hasn't been speutered then I will wait until they are mature but I will continue to adopt animals who have been speutered early. I am willing to take my chances on the health issues in order to save a life. My current cats were both speutered at 3.5 months old through their rescue organization.


----------



## hattifattener

jocoyn said:


> I think people have to be armed with the truth and be allowed to make their decisions. I appreciate the health counterpoint document and will review it. My own experience has been that I prefer the temperament of an intact male. Period.
> 
> You also have to realize there are plenty of folks who don't want to accept the fact we can control our intact animals and want to force a surgery on them because others cannot control their own dogs. It really is getting that way.....
> 
> I get angry when only the pros of early spay / neuter are offered and we are assumed to be stupid. I left a vet because, among other things, I was concerned that somehow if I ever left my male there for any process involving anesthesia, he would be accidentally neutered because the guy was always after me to neuter my males. FWIW I have *never* been responsible for any breedings, let alone "oopsies".
> 
> *How does this play out in Western Europe? I know the vast majority of animals over there are left intact. Just curious.*


in Eastern Europe as well.
i've never seen a neutered male dog.
spayed bitches are rather common though.
all my pets were,are and will be intact.
somehow we manage...


----------



## Syaoransbear

So why don't people just start advising vasectomies and tubal ligation/hysterectomies instead of spay and neuter? Then the people who want their dogs to keep their hormones are happy, and the people who want less accidental litters are happy.


----------



## arycrest

Syaoransbear said:


> So why don't people just start advising vasectomies and tubal ligation/hysterectomies instead of spay and neuter? Then the people who want their dogs to keep their hormones are happy, and the people who want less accidental litters are happy.


Excellent suggestion ... I second it!!!


----------



## aspatter

*Spay/Neuter*

Do you work in a non-profit clinic? If so, I'd like to make a donation to help those who want to do the right thing for the animal but can't afford it. Message me with the info. Thanks for caring so much.


----------



## qbchottu

Axel'smommy said:


> Ignorance is not cruelity and does not mean the person doesn't care. I live in Louisiana and we have many people who love their pets, but are ignorant and uneducated and do as their parents did. That does not make them mean nor does it mean they don't love and care about their dogs. Im sure they are not trying to intentionally harm their pets.


Ignorance *can* and *does* result in cruelty. Loving something and being able to properly care for that being are two entirely different things. Who said anything about love? You're internalizing and projecting your own issues onto my post. Ignorance, carelessness, and mismanagement *does* result in cruelty. Take for example severe hoarders - do they think they have a problem? No. However, animals are suffering without proper care and attention due to their actions. Premeditated or not - the end result is an animal in distress. I am speaking to lack of education and ignorance about proper containment of intact animals - nobody brought up love.


----------



## msvette2u

Syaoransbear said:


> So why don't people just start advising vasectomies and tubal ligation/hysterectomies instead of spay and neuter? Then the people who want their dogs to keep their hormones are happy, and the people who want less accidental litters are happy.


This is...well, it'd be a moot point. If you were so ultra responsible to try to convince a vet to leave the testes and ovaries in place (and pay a lot more on top of the regular s/n costs, I'm sure), for that to be done) then you're probably responsible enough to keep intact animals. 

Plus a benefit from s/n is getting a more tractable dog at the end of surgery, with the lack of hormones, the pet is now clear-headed and able to be lived with much easier, so vasectomies and tubal ligations would kind of negate that benefit.


----------



## Syaoransbear

msvette2u said:


> This is...well, it'd be a moot point. If you were so ultra responsible to try to convince a vet to leave the testes and ovaries in place (and pay a lot more on top of the regular s/n costs, I'm sure), for that to be done) then you're probably responsible enough to keep intact animals.
> 
> Plus a benefit from s/n is getting a more tractable dog at the end of surgery, with the lack of hormones, the pet is now clear-headed and able to be lived with much easier, so vasectomies and tubal ligations would kind of negate that benefit.


I don't really think having lots of money would make you responsible, and I don't think it would be that difficult to convince a vet to do a surgery that makes them more money .

It's just that you could have those surgeries done when the pup is quite young, so there wouldn't be this drama about telling 'average dog owners' to leave their dog intact until the dog is 2-3 years old and risk that owner having an accident in the mean time. You could tell them to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation instead. So the dog owners who may not be that responsible with containment but also really want their dog to fully develop won't contribute to the pet population.


----------



## msvette2u

It wasn't the money aspect but more the fact anyone actually thought that far into it.
And there's no vets out there, well, maybe a few but I can't picture it - that'd do that type surgery.


----------



## Jack's Dad

Sometimes I have to laugh at this stuff.

Human beings haven't even figured out how to prevent unplanned pregnancies but are supposed to be responsible enough to contain their animals.

I'll bet there is not a single person on here who doesn't know someone who participated in an unwanted pregnancy.

Hey, but at least they can keep those intact dogs from participating.


----------



## AddieGirl

aspatter said:


> Do you work in a non-profit clinic? If so, I'd like to make a donation to help those who want to do the right thing for the animal but can't afford it. Message me with the info. Thanks for caring so much.


I just wanted to say thank you for your kindness! I sent you a pm with our information, and yes we are a non-profit organization.  
Your generosity made my day! 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Jack's Dad said:


> Sometimes I have to laugh at this stuff.
> 
> Human beings haven't even figured out how to prevent unplanned pregnancies but are supposed to be responsible enough to contain their animals.
> 
> I'll bet there is not a single person on here who doesn't know someone who participated in an unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> Hey, but at least they can keep those intact dogs from participating.


My point exactly! My niece has somehow managed to get pregnant. Imagine that? Maybe if she had been spayed early it would not have happened.


----------



## AddieGirl

Odds are that your niece won't be giving birth to litters of babies twice a year that are sexually mature in 9 months. That's the difference. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer

My feeling is that the benefits of spay/neuter are always pointed out, the risks are rarely mentioned, and especially by vets. I think people are bullied and guilted into doing surgeries on their pets. 

And I think the vast majority of oopses happen because people want puppies. Maybe not this heat cycle -- they say. But anyone who has looked at an internet site for more than ten minutes can figure out that breeding puppies isn't going to go over well. And it seems like oopses just make people human. 

You really have to be deaf and blind to not realize your dog is paying a lot of attention to a certain bitch. If dogs hook up in a dog park, it is because their owners WANT them to. 

Some people really do not mind the idea of having a litter of puppies, well, not until there ARE complications and those complications are going to require a vet. They want a litter of puppies until the left-overs are six months old and driving them bananas. 

I really do not think you are going to get the irresponsible people who want puppies to spay and neuter by lying to them. And by lying I mean telling them exaggerated benefits, like he will be happier or healthier, he will be easier to handle, and by omitting the risks. 

I think that the people that want to spay and neuter out of responsibility will not be hurt by waiting a few extra months until the dog is fully mature. Responsible people will be responsible and ensure their dog will not get hooked up anywhere. 

Your best argument for early spay/neuter is also the one I hear least -- it is cheaper to do it when the dog is smaller, it often goes by weight. And the people who don't want to or can't afford to cover the cost of a litter and possible complications, might be more likely to go with that argument. Hey, if I wait until he is full grown it will cost over $300, if I do it now it will be $140. I better do it now.


----------



## Kaity

I have two bitches: One was spayed at 18/20 months and my 8 month old pup is not spayed, nor will she be. 

What would happen if we 'spayed' humans at a young age? How would we develop? I want her mind to develop and her body to develop properly. After she's 4 years old, she may or may not be spayed. At some point in her life, she will be. I don't see an issue with this. 

Would have the same plan if I had a male - I'd probably keep him intact his entire life. Responsible owners should be the only ones to own intact pets. Nobody should own intact cats and kittens.. I remember growing up seeing a kitten in a box next door on the driveway, with a blanket, and her kittens were crawling up the drtive way meowing for their mom, feet away from their box. I think the momma was trying to move them.. I didn't understand why my mom never let us help them other than call the SPCA..

What I can't stand is the mass amount of pit bulls in Vancouver/Lowermainland.. all over BC just getting bred and deemed a good dog because of their color. Since when did a bluenose have better health than any other?

My boyfriends brother and his girlfriend got a APBT pup for free, he died of parvo a few months ago. I had been around that puppy a lot, and he was even in my house. My pup only has her first shots still to date but still.. scary stuff thinking my pup could have had parvo.


----------



## selzer

While we have always spayed or neutered our cats, there are people who raise pure-bred cats, and take them to shows, kind of how we do with dogs. I don't know if I like general statements about nobody having intact cats. Evenso, I think they are even a greater nuisance, than dogs. They can breed several times in a year, and their kittens will then breed, they can take over a dwelling in a short time.


----------



## Courtney

My sister-in-law who I love dearly got her GSD a year before we did. He's a nice dog but a genetic mess. She made the comment when he was around 8 months old that she may breed him one time before neutering him to make some money...I was appalled & relieved to hear that within the month he was neutered. She only did so because of his behavior issues (no training at all...surprise he's unruly) & was told by her vet those issues will go away...she was disappointed when they didn't ...but in my mind at least he's neutered.

Just because I have chosen to keep my male intact does not mean I am anti spay/ neuter and I can take the punches from the public over it...although tiresome at times. I am responsible so the "'shoe doesn't fit".

I can certainly appreciate the OP's post...I would not have the frame of mind for that job. I am thankful for those that do & for their kind words spoken to the poor dog victims of irresponsible people as they are taking their last breath.

The article I posted was done so with care as this is a hot button topic ...I thought it did a good job defending both sides.

So, how do we determine when someone is worthy enough to hear the whole story that includes health pro's & con's? By post count? Income status? I am not trying to be snarky here.

To a degree I guess I am ok with the default answer for myself being spay/ neuter.


----------



## Dainerra

when people start talking about "people don't need to be spayed/neutered" I always think of this movie...




 Thinking on it, is also perfectly illustrates why "BYB" dogs will always outnumber well-bred dogs.

"average pet owner" is really not someone that you will find on the internet researching much of anything to do their dog. So anyone who finds this site and reads the posts that people make on the "cons" of spay/neuter is already a step ahead of the game.
I don't think I've read many posts where the "keep them intact until 2" isn't prefaced in some manner at least once in the thread by "IF you are responsible enough to insure that they don't breed"
I think that the problem comes in because EVERYONE thinks that they are responsible. Then you have to add in how much people underestimate the drive to reproduce in some dogs. A friend had a 3 lb yorkie female climb out of a 6ft tall chain link run, go down to the other end of the kennel building, climb into the stud dog's run. After that little incident, they put covers on all of the runs.
Then you have the opposite side of the coin where people spay/neuter but then assume that means it's ok to let their dog roam because "now they won't have puppies" 
I think people really have to hear both sides of the argument. Many vets will tell people that there are ZERO health risks connected to spay/neuter. I think that is just as wrong.


----------



## Dainerra

I can't find the post now but someone mentioned spay/neuter of dogs being like castrating livestock.
Really there isn't much more similarity to that than to humans. No one cares if there are long-term adverse effects to early spay/neuter of livestock. The idea is to have an easily tractable animal that will live long enough to make someone a nice steak. End of story. No one cares that he might not reach his "full potential." 
Also, the reason that they neuter so early? The most common method is banding - you take a tiny elastic band and place it around the testicles. Blood supply is cut off and the testicles essentially rot away. Better to risk losing a young calf without a lot of feed invested in it than a near-market ready animal. 
Plus, having the hormones can actually make the meat tougher. You don't WANT the animal to start to physically mature in that way. You want soft meat with a nice fat marbling vs the muscle mass of a young bull ready to fight for his breeding rights.


----------



## AddieGirl

Ok, I am now one of those people who say they are done with a topic and then keep posting. Think about this: 

Our tiny little clinic has completed over 25,000 spays and neuters since it's opening in 2007. I would estimate that 95 percent of our clients live within a 15 mile radius. In addition to that, there are at least 10 full service vet clinics in that same area, also performing spays and neuters. Our local shelter STILL euthanizes over 6,000 animals per year. 
Those that don't think spaying and neutering is the answer, what is? I KNOW it starts with education. We have volunteers who speak in local elementary schools about responsible pet ownership. What would you suggest we do in the mean time? Until people become more educated (if that ever happens)? 

Again I want to reiterate, if YOU, as an individual, choose to keep your pet intact and assume responsibility for your dog and containing him/her that is perfectly fine with me. I have no issue whatsoever if you believe that is what is best for your pet. However, if you live in an area where overpopulation is a problem, and you contribute to even ONE litter of puppies or kittens that are not up to the breeding standard that people constantly talk about on THIS forum, then please have your pet speutered.


----------



## Freestep

selzer said:


> And by lying I mean telling them exaggerated benefits, like he will be happier or healthier, he will be easier to handle, and by omitting the risks.


Many dogs ARE happier, healthier, and easier to handle after being neutered.

I've seen it happen--many times--intact dog comes in for grooming. He's nervous, so his fight/flight response is elevated. Testosterone contributes to the "fight" side of the equation, so I'm going to have a heck of a time grooming this dog. He's tense and clenched up and will not relax, his hormones are raging, he's fighting and snapping whenever I touch him, and his family wonders why he's hypervigilant, acts aggressive in certain situations, and why he won't put on weight. I tell them over and over: get the dog neutered. You're not breeding him, there is no reason for him to be intact. He's almost a year old and if this behavior isn't nipped in the bud, it's going to be even more difficult to get a handle on it.

So, finally, they get the dog neutered.

It takes a few weeks, but the dog begins to relax a little bit. The next time I groom him he is softer, not so tense, he still doesn't like to be groomed but he is not fighting me tooth and nail like before. He's not dancing around and panting and snarling like a zoo animal. The owners report that his aggression and hypervigilance has lessened, he's easier to handle, and listens better. He's finally putting on weight and doesn't look like a rescue dog anymore. He'll always have his quirks, but no longer has the hormones to exaggerate his emotions and reactions. 

In a nutshell, he's happier, healthier, and easier to handle.

I've seen this with GSDs, Poodles, Yorkies, Springers, and a Bernese Mountain Dog. So yes, I feel comfortable "lying" to clients by telling them that neutering their dog will make him happier, healthier, and easier to handle. So far, I've never seen a situation where neutering a dog hurt anything or made anything worse, except perhaps the situation where the owner doesn't cut back the dog's food after neutering, and he becomes obese. But that's the owner's fault--neutering doesn't make a dog fat, too much food makes a dog fat.


----------



## Wolfgeist

I support spay/neuter for irresponsible people. 100%. I do not think it is healthy to spay/neuter before a dog is physically mature, but at the same time I understand and support the value in altering animals at high risk for having litters. 

What I do not support is going to buy my dog license and the humane society looking down on me for keeping an intact male and charging me a ridiculous amount of money. Claiming that I am "contributing to the problem". (This has actually been said to me) My intact male has no opportunity to breed, because he is 100% managed and never given even the smallest of chances to do so. Yet I have to be charged a ridiculous fee and talked down to for my beliefs and evident responsibility. It's just lovely. This is the reason why I dislike spay/neuter zealots.

EDIT: Also, I am a certified Animal Care tech and I've spent many years in a humane society setting. I have seen more euthanasias than I can count. I understand the value of spay/neuter.


----------



## Blanketback

What I find annoying is that people will jump to the conclusion that speutering will somehow solve the problem. Of course it will solve the problem of too many offspring, but that's only one facet of the problem. Animals aren't disposable! But so many people don't see it that way. I'm not talking about rehoming because that's an entirely different scenario. I'm talking about people who just don't care about the animals, and once the cuteness wears off, or they're untrained and unruly, or they don't fit into the current lifestyle, or whatever excuse they have - they believe that they can decide that the animal isn't their responsibility anymore. Then they dump it on the side of the road, or at the shelter, or hand it over to the first person to answer an ad. It's disgusting that so many people have this attitude. But they don't see anything wrong with it, which is unfathomable to me.


----------



## msvette2u

Freestep said:


> Many dogs ARE happier, healthier, and easier to handle after being neutered.
> 
> I've seen it happen--many times--intact dog comes in for grooming. He's nervous, so his fight/flight response is elevated. Testosterone contributes to the "fight" side of the equation, so I'm going to have a heck of a time grooming this dog. He's tense and clenched up and will not relax, his hormones are raging, he's fighting and snapping whenever I touch him, and his family wonders why he's hypervigilant, acts aggressive in certain situations, and why he won't put on weight. I tell them over and over: get the dog neutered. You're not breeding him, there is no reason for him to be intact. He's almost a year old and if this behavior isn't nipped in the bud, it's going to be even more difficult to get a handle on it.
> 
> So, finally, they get the dog neutered.
> 
> It takes a few weeks, but the dog begins to relax a little bit. The next time I groom him he is softer, not so tense, he still doesn't like to be groomed but he is not fighting me tooth and nail like before. He's not dancing around and panting and snarling like a zoo animal. The owners report that his aggression and hypervigilance has lessened, he's easier to handle, and listens better. He's finally putting on weight and doesn't look like a rescue dog anymore. He'll always have his quirks, but no longer has the hormones to exaggerate his emotions and reactions.
> 
> In a nutshell, he's happier, healthier, and easier to handle.
> 
> I've seen this with GSDs, Poodles, Yorkies, Springers, and a Bernese Mountain Dog. So yes, I feel comfortable "lying" to clients by telling them that neutering their dog will make him happier, healthier, and easier to handle. So far, I've never seen a situation where neutering a dog hurt anything or made anything worse, except perhaps the situation where the owner doesn't cut back the dog's food after neutering, and he becomes obese. But that's the owner's fault--neutering doesn't make a dog fat, too much food makes a dog fat.


This exactly.
How many of you who keep your doggies intact are going to see a change...? None, because you have intact males!

However, we get plenty of nasty little intact males in rescue, dogs that have been running the street, freely breeding, etc. It's just nasty and who wants to deal with that? Maybe ya'll don't mind but I do, and I know our adopters will mind!

I'm sorry but again the average pet owner does not want intact males and all the crud that goes with it, and I hear this all the time. In fact they don't even want neutered males as a rule, and would rather have females.

Now then a bunch of you will say "then they shouldn't own a dog!" well, not everyone is an above average pet owner like y'all, who've researched and what not, there's many many many more people who just want a fun little pet.
And fun little pet = sterile. No hormone hassles.

Dainerra, there's people out there who have "just pet" animals, I was thinking of goats more than anything, and we breed for pet goats, not meat.
The boys are not going to be any fun at all peeing on their faces starting in late August until some time in the early spring. They are nasty, "horny", bratty, even dangerous boys if left intact. 
Since they go to pet homes, yes we band - waiting up to 10-12 weeks if possible (not at birth or a few days like meat goat breeders) but we band them and they don't even notice. The band is not that tight, it doesn't have to be. 
Anyway - yes we castrate them for sanity and safety purposes and just to make them nice, easy to live with _pets._
We have one intact buck for breeding and a few boys who have been castrated.


----------



## selzer

I am sorry, but a dog is happy or it is not happy. Not having testicles does not make it unhappy. But it also does not make it happy. The same is true about uterine horns. _I _might be more happy if my pieces parts were gone, but ya know what? The doctors won't. So much for it being my body. The reason they won't, is because longevity in women does coincide with how long they have the hormones being produced that are related to reproduction. Even if they have to take a womb due to cancer, they often leave at least an ovary. Otherwise you have to take estrogen, etc. 

Owners often report that dogs are better behaved after a neuter. Frankly, if they stuck it out and did exactly the same as they did after the neuter, and continued with the training, most dogs would become easier to handle. People get to the teenager stage and say, "Whoa, what did we get ourselves into?" Then they go and get the dog neutered and in a few weeks, the dog settles down. Without a neuter after a few weeks the dog settles down. Each dog is different. You cannot say Dog A turned into a butthead at 8 months 1 week. We got him neutered at 8 months 2 weeks. By 9 months 2 weeks, he is settled and much more pleasant to live with. Dog B turned into a butthead at 8 months 1 week and we did not get him neutered, and he was still a butthead at 9 months 2 weeks. Therefore, A+B = neutering fixed Dog A in more ways than one. The thing is, Dog B might have been a butt head for 3 months whether neutered or not. And there is no way to really gage that. Having raised intact dogs, I have never had a butthead stage go on for more than a couple of weeks. Since each dog is an individual, how can you ever determine whether removing the testicles made a dog more or less happy? You really can't give them back and see if he remains happy or turns back into a monster. 

I think too that if you are in one camp or the other, you tend to look for evidence that supports your theories. If you have always neutered and think everyone should do it, than you will mark how behavior changes after a neuter and say, "Ah! Look how the neuter effects my dog!" If you are in the other camp, you will not neuter, and you will also say, "Ah! I did not neuter and he is over the poopie stage." 

I am not out standing on the street trying to encourage people to NOT spay or neuter. Most of my puppy buyers do, and they generally let me know when they have. I have not dissuaded them from doing so. I have a small section in my booklet that gives the pros and cons of spaying and neutering, and leave that up to the buyers. It is a choice. 

But, I feel that if people are asking, then I would rather they have as much information as possible so to make the best decision for their dog. If I feel a dog is healthier with all its parts until it reaches maturity, than why would that be different for anyone else's dog? I really don't like the idea of withholding information because I don't know if you are smart enough or responsible enough to have that information. 

There will always be dogs in shelters. I think there are dogs dying in shelters moreso because people don't bother to train them, to take them to classes, to make a bond with them, to socialize them, then due to people pumping out puppies. Yes whole litters and puppies are sometimes euthanized, and that is disgusting. There are rotten people out there. But it is also disgusting when people bring a four year old dog in that has lived its life on a chain, say they are moving, can't keep the dog, and the dog is so wigged out by actually going somewhere that they deem it unadoptable. It is also disgusting when someone takes an 11 or 12 year old dog to the shelter because it is becoming incontinent or because it needs medicine and it costs too much to keep now. 

6000 euthanasias might actually have other factors besides over-population. I know PETA-run shelters have something like a 97% kill rate. Other shelters use the internet and work with pet stores to get their dogs noticed and usually have a much better record. Again, people die, not everyone is willing or able to take on Uncle Charlie's dogs. They may have to go to a shelter. People do lose their homes and have to move into apartments. The dog might have to be given up for legitimate reasons. Probably the dogs are given up for stupid reasons far more often. 

If you want to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, try spending money funding regular weekly obedience classes. I think that it would decrease the number of animals killed as quick if not quicker than all these speuters are doing. If there was cheap or even free basic training available and encouraged from puppy up through 2-3 years, dogs would be less likely to be dumped. The problem is not dogs being produced, the problem is dogs being dumped. The solution for dumped dogs is not as quick and easy as a snip-snip. 

Neutering dogs really has no affect whatsoever on the dog population. If you neuter every dog out there, maybe. But if you have 200 bitches, and 2 intact dogs, and the dogs have access everyone one of those bitches will have a litter if they are capable. If you have 200 bitches and 200 intact dogs it will be the same. There is really no point in neutering dogs to decrease pet over-population. 

Spaying bitches is another story. Lots of people are more likely to spay IF the bitches are kept inside. People do not want to deal with it. Outside dogs are different. That aspect is just not there. So people have to care enough about it, to do it. I don't think lying is necessary. If people want to spay their bitch they will, given all the information. 

I have made a mistake in neutering a dog too young, and he had several issues that the anti-neuter camp consider to be related to early spay/neuter. Might he have had a healthier and longer life had we not neutered him? I think so. But there is no way of telling. You cannot hit replay and do it again leaving the testicles alone.


----------



## selzer

msvette2u said:


> This exactly.
> How many of you who keep your doggies intact are going to see a change...? None, because you have intact males!
> 
> However, we get plenty of nasty little intact males in rescue, dogs that have been running the street, freely breeding, etc. It's just nasty and who wants to deal with that? Maybe ya'll don't mind but I do, and I know our adopters will mind!
> 
> I'm sorry but again the average pet owner does not want intact males and all the crud that goes with it, and I hear this all the time. In fact they don't even want neutered males as a rule, and would rather have females.
> 
> Now then a bunch of you will say "then they shouldn't own a dog!" well, not everyone is an above average pet owner like y'all, who've researched and what not, there's many many many more people who just want a fun little pet.
> And fun little pet = sterile. No hormone hassles.
> 
> Dainerra, there's people out there who have "just pet" animals, I was thinking of goats more than anything, and we breed for pet goats, not meat.
> The boys are not going to be any fun at all peeing on their faces starting in late August until some time in the early spring. They are nasty, "horny", bratty, even dangerous boys if left intact.
> Since they go to pet homes, yes we band - waiting up to 10-12 weeks if possible (not at birth or a few days like meat goat breeders) but we band them and they don't even notice. The band is not that tight, it doesn't have to be.
> Anyway - yes we castrate them for sanity and safety purposes and just to make them nice, easy to live with _pets._
> We have one intact buck for breeding and a few boys who have been castrated.


But we DO see a change. My dogs at age 2 are not the same as they were at age 8 months of age. It is called maturing. They do mature with or without a neuter surgery.


----------



## Wolfgeist

selzer said:


> I am sorry, but a dog is happy or it is not happy. Not having testicles does not make it unhappy. But it also does not make it happy. The same is true about uterine horns. _I _might be more happy if my pieces parts were gone, but ya know what? The doctors won't. So much for it being my body. The reason they won't, is because longevity in women does coincide with how long they have the hormones being produced that are related to reproduction. Even if they have to take a womb due to cancer, they often leave at least an ovary. Otherwise you have to take estrogen, etc.
> 
> Owners often report that dogs are better behaved after a neuter. Frankly, if they stuck it out and did exactly the same as they did after the neuter, and continued with the training, most dogs would become easier to handle. People get to the teenager stage and say, "Whoa, what did we get ourselves into?" Then they go and get the dog neutered and in a few weeks, the dog settles down. Without a neuter after a few weeks the dog settles down. Each dog is different. You cannot say Dog A turned into a butthead at 8 months 1 week. We got him neutered at 8 months 2 weeks. By 9 months 2 weeks, he is settled and much more pleasant to live with. Dog B turned into a butthead at 8 months 1 week and we did not get him neutered, and he was still a butthead at 9 months 2 weeks. Therefore, A+B = neutering fixed Dog A in more ways than one. The thing is, Dog B might have been a butt head for 3 months whether neutered or not. And there is no way to really gage that. Having raised intact dogs, I have never had a butthead stage go on for more than a couple of weeks. Since each dog is an individual, how can you ever determine whether removing the testicles made a dog more or less happy? You really can't give them back and see if he remains happy or turns back into a monster.
> 
> I think too that if you are in one camp or the other, you tend to look for evidence that supports your theories. If you have always neutered and think everyone should do it, than you will mark how behavior changes after a neuter and say, "Ah! Look how the neuter effects my dog!" If you are in the other camp, you will not neuter, and you will also say, "Ah! I did not neuter and he is over the poopie stage."
> 
> I am not out standing on the street trying to encourage people to NOT spay or neuter. Most of my puppy buyers do, and they generally let me know when they have. I have not dissuaded them from doing so. I have a small section in my booklet that gives the pros and cons of spaying and neutering, and leave that up to the buyers. It is a choice.
> 
> But, I feel that if people are asking, then I would rather they have as much information as possible so to make the best decision for their dog. If I feel a dog is healthier with all its parts until it reaches maturity, than why would that be different for anyone else's dog? I really don't like the idea of withholding information because I don't know if you are smart enough or responsible enough to have that information.
> 
> There will always be dogs in shelters. I think there are dogs dying in shelters moreso because people don't bother to train them, to take them to classes, to make a bond with them, to socialize them, then due to people pumping out puppies. Yes whole litters and puppies are sometimes euthanized, and that is disgusting. There are rotten people out there. But it is also disgusting when people bring a four year old dog in that has lived its life on a chain, say they are moving, can't keep the dog, and the dog is so wigged out by actually going somewhere that they deem it unadoptable. It is also disgusting when someone takes an 11 or 12 year old dog to the shelter because it is becoming incontinent or because it needs medicine and it costs too much to keep now.
> 
> 6000 euthanasias might actually have other factors besides over-population. I know PETA-run shelters have something like a 97% kill rate. Other shelters use the internet and work with pet stores to get their dogs noticed and usually have a much better record. Again, people die, not everyone is willing or able to take on Uncle Charlie's dogs. They may have to go to a shelter. People do lose their homes and have to move into apartments. The dog might have to be given up for legitimate reasons. Probably the dogs are given up for stupid reasons far more often.
> 
> If you want to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, try spending money funding regular weekly obedience classes. I think that it would decrease the number of animals killed as quick if not quicker than all these speuters are doing. If there was cheap or even free basic training available and encouraged from puppy up through 2-3 years, dogs would be less likely to be dumped. The problem is not dogs being produced, the problem is dogs being dumped. The solution for dumped dogs is not as quick and easy as a snip-snip.
> 
> Neutering dogs really has no affect whatsoever on the dog population. If you neuter every dog out there, maybe. But if you have 200 bitches, and 2 intact dogs, and the dogs have access everyone one of those bitches will have a litter if they are capable. If you have 200 bitches and 200 intact dogs it will be the same. There is really no point in neutering dogs to decrease pet over-population.
> 
> Spaying bitches is another story. Lots of people are more likely to spay IF the bitches are kept inside. People do not want to deal with it. Outside dogs are different. That aspect is just not there. So people have to care enough about it, to do it. I don't think lying is necessary. If people want to spay their bitch they will, given all the information.
> 
> I have made a mistake in neutering a dog too young, and he had several issues that the anti-neuter camp consider to be related to early spay/neuter. Might he have had a healthier and longer life had we not neutered him? I think so. But there is no way of telling. You cannot hit replay and do it again leaving the testicles alone.


Beautiful post. Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Freestep

selzer said:


> I am sorry, but a dog is happy or it is not happy. Not having testicles does not make it unhappy. But it also does not make it happy.


If a dog is nervous and shy to begin with, and his fight-or-flight response is aroused, testosterone has the effect of pushing the "fight" side of the equation... causing aggression and possibly a bite to a human. Once this happens, attitudes toward the dog change, and the dog is often shut out of the family or, sometimes, beaten into submission by an ignorant owner. Not happy either way. Yes, this is the fault of the humans, not the dog, but at the end of the day, the average pet owner cannot deal with it, and the dog is not happy. 

If, by removing the hormones, it causes the dog to become less aggressive and more managable in the home, he's going to be treated better and included in the family more.



> Owners often report that dogs are better behaved after a neuter. Frankly, if they stuck it out and did exactly the same as they did after the neuter, and continued with the training, most dogs would become easier to handle.


This is sometimes true, but the average pet owner does not want to "stick it out" with a difficult, hormone-laden teenager. And why should they, when they can make it easier on themselves, the dog, and dogdom at large by neutering? No, it won't solve all the problems a dog may have, but it sure can make it easier.



> The thing is, Dog B might have been a butt head for 3 months whether neutered or not. And there is no way to really gage that. Having raised intact dogs, I have never had a butthead stage go on for more than a couple of weeks.


I have seen the butthead stage go on for years. Granted, this is largely due to owner error, but why make things harder than they need to be?



> I think too that if you are in one camp or the other, you tend to look for evidence that supports your theories. If you have always neutered and think everyone should do it, than you will mark how behavior changes after a neuter and say, "Ah! Look how the neuter effects my dog!"


After 20+ years of working with other people's dogs, I have seen it enough times to draw the conclusion that neutering WILL soften a dog somewhat. And you're right, not all intact dogs will be problematic, I have known some that have been great... but in general, mature intact dogs are more tense, more intense, and more willing to fight and bite than their neutered brethren. There's simply no need for the average pet owner to have to deal with that, especially since most people are not behavior experts.


----------



## msvette2u

> This is sometimes true, but the average pet owner does not want to "stick it out" with a difficult, hormone-laden teenager. And why should they, when they can make it easier on themselves, the dog, and dogdom at large by neutering? No, it won't solve all the problems a dog may have, but it sure can make it easier.


This is it. 

Not some platitude of ownership that maybe 5% of the dog owning population attains.

It's "I love my dog and want to have puppies off it" that _needs_ to neuter/spay.

I'm glad a select few of you are so ultra responsible, good and caring owners that for you, it makes sense to keep an intact animal but sadly, there's far too few of you and too many that aren't like you to make s/n _before sexual maturity_ the best decision out there.


----------



## AddieGirl

selzer said:


> I am sorry, but a dog is happy or it is not happy. Not having testicles does not make it unhappy. But it also does not make it happy. The same is true about uterine horns. _I _might be more happy if my pieces parts were gone, but ya know what? The doctors won't. So much for it being my body. The reason they won't, is because longevity in women does coincide with how long they have the hormones being produced that are related to reproduction. Even if they have to take a womb due to cancer, they often leave at least an ovary. Otherwise you have to take estrogen, etc.
> 
> Owners often report that dogs are better behaved after a neuter. Frankly, if they stuck it out and did exactly the same as they did after the neuter, and continued with the training, most dogs would become easier to handle. People get to the teenager stage and say, "Whoa, what did we get ourselves into?" Then they go and get the dog neutered and in a few weeks, the dog settles down. Without a neuter after a few weeks the dog settles down. Each dog is different. You cannot say Dog A turned into a butthead at 8 months 1 week. We got him neutered at 8 months 2 weeks. By 9 months 2 weeks, he is settled and much more pleasant to live with. Dog B turned into a butthead at 8 months 1 week and we did not get him neutered, and he was still a butthead at 9 months 2 weeks. Therefore, A+B = neutering fixed Dog A in more ways than one. The thing is, Dog B might have been a butt head for 3 months whether neutered or not. And there is no way to really gage that. Having raised intact dogs, I have never had a butthead stage go on for more than a couple of weeks. Since each dog is an individual, how can you ever determine whether removing the testicles made a dog more or less happy? You really can't give them back and see if he remains happy or turns back into a monster.
> 
> I think too that if you are in one camp or the other, you tend to look for evidence that supports your theories. If you have always neutered and think everyone should do it, than you will mark how behavior changes after a neuter and say, "Ah! Look how the neuter effects my dog!" If you are in the other camp, you will not neuter, and you will also say, "Ah! I did not neuter and he is over the poopie stage."
> 
> I am not out standing on the street trying to encourage people to NOT spay or neuter. Most of my puppy buyers do, and they generally let me know when they have. I have not dissuaded them from doing so. I have a small section in my booklet that gives the pros and cons of spaying and neutering, and leave that up to the buyers. It is a choice.
> 
> But, I feel that if people are asking, then I would rather they have as much information as possible so to make the best decision for their dog. If I feel a dog is healthier with all its parts until it reaches maturity, than why would that be different for anyone else's dog? I really don't like the idea of withholding information because I don't know if you are smart enough or responsible enough to have that information.
> 
> There will always be dogs in shelters. I think there are dogs dying in shelters moreso because people don't bother to train them, to take them to classes, to make a bond with them, to socialize them, then due to people pumping out puppies. Yes whole litters and puppies are sometimes euthanized, and that is disgusting. There are rotten people out there. But it is also disgusting when people bring a four year old dog in that has lived its life on a chain, say they are moving, can't keep the dog, and the dog is so wigged out by actually going somewhere that they deem it unadoptable. It is also disgusting when someone takes an 11 or 12 year old dog to the shelter because it is becoming incontinent or because it needs medicine and it costs too much to keep now.
> 
> 6000 euthanasias might actually have other factors besides over-population. I know PETA-run shelters have something like a 97% kill rate. Other shelters use the internet and work with pet stores to get their dogs noticed and usually have a much better record. Again, people die, not everyone is willing or able to take on Uncle Charlie's dogs. They may have to go to a shelter. People do lose their homes and have to move into apartments. The dog might have to be given up for legitimate reasons. Probably the dogs are given up for stupid reasons far more often.
> 
> If you want to decrease the number of dogs in shelters, try spending money funding regular weekly obedience classes. I think that it would decrease the number of animals killed as quick if not quicker than all these speuters are doing. If there was cheap or even free basic training available and encouraged from puppy up through 2-3 years, dogs would be less likely to be dumped. The problem is not dogs being produced, the problem is dogs being dumped. The solution for dumped dogs is not as quick and easy as a snip-snip.
> 
> Neutering dogs really has no affect whatsoever on the dog population. If you neuter every dog out there, maybe. But if you have 200 bitches, and 2 intact dogs, and the dogs have access everyone one of those bitches will have a litter if they are capable. If you have 200 bitches and 200 intact dogs it will be the same. There is really no point in neutering dogs to decrease pet over-population.
> 
> Spaying bitches is another story. Lots of people are more likely to spay IF the bitches are kept inside. People do not want to deal with it. Outside dogs are different. That aspect is just not there. So people have to care enough about it, to do it. I don't think lying is necessary. If people want to spay their bitch they will, given all the information.
> 
> I have made a mistake in neutering a dog too young, and he had several issues that the anti-neuter camp consider to be related to early spay/neuter. Might he have had a healthier and longer life had we not neutered him? I think so. But there is no way of telling. You cannot hit replay and do it again leaving the testicles alone.


I love the idea of low-cost or free obedience training. We do have one trainer in our area that does this for ~$10 per dog, but it is obviously very limited since it's just one trainer and one class at a time. 

I don't think you understand the AMOUNT of unwanted animals I am talking about. All the animal control shelters in our area are rescue friendly. Most have volunteers who put pictures on petfinder. The problem is MASSIVE. People dump entire litters of puppies and kittens. Every day. Our neighboring county's animal control will offer to pay for spaying the mother when an entire litter is turned in to them. Not as an incentive to turn them in, more to prevent it from happening again. At our clinic we get their vouchers all the time.


----------



## selzer

Ya know, I think it is really counter-productive to spend the money to neuter the males if you are looking at over-population -- ability to breed only. If a female is available, and there is a male anywhere uncontained, she will get pregnant. So all the money spent on neuters is actually wasted. Really. 

If you think that people will dump a non-neutered dog because of behavior reasons, then neutering the males makes sense if it curtails those issues. 

And, oftentimes people will neuter their dog for behavior reasons anyway. I know it is cheaper to neuter the dogs, but why not spend the money spaying the bitches, and use what is left to do what things are possible to make dogs less of a disposable commodity. Fund more low-cost obedience classes, promote get your dog off the chain programs, require people to complete some form of dog training/accomplishment on a current dog before adopting a second dog to them. Keep a list of people who dump dogs and have a rule that they cannot adopt another dog for a number of years. 

There are ways around everything, but I think we are spaying and neutering more dogs than ever before, and it isn't solving the problems. I think that you have to attack the problem on more than just the front of offering low cost spay/neuters to people who want them anyway. I think to make more of an impact you have to change the impact of the throw-away society.


----------



## msvette2u

Blanketback said:


> What I find annoying is that people will jump to the conclusion that speutering will somehow solve the problem. Of course it will solve the problem of too many offspring, but that's only one facet of the problem. Animals aren't disposable! But so many people don't see it that way. I'm not talking about rehoming because that's an entirely different scenario. I'm talking about people who just don't care about the animals, and once the cuteness wears off, or they're untrained and unruly, or they don't fit into the current lifestyle, or whatever excuse they have - they believe that they can decide that the animal isn't their responsibility anymore. Then they dump it on the side of the road, or at the shelter, or hand it over to the first person to answer an ad. It's disgusting that so many people have this attitude. But they don't see anything wrong with it, which is unfathomable to me.


It _will _solve the problem because s/n will eliminate all the surplus of dogs being given and sold to the type homes that dump them, abuse them, allow them to breed rampantly as they are doing now.
I mean...how did all the dogs get to the crappy homes to begin with??


----------



## Freestep

msvette2u said:


> I'm glad a select few of you are so ultra responsible, good and caring owners that for you, it makes sense to keep an intact animal but sadly, there's far too few of you and too many that aren't like you to make s/n _before sexual maturity_ the best decision out there.




Exactly. The population of this forum is not representative of the general public when it comes to pet ownership.



And I have to say that my clientele is not necessarily representative of the general public either. Not everyone who owns a pet cares to (or needs to) take it to a professional groomer, so I'm actually seeing a slightly more responsible segment of the pet-owning public.



But when I worked as a vet assistant, I saw a complete cross-section. With the mobile vet in under-served, lower income areas, I saw very poor, uneducated folks with their pets. Working at the hospital in a higher-income area, I saw well-off pet owners driving nice cars. And literally everything in between.



One thing that runs through the cross section is that very few people who own pets are actually animal experts. In America, everybody has pets, unlike other countries like China where a pet is considered a luxury, or places like India where dogs are considered unclean. In those countries, I imagine the only people who own dogs are those who are really, I mean REALLY, crazy about dogs. In America, it seems everyone owns a dog whether they like it or not. It's considered normal to have a family dog, and almost un-American not to!



So, the point of this ramble is to illustrate that the level of dog-savvy in American owners is generally rather low. And so, the recommendation to spay/neuter before puberty is a good one for the general public--the dogs are more tractable and easier to handle for people who are not terribly dog-savvy. Statistically, neutered dogs are less likely to fight, roam, mark, and bite than their intact brethren. Why do you think Schutzhund and police dog trainers generally keep their dogs intact? Because they WANT that extra intensity, hardness, and fight drive.



When on this forum, you might get the impression that the average pet owner is pretty smart and pretty responsible, but most everybody here is actually the exception to the general rule in that regard.


----------



## Jack's Dad

*"When on this forum, you might get the impression that the average pet owner is pretty smart and pretty responsible, but most everybody here is actually the exception to the general rule in that regard."*

Great post Freestep.

The part I put in bold above, I have been trying to point out on various threads.
This forum has some good information but what is often depicted on here is nowhere close to reality in the Joe/Jane average pet owner.

The forum doesn't even mimic society as a whole. 

For many on here dogs are their life to a great degree. To Joe six pack who has a wife and three kids, keeping food on the table and the kids in soccer is more important than following his intact dogs around to make sure they don't create puppies.

On top of that in the average family with kids and dogs, everybody is coming and going. Kids friends come in and leave regularly. No matter how well behaved kids are there will inevitably be doors and gates left open.
Dogs get out or strange dogs get in.

Normal life in Suburbia. It is not responsible for those people to have intact pets IMO.

On the health issue you can find research to support whichever position you favor. Sort of like so called expert witnesses in a trial. Two *experts* with opposite opinions.


----------



## msvette2u

> The forum doesn't even mimic society as a whole.


Thank God...!!!!


----------



## Jack's Dad

msvette2u said:


> Thank God...!!!!


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

I think this forum may be sometimes worse than society as we are all so opinionated. 

Selzer, as always you speak so well.


----------



## Syaoransbear

So are you guys saying that those who believe that dogs benefit from not being S/N until they are mature(or not at all) should withhold their opinions when people come here and ask about it because the person asking might be an average owner who might not provide proper containment for their animal, or are you guys advocating mandatory spay/neuter legislation?

I wish people who came here saying their dog got pregnant would be more open to an emergency spay. I don't think I've ever seen any poster actually use that option when it's suggested, they always make excuses for why they can't do it because too often those who 'accidentally' let their dog get pregnant actually _wanted_ their dog to have puppies.


----------



## msvette2u

Syaoransbear said:


> So are you guys saying that those who believe that dogs benefit from not being S/N until they are mature(or not at all) should withhold their opinions when people come here and ask about it because the person asking might be an average owner who might not provide proper containment for their animal, or are you guys advocating mandatory spay/neuter legislation?


I think at the very least, their living situation ought to be sounded out before saying "wait until the dog is 18-24mos". Because it really does depend on the owner's ability to keep the dog from reproducing. Being/getting pregnant is kind of just one of the concerns of course. If the person's method of keeping the bitch in the yard is a rope and a tree, there's going to be problems and the girl can easily get injured as well as pregnant. 



Syaoransbear said:


> I wish people who came here saying their dog got pregnant would be more open to an emergency spay. I don't think I've ever seen any poster actually use that option when it's suggested, they always make excuses for why they can't do it because too often those who 'accidentally' let their dog get pregnant actually _wanted_ their dog to have puppies.


Oh wow, I agree.
Yet I'm made to feel like I'm some sort of monster for mentioning it 
Thing is, if it's so unsafe for a bitch to be spayed during pregnancy, how does one justify doing a c-section, ever!? Same surgery only you're now cramming the uterus back in after stitching it up, instead of taking it completely out!


----------



## Freestep

Syaoransbear said:


> So are you guys saying that those who believe that dogs benefit from not being S/N until they are mature(or not at all) should withhold their opinions when people come here and ask about it because the person asking might be an average owner who might not provide proper containment for their animal, or are you guys advocating mandatory spay/neuter legislation?


I am not sure how mandatory legislation got into it, I haven't heard anyone saying anything near that, and I'm not advocating it. We're talking about what is good advice to give to people who ask "When, if ever, should I spay/neuter?"

I think it's a good idea to ask a few questions of the poster before giving any advice, just to see where they are on the dog-savvy spectrum. Otherwise, we might be giving out ill-suited advice. Now, as you might have guessed, I'm an advocate of spay/neuter for most people, but I'm not going to give that cookie-cutter answer to every person who asks. 

For example, I want to know if someone is going to be doing SchH, or Agility, or running/working the dog hard. I'm not going to tell that person to neuter their dog at 6 months of age. In that scenario, it wouldn't be good advice.


----------



## msvette2u

I ended up advising, via PM, a woman to leave her pup intact until over a year, not too long ago.
I'd never advise someone who could (and so desired) keep safely an intact animal, but I'd rather advise s/n if I didn't know anything at all about them, than advise to keep intact and it turns out they are incapable of doing so safely.


----------



## Anubis_Star

I think it's irresponsible of people in the medical field to brush potentially SERIOUS and life-threatening complications under the rug to fill an agenda. And this comes from someone who has worked in the shelter system in low-income areas, someone that has dedicated their life to veterinary medicine, someone that works EXTREMELY hard for the well being of the animals.

You are right, most owners SHOULD spay/neuter, and young, as they are not responsible enough to handle those animals. But to not warn people that may, for example, own a rottweiler pup that a university study showed 1 in 4 rottweilers altered BEFORE 1 year of age developed osteosarcoma, an EXTREMELY painful cancer often diagnosed too late and with a very poor prognosis? Or to not warn people with a female dog that it may very well lead to incontinence? An issue alone that compels many people to euthanize? To not warn owners of male dogs that neutering INCREASES the chance of prostate cancer, which has no good prognosis? Or to not warn the owners of a golden, a breed EXTREMELY prone to cancer, that spaying before sexual maturity increases the chances of splenic masses that even after surgical removal usually give an estimated lifespan of <6 months?

MANY MANY MANY pet owners are idiots. But they're going to be idiots one way or another. There are even more, and I see these owners every single day when I work general practice, that want to do what's best for their dogs because they LOVE their dogs. And the only way to IMPROVE pet ownership is to educate. How many people feel alienated because vets push procedures such as early spay/neuter with no clear warnings or discussions? Just do it do it DO IT?

Shelters should spay/neuter every animal that goes through their doors, regardless of age, I'm not arguing that. But I will NEVER hide the true facts from an owner I feel is responsible and simply trying to educate themselves and do whats right by their pet. And in my opinion, a responsible owner waiting until sexual maturity is the BEST thing they can do for their pet.


----------



## Anubis_Star

ANOTHER way to control pet population would be to just euthanize every single animal in the shelter system that displayed ANY temperament or health issue. Because the only times in this field I have EVER been bit were from nasty, aggressive little chihuahuas up for adoption. I mean, we'll neuter an 8 week old puppy and POTENTIALLY set it up for serious, life shortening, painful conditions so the mean dogs in the world can have a chance to? No thank you, I say. Priorities should maybe be reconsidered as well.


----------



## Anubis_Star

msvette2u said:


> It wasn't the money aspect but more the fact anyone actually thought that far into it.
> And there's no vets out there, well, maybe a few but I can't picture it - that'd do that type surgery.


vasectomies are becoming a lot more "common", although still very rare in the industry as a whole.


----------



## msvette2u

> I will NEVER hide the true facts from an owner I feel is responsible and simply trying to educate themselves and do whats right by their pet.


But this is where the problem lies. People simply don't want to deal with heats, and intact animals, unless they are real enthusiasts (such as some here) or else they _want _to breed them. 
AND when there's a chance of an oopsie (such as we've seen right here on this message board) they won't do a spay/abort.

So for those owners who are just general run-of-the mill owners, the potential "may" develop health issues, do not outweigh the convenience of early s/n.


----------



## Blanketback

msvette2u said:


> I mean...how did all the dogs get to the crappy homes to begin with??


What I'm wondering is, "How did all those homes get so crappy?"
Why do people consider animals disposable? Not you or I, but so many millions of others. Why are they so heartless? People that take puppies and kittens up to the cottage and leave them there to fend for themselves in the fall? Or leave them in the yard/apartment when they move? The ones that dump them at the shelters or call a rescue are actually the better ones, when you think about it. Geez, people suck.

And I don't believe that these litters are accidents either. How can someone honestly say that their dog got pregnant at the dog park and they didn't notice? Wow, that's some big latte - the dogs were *tied* and you didn't notice? Lol, c'mon. Most of us are watching out for play mounting already, so I don't believe that for one second.

I agree that the less offspring in the shelters would lead to less potential for rotten homes, but we've had this discussion months ago where it turns out that dogs are being imported from other countries and placed for adoption here. Like we don't have enough of a surplus already?


----------



## msvette2u

Oh that happens A LOT. There's groups in WA state dragging dogs up from Cali by the dozens...no, hundreds. I mean you have to get 30 dogs at a time or it's not worth the transport.
Like there's a shortage of dogs _here_!?

AND I also saw it said that "most the dogs in shelters (in the Seattle area) are chihuahuas dumped due to no housetraining and lack of socialization, and those dogs originated in California, adopted out when they got here, and dumped in short order.

So how exactly are these groups _helping_ these dogs!???
Drives me nuts because this state is already inundated with Chihuahuas and nobody wants them anymore.


----------



## Blanketback

So are they bringing up smaller dogs because they're easier (cheaper) to house? And then once the shelter's full, they can't take the larger locals? What a crock. I wish we could brainstorm on this forum and find a way to eradicate the problem, but the skeptic in me says that it's a bigger problem than we think. Like, this is an industry that we can't begin to imagine.


----------



## msvette2u

All I can say is, volunteer at, and visit enough kill shelters and you'll be wanting to perform the surgery yourself, in the streets.
All the arguments will sail right on out the window.


----------



## middleofnowhere

Dog over population in the Southern U.S. seems particularly bad. The Free section of Craigs List here carries listing after listing of dogs and puppies. I strongly suspect any intact female older than 6 months is probably pregnant. 

Attitudes vary widely - toward dogs and their reproduction. The youngster is intact because the chances of hemangiosarcoma are so incredibly less than with a spayed bitch. Hemangio is a death sentence - mammary cancer can be survived.


----------



## Blanketback

I'm already disgusted that neighbors on both sides of me have Lab bitches that are destined to have at least one litter. Because the owners *want* this, are planning for this. They're purebred! Talk about driving me crazy...


----------



## msvette2u

Some people feel compelled, almost obligated to have litters "because she/he has papers!"

I just shake my head


----------



## Blanketback

That's the thing, and trying to talk them out of it is impossible because we're looking at it from such majorly different angles. I see the overpopluation and the cruelty that goes with it, but they won't/can't/refuse to see it. They see a purebred, period. I used to get offers all the time to breed my previous (neutered GSD) male too. I'm sure I'll get offers with this puppy too. People just *have* to breed, it seems.

OT, did you notice in the news that a girl of 9 years gave birth in Mexico Jan 27th?
Our society is creeping me out bigtime.


----------



## msvette2u

And a lot of this would fall on the breeder's shoulders, that is, a good breeder would have recommended they have all health clearances, etc., and title the dog before even considering breeding it. AND if they can't or won't do those things, the dog is altered. Period.


----------



## Blanketback

And that's probably why the common thought it that all GSDs have bad hips, because when everyone and their uncle is breeding them, then yeah they probably will. So instead of thinking about what they're breeding, they just think that the breed naturally comes with the problems - stupid, but true. Our area is overrun with Labs and Lab crosses. I doubt there are many real 'breeders' involved, just people mating and out to make a buck.

The funny thing is (not really ha ha funny) lots of people have said I should breed my dog with a whole other breed! So where's the logic in that? Even my neighbor with her Lab bitch - we just looked at each other and rolled our eyes when that was mentioned to us. If you like a particular breed, why dilute it by mixing it with another? That one blows me away, it makes no sense at all.


----------



## msvette2u

Yeah, I went to pick up a litter of dumped puppies and this guy out there had a Lab, purebred with papers, and she had to have been 80-100lb, fat as could be. I mean round as a barrel. Clearly overweight. 
She was coming up on _1st heat_ so he wanted to breed her! I was like, um, if a sperm could find an egg in all that blubber it'd be a miracle but I went on to explain hips dysplasia (which is dog is now really at risk for since she's so fat) and all the other issues and he was just mystified. Never heard of that stuff in his life.
He didn't have a fenced yard. He poured two COFFEE CANS (back when they were at least 2lbs) of food into her bowl which was full at all times.
Sad.

Now. If that type owner comes on a forum (maybe someone like me told him he ought to spay), and asks, are you really going to tell him it's healthier for a dog to wait until 2 heats pass to spay!?


----------



## Blanketback

There's that pervasive attitude again: the guy *wanted* to breed her. What's with everyone wanting to breed? It's not just the random person, either. People who don't speuter and don't want litters are few and far between.


----------



## APBTLove

I do not neuter my males. I spay my females because I do not want to deal with heats from a dog who isn't registered, and well worth working and showing. 

A bad owner could have a single bitch or dog and have 'accident' litters, be it their male impregnating a stray, neighbor's dog, etc. or their bitch getting pregnant by a loose dog because they're irresponsible. 

A good owner could have a dozen females in heat and keep them safe.

There aren't many bad owners who are going to be on here reading this, beating a dead horse here.. We all understand the huge problem with BYBing.


----------



## msvette2u

No, I don't think responsible owners tend to realize the massiveness of the problem.


----------



## Freestep

I didn't realize the scope of the problem until I worked at a shelter. 

When I was young, I thought I wanted to be a dog breeder at some point. I didn't think a thing of it, until I volunteered at the local shelter for about six months and saw how many pets are dumped, unwanted, sick and frightened. Entire litters of puppies and kittens euthanized. If this doesn't break your heart, you'd have to be made of stone. 

I can't go into the shelter anymore. I simply can't go in there without bringing something home, and we already have a houseful.

People who think they want to breed their dog "because it has papers" or to let their child watch the "miracle of birth", or to make some money, or whatever, simply don't *see* the immensity of the problem--it's easy to look the other way, until you are smack dab in the middle of it. "Puppies are so cute and precious--how can it be wrong to bring them into the world, when they bring such joy? You must hate puppies!" 

I notice that a lot of people here, breeders even, don't fully comprehend the issue, and continue to wonder if we aren't exaggerating the overpopulation problem. I can only guess they've never worked in a kill shelter and helped the guy from the rendering plant load dozens of frozen dead dog and cat bodies into the truck, or assisted with euthanizing perfectly friendly, healthy puppies that lick your face as you hold them for that final injection.

I'm not saying that responsible breeders have any fault or guilt in this situation. Why are pets considered disposable? Because there are so **** MANY of them. In our area it's Pit Bulls. Almost every Pit Bull I see on the street either has testicles or sagging teats. It's as though it's required to breed them, so people are constantly handing off puppies to people who don't really want them once they grow out of the "cute" phase. We have so many adolescent Pit Bulls in our shelter it would make your head spin. Why? Because there's a cuter, younger one in a box down at the Walmart for free. They are literally disposable dogs that you can use and throw away, because there'll be another one right around the corner when you tire of the first.


----------



## APBTLove

msvette2u said:


> No, I don't think responsible owners tend to realize the massiveness of the problem.


That's a wide brush to paint us with. 
I absolutely understand the problem. I've paid to have OTHER people's animals fixed. As an APBT enthusiast, I especially understand. One of my local shelters with about 60-some dogs has nothing but "Pet Bulls" and a few (literally 2-4) other mutts who don't look Bully.

Anyone who doesn't realize what a problem we have on our hands and is a responsible, educated owner, simply doesn't WANT to know.


----------



## AddieGirl

Free Step I love your post. We have the same issue with Pit Bulls here. You can't drive 2 miles without seeing a pit or pit mix roaming. Everyone either thinks theirs is special and they need to breed it or they just stick them in the yard for the nearest stray to come along and breed. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Syaoransbear

msvette2u said:


> All I can say is, volunteer at, and visit enough kill shelters and you'll be wanting to perform the surgery yourself, in the streets.
> All the arguments will sail right on out the window.


Our kill shelter hasn't euthanized a dog in 3-4 years(except human aggressive ones) :shrug:. I can't volunteer there, they have over 600 volunteers and aren't accepting any more. I think our city is like starved for animal affection lol.


----------



## AddieGirl

That's how it was when I visited the Seattle animal shelter. Must be wonderful!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Freestep

APBTLove said:


> I've paid to have OTHER people's animals fixed.


I've actually TRIED to pay for other people's dogs to be fixed, and been snubbed! One girl posted on Craigslist that she had "rescued" a female Pit Bull that needed a lot of veterinary care. Can't recall what the problems were, but she was on Craigslist begging for money for the dog's care. I emailed her and told her that I would pay for her spay, but she had to be dropped off at the vet clinic--of HER choice--and I would go in there and pay for that portion of the bill. She refused. Predictably, about 4 months later the same girl posted on Craigslist selling puppies. 



> Anyone who doesn't realize what a problem we have on our hands and is a responsible, educated owner, simply doesn't WANT to know.


Yep. And to an extent, I can sympathize with not wanting to know, because it's painful, frustrating and sometimes downright maddening. Ignorance is bliss, but contributing to a problem out of ignorance puts blood on your hands, IMO. 

It's like people who eat meat and animal products, but don't want to know where it comes from. I'm a meat eater too, but not a blind one--I've butchered my own poultry. I simply buy meat from local farms whenever I can.


----------



## msvette2u

The problem with no kill shelters is, the dogs have to go somewhere. The discards, the dumped, the turned out, turned in, whatever, they are still out there, will be roaming the streets, what-have-you, and the no kills can pat themselves on the back for...what, warehousing? Not all I'm sure, but I've heard of dogs sitting in shelters for _years_ before someone finally adopts them.


----------



## selzer

msvette2u said:


> I think at the very least, their living situation ought to be sounded out before saying "wait until the dog is 18-24mos". Because it really does depend on the owner's ability to keep the dog from reproducing. Being/getting pregnant is kind of just one of the concerns of course. If the person's method of keeping the bitch in the yard is a rope and a tree, there's going to be problems and the girl can easily get injured as well as pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, I agree.
> Yet I'm made to feel like I'm some sort of monster for mentioning it
> *Thing is, if it's so unsafe for a bitch to be spayed during pregnancy, how does one justify doing a c-section, ever!? Same surgery only you're now cramming the uterus back in after stitching it up, instead of taking it completely out!*


Actually, it is not the same surgery at all. I have been there during a c-section. They make an incision and pull the uterine horns out, and remove the puppies, and they clean it or flush it, sew up the uterine horns, and then they put it back in the hole, and then they sew up and staple the abdomen. It really does not take all that long. 

When you spay during a c-section, or when the dog is in heat, everything is blown up in there, and taking out the uterine horns and associated works, means tying off a lot of bleeders. The dog is under anesthetic a lot longer than if they would have done the same surgery a month later.


----------



## msvette2u

We've done a number of pregnant spays, though, and none have had issues, is my point.
Maybe we just have great vets. Well, we do have great vets


----------



## AddieGirl

We do pregnant spays every day. I've worked there a year and a half and never seen any major complications with any pregnant spays. We give extra fluids and monitor closely, They always do fine. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AddieGirl

I guess I should clarify that I am talking about spay with termination of pregnancy, not c-section spay.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## msvette2u

AddieGirl said:


> We do pregnant spays every day. I've worked there a year and a half and never seen any major complications with any pregnant spays. We give extra fluids and monitor closely, They always do fine.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


This has been my experience; our vets are quite competent and will do the pregnant spays, although a few won't do it, if they can "see" the dog is pregnant. Those vets are very "old school". 

Our vets are willing to do it because they deal with the ramifications of rampant pet overpopulation daily, and because it's what is best and makes the most sense not to mention it's what's healthiest for the dog. 

We can't afford an emergency c-section in the middle of a weekend night, and when the option is there to terminate, we'll take it every time.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Anubis_Star said:


> I think it's irresponsible of people in the medical field to brush potentially SERIOUS and life-threatening complications under the rug to fill an agenda. And this comes from someone who has worked in the shelter system in low-income areas, someone that has dedicated their life to veterinary medicine, someone that works EXTREMELY hard for the well being of the animals.
> 
> You are right, most owners SHOULD spay/neuter, and young, as they are not responsible enough to handle those animals. But to not warn people that may, for example, own a rottweiler pup that a university study showed 1 in 4 rottweilers altered BEFORE 1 year of age developed osteosarcoma, an EXTREMELY painful cancer often diagnosed too late and with a very poor prognosis? Or to not warn people with a female dog that it may very well lead to incontinence? An issue alone that compels many people to euthanize? To not warn owners of male dogs that neutering INCREASES the chance of prostate cancer, which has no good prognosis? Or to not warn the owners of a golden, a breed EXTREMELY prone to cancer, that spaying before sexual maturity increases the chances of splenic masses that even after surgical removal usually give an estimated lifespan of <6 months?
> 
> MANY MANY MANY pet owners are idiots. But they're going to be idiots one way or another. There are even more, and I see these owners every single day when I work general practice, that want to do what's best for their dogs because they LOVE their dogs. And the only way to IMPROVE pet ownership is to educate. How many people feel alienated because vets push procedures such as early spay/neuter with no clear warnings or discussions? Just do it do it DO IT?
> 
> Shelters should spay/neuter every animal that goes through their doors, regardless of age, I'm not arguing that. But I will NEVER hide the true facts from an owner I feel is responsible and simply trying to educate themselves and do whats right by their pet. And in my opinion, a responsible owner waiting until sexual maturity is the BEST thing they can do for their pet.


I think this is an awesome post! 

I told a vet in Keneewick, WA when I lived up there that I would leave her practice if she asked me one more time WHEN I was neutering Havoc. He had SIBO and was there frequently and not one visit went by that she didn't aske me when we could schedule that procedure. I fully intended to neuter him -when I was ready and not because she thought every dog should be altered early. She never gave me any reaosn for or against, it was just the thng to do. WHY?


----------



## Anubis_Star

Kayos and Havoc said:


> I think this is an awesome post!
> 
> I told a vet in Keneewick, WA when I lived up there that I would leave her practice if she asked me one more time WHEN I was neutering Havoc. He had SIBO and was there frequently and not one visit went by that she didn't aske me when we could schedule that procedure. I fully intended to neuter him -when I was ready and not because she thought every dog should be altered early. She never gave me any reaosn for or against, it was just the thng to do. WHY?


Thank you 

Sadly, I'm just seeing the same old justifications in this post, and honestly it's making me sad. Shelter workers feel that warnings should be hidden because they deal with the over-population problem day in and day out.

Well, I'm the exact OPPOSITE. Working in a specialty emergency clinic that also has oncology, cardio, neurology, and internal medicine departments, I deal with the sick and dying every day. I say, screw the overpopulation problem! Lets stop spaying and neutering if there is ANY amount of research that says it could be leading to these young young animals being killed for cancer problems! Wait, that's right, that research IS out there! 

And I DO see young, altered animals euthanized every day for medical problems that would normally be associated only with geriatric patients. And ARE these cancers related to them being spayed/neutered at 8 weeks old? Unfortunately we can't say because we just can't hit the rewind button, undo the surgery, and see how the animal would otherwise develop. I'm no idiot, I know there are TONS of reasons for health problems. Low quality food, poor breeding practices, that random bad luck case. 

But when research says 1 in 4 rotties neutered before a year old will have osteosarcoma, and I have a 4 year old rottweiler come in with osteosarcoma and it was neutered at 8 weeks old, I'm going to be a little suspicious. Because here is a young dog that is going to die young because it has this painful bone cancer. And maybe we caused it? Maybe the owners would of waited until 18 months to neuter if a vet had of properly informed them? And maybe their beloved family pet would of lived to be 11? But because of what YOU believe is right, a surgery was shoved down their throats with no clear warning, and they're going to spend 1000$ on a limb amputation but it's going to do no good because the disease has spread and they're going to spend hundreds more on chemo and their dog is still going to die before it turns 5 years old. But dammit, we saved your shelter dog, so who cares, right?

So should I say screw your problems because I'm not dealing with them, I'm dealing with my own problems? No, THAT'S not fair. Because in the end, it's not right to LIE to people because YOU strongly believe that your way is the only right way. Honestly, it's not making me sad, it's making me a little angry. We SHOULD tell people about the shelter problem! We SHOULD educate them on being responsible, getting the proper training, controlling their animals, making sure their fences are secure. And we should also WARN them every time we do an invasive medical procedure, these are the concerns, these are the risks, and these are the benefits! We don't lie to people and potentially ENDANGER their animals because of what YOU think is right! GOOD owners research too! People aren't all stupid, some are simply ignorant and lacking the facts! We don't label people who don't know everything as simply irresponsible and batch them all together and mutilate all their pets, punish them because they never grew up to be as great and knowledge-filled as you. We reach out, and we teach, and we protect. That's what those of us that truly love and care for animals do. 


Phew... ok, rant over... sorry everyone, I worked a pretty rough double this weekend... had a lot of very sick patients that didn't make it...


----------



## Anubis_Star

msvette2u said:


> So for those owners who are just general run-of-the mill owners, the potential "may" develop health issues, do not outweigh the convenience of early s/n.


That's your opinion. But maybe to the average owner the potential "may" DOES outweigh the convenience? Sad thing is, if we don't educate and inform, they'll never be able to make that choice for themselves. You'll just be making a potentially big decision for them. We'll just become little dog communists


----------



## msvette2u

Who neuters a Rottie at 8 weeks? Not responsible breeders...?
If it came from a rescue or shelter, then it should have been altered. 
There's billions of health issues. 
Your biased towards cancer, or see only that, but we see a whole boat load of genetic problems passed along due to irresponsible breeding. Every breed's health is jeopardized because of oops litters and "Oh I have a purebred and so does John next door, so let's breed 'em and make a few bucks". 

Which takes precedence??


----------



## msvette2u

Anubis_Star said:


> We'll just become little dog communists


It works fine in other countries, where only the best of the best are bred.
This country? Full of selfish people who care about momentary fun and happiness and when that's done (when cute puppy is 8mos. old), "see ya, Fido, it was great knowing you".


----------



## Anubis_Star

Exactly, who's side is more important? I'm biased towards cancer, you're biased towards the shelter system. Point is, the whole point of this thread is almost a pointed finger at those of us who simply feel it is important to warn people about the potential effects of early spay/neuter. SO, my question is, since obviously we both feel that the other is "wrong" (even though I don't feel YOU are wrong, I greatly respect what you do because I did it for YEARS and I know how hard it is), why do I have to hide my side because of your side? Why shouldn't owners be warned because YOU feel it is potentially damaging?

Instead, why shouldn't owners be well informed and left to make their own decisions? And if they make stupid ones? Well, they probably would of made stupid ones anyway. It's not your right to hide potentially SERIOUS facts and studies from people because you are sick of euthanizing healthy pets. It's not your right to tell every owner they should alter their pet before sexual maturity because you feel it's what is right for your problem. Like I said, what about MY problem? ON the flip side, it's not my right to hide the fact that intact animals obviously CAN get pregnant, there IS an over-population problem, people SHOULDN'T breed most of the time, some may feel it IS harder to handle an intact animal, if they WANT to neuter young then ok, at least they've been given all the information.

Like I said, instead of hiding stuff from owners, why don't you euthanize every single animal in your shelter with temperament issues (extreme fear, reactivity, etc...) instead of trying to "fix" them, and maybe THAT would open up a lot more room? I've almost been bit by more rescue dogs then I can count. If SO many animals are being killed, so many litters of puppies being killed, why are we adopting out fearful, potentially dangerous animals? Why aren't only the happiest and healthiest being adopted out?

Just another view point. BTW, most of Europe doesn't commonly alter their animals. Maybe we need to see what they're doing that we're not?


----------



## msvette2u

I never said "hide that info", so not sure who your rant is aimed at.
I said "ask people about their lifestyle" before dishing out "oh yeah they gotta stay intact until age 2 or you'll kill 'em!"
Dogs are not going to outlive us, unless we pass from a disease or an accident. They _will _die from something.



> It's not your right to tell every owner they should alter their pet before sexual maturity because you feel it's what is right for your problem.


LOL You forgot about the 1st amendment? Actually I can tell anyone, anything I want to! 
Within reason of course 
But yes, I do have a right to do that.


----------



## Anubis_Star

msvette2u said:


> I never said "hide that info", so not sure who your rant is aimed at.
> I said "ask people about their lifestyle" before dishing out "oh yeah they gotta stay intact until age 2 or you'll kill 'em!"
> Dogs are not going to outlive us, unless we pass from a disease or an accident. They _will _die from something.
> 
> 
> LOL You forgot about the 1st amendment? Actually I can tell anyone, anything I want to!
> Within reason of course
> But yes, I do have a right to do that.



Awww yes, the "yes I can, I can do what I want, 1st amendment" argument... well, you are right, you CAN do whatever you want. Just saddens me a little about the quality of person that pulls out that argument, not someone I always necessarily deem as mature and someone that should be listened to... 

With that being sad, I need to get ready and go to work. Where I will continue to do my medical duty to PROTECT owners and patients. And IMHO, that is giving them ALL the facts and allowing them to follow THEIR 1st amendment right and make up their own mind instead of doing it for them.

I like you MsVette, and I think you do a GREAT service for animals. I don't agree with you on this one matter, but in general, keep up the great work


----------



## GatorBytes

Anubis_Star said:


> Thank you
> 
> Sadly, I'm just seeing the same old justifications in this post, and honestly it's making me sad. Shelter workers feel that warnings should be hidden because they deal with the over-population problem day in and day out.
> 
> Well, I'm the exact OPPOSITE. Working in a specialty emergency clinic that also has oncology, cardio, neurology, and internal medicine departments, I deal with the sick and dying every day. I say, screw the overpopulation problem! Lets stop spaying and neutering if there is ANY amount of research that says it could be leading to these young young animals being killed for cancer problems! Wait, that's right, that research IS out there!
> 
> And I DO see young, altered animals euthanized every day for medical problems that would normally be associated only with geriatric patients. And ARE these cancers related to them being spayed/neutered at 8 weeks old? Unfortunately we can't say because we just can't hit the rewind button, undo the surgery, and see how the animal would otherwise develop. I'm no idiot, I know there are TONS of reasons for health problems. Low quality food, poor breeding practices, that random bad luck case.
> 
> But when research says 1 in 4 rotties neutered before a year old will have osteosarcoma, and I have a 4 year old rottweiler come in with osteosarcoma and it was neutered at 8 weeks old, I'm going to be a little suspicious. Because here is a young dog that is going to die young because it has this painful bone cancer. And maybe we caused it? Maybe the owners would of waited until 18 months to neuter if a vet had of properly informed them? And maybe their beloved family pet would of lived to be 11? But because of what YOU believe is right, a surgery was shoved down their throats with no clear warning, and they're going to spend 1000$ on a limb amputation but it's going to do no good because the disease has spread and they're going to spend hundreds more on chemo and their dog is still going to die before it turns 5 years old. But dammit, we saved your shelter dog, so who cares, right?
> 
> So should I say screw your problems because I'm not dealing with them, I'm dealing with my own problems? No, THAT'S not fair. Because in the end, it's not right to LIE to people because YOU strongly believe that your way is the only right way. Honestly, it's not making me sad, it's making me a little angry. We SHOULD tell people about the shelter problem! We SHOULD educate them on being responsible, getting the proper training, controlling their animals, making sure their fences are secure. And we should also WARN them every time we do an invasive medical procedure, these are the concerns, these are the risks, and these are the benefits! We don't lie to people and potentially ENDANGER their animals because of what YOU think is right! GOOD owners research too! People aren't all stupid, some are simply ignorant and lacking the facts! We don't label people who don't know everything as simply irresponsible and batch them all together and mutilate all their pets, punish them because they never grew up to be as great and knowledge-filled as you. We reach out, and we teach, and we protect. That's what those of us that truly love and care for animals do.
> 
> 
> Phew... ok, rant over... sorry everyone, I worked a pretty rough double this weekend... had a lot of very sick patients that didn't make it...


 
:thumbup:*AWESOME RANT!!!*:thumbup:


----------



## msvette2u

Yah, 5th. 
Was up all night with a dying dog, so I reallllllly need a nap 



> keep up the great work


I sure will...even if involves altering puppies :shrug:

Have a good evening at work...


----------



## Anubis_Star

msvette2u said:


> Yah, 5th.
> Was up all night with a dying dog, so I reallllllly need a nap
> 
> 
> I sure will...even if involves altering puppies :shrug:
> 
> Have a good evening at work...


I'm sorry  One of yours?

I don't judge shelters for altering puppies. EVER. In fact, I dislike it when rescues adopt out intact dogs with contract saying it will be altered. Because who knows if it will. I just don't like it when owners are told to alter THEIR puppies because of problems in shelters.


----------



## Syaoransbear

Anubis_Star said:


> With that being sad, I need to get ready and go to work. Where I will continue to do my medical duty to PROTECT owners and patients. And IMHO, that is giving them ALL the facts and allowing them to follow THEIR 1st amendment right and make up their own mind instead of doing it for them.


I was just wondering how the veterinary world feels about vasectomies and tubal ligation? How come these aren't done more since they would appease those who want more sterilization to decrease pet populations and those who believe dogs benefit from keeping their sex hormones?


----------



## GatorBytes

Anubis_Star said:


> Just another view point. BTW, most of Europe doesn't commonly alter their animals. *Maybe we need to see what they're doing that we're not*?


Good idea.

Over 90% are intact in Sweden! 

A local news channel does an animal talk show hour once a week and they bring on rescue groups nad ask a vet and such...ridiculous the procedures and costs and space that these animals are taking...10 yr old with glaucoma and is going to need to have eyes removed - but good soul - think she will have a good quality of life blind at a cost of a couple grand...


----------



## Jack's Dad

Anubis Star.

You are a true crusader. Perhaps you could do some pro bono work for the craig's list puppies in your neighborhood. Ask the owners how the puppies happened to come about.

For every dog you "may" save from some dread disease, how many will be euthanized from litters that never should have happened in the first place.

Keep up the good work. 

Whew, rant over.


----------



## AddieGirl

Jack's Dad said:


> Anubis Star.
> 
> You are a true crusader. Perhaps you could do some pro bono work for the craig's list puppies in your neighborhood. Ask the owners how the puppies happened to come about.
> 
> For every dog you "may" save from some dread disease, how many will be euthanized from litters that never should have happened in the first place.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Whew, rant over.


Thank you! I agree 100%. I've owned altered animals my entire life and the ONLY dog I've ever had die from cancer was my childhood intact poodle who was PTS while suffering from complications with mammary cancer. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anubis_Star

I'm sorry Jack's Dad, what do YOU do to help the problem? That's a nice pup there, from a breeder I assume? Boy, it's a shame that you let a shelter pet die while you purchased from a breeder. HMMMM....

I'm not a crusador, nor do I claim to be. I just do the best I can and commend others that do as well, in the medical field OR rescue field. Putting someone down personally, someone that does work hard to help save animals, just because you don't agree with their view, that's a little low. Although I don't agree with the OP's point on this one, I never once said the OP was a bad person, nor insulted the work they do. I APPLAUD and commend them for volunteering their time in such a hard field.

Besides, most of the pups on my craigslist are nasty little chihuahuas. Ankle biters. Will probably fit right into my other solution for the overpopulation problem....



Syaoransbear said:


> I was just wondering how the veterinary world feels about vasectomies and tubal ligation? How come these aren't done more since they would appease those who want more sterilization to decrease pet populations and those who believe dogs benefit from keeping their sex hormones?


Sadly, I think the mindset in the veterinary field is very much tied to the shelter problem. Because of the overpopulation it is pushed from both sides to spay/neuter young and don't question it. The education isn't largely out there, even in the field. I can tell you, of the 5 doctors I work with in the general practice I do part time work at, 4 of them have directly degraded me for not only purchasing a purebred from a breeder, but for honoring my contract to not neuter before 18 months of age. And when I pull up articles and studies in their own literature that they are reading, they simply mention the shelter system and move drop it. Their eyes are closed and they refuse to open them. And they KNOW I'm a good responsible owner, to them it has nothing to do with that.

It would blow their minds, I strongly believe, to even consider a vasectomy! That dog might still get testicular cancer! Why not just chop them off?!? Never mind the fact that the dog would still be sterile, testicular cancer is rare and an easy fix, and the health BENEFITS that testosterone might add... Tubal ligation would be looked down upon because a female may still get pyometra and would still enter estrus. And who wants to handle a female in heat? I think it is like that still in most of the veterinary world, so I think it may be a long time before these procedures become more common place.

On the other hand, the emergency clinic I work at is filled with board certified and highly educated, free thinking doctors. One will openly tell you neutering LEADS to prostate cancer, although he is still very much for neutering. The other doctors are much more open minded in general. Obviously, being emergency and specialty, we would never neuter because that would be a regular vet procedure. But I think these doctors would be much more open minded to the benefits of tubal ligation and vasectomies if the subject were brought up by an owner, and would honestly I believe sit down and spend the time to research the subject further and build their own, INFORMED decision. That's what I love about my ER practice, the owners and doctors are so focused on continuing education and CONSTANTLY learning new ideas and procedures. They sponsor meetings/CEs once a month for us. 

Not that the GP doctors I work with are bad. I love them as well. They're just stuck in this monotony that is the general practice world. It never changes. A more complicated case comes in, 9 times out of 10 you transfer it to a specialist! There is no need for much further education, and in the long run that's one reason I do emergency work.


----------



## Jack's Dad

What do I do? Since I have no intention of breeding my dogs I spay and neuter them.

I've raised four children and there was no way for me to "watch" my dogs all the time to insure that they didn't somehow get loose or out and create more puppies.

My two dogs are both from working line breeders in California and if that caused the death of a shelter animal then so be it. I'm not creating the hordes of puppies who wind up in shelters. 

I have also had dogs from rescue, animal control, Humane society and re-homed dogs along with the few that I have had from breeders. So I think I have done my share.

There was a thread about two years or so back that asked, how long your dogs lived and when or if they were neutered? I think Anubis, that you would be surprised at how long many of the S/N dogs lived. 

I tried to find it so I could link it on this thread but couldn't. Maybe someone else will remember it. It was very interesting and peoples actual experience as opposed to studies which support what one already believes.

I apologize for my sarcasm in the last post.


----------



## Anubis_Star

Jack's Dad said:


> What do I do? Since I have no intention of breeding my dogs I spay and neuter them.
> 
> I've raised four children and there was no way for me to "watch" my dogs all the time to insure that they didn't somehow get loose or out and create more puppies.
> 
> My two dogs are both from working line breeders in California and if that caused the death of a shelter animal then so be it. I'm not creating the hordes of puppies who wind up in shelters.
> 
> I have also had dogs from rescue, animal control, Humane society and re-homed dogs along with the few that I have had from breeders. So I think I have done my share.
> 
> There was a thread about two years or so back that asked, how long your dogs lived and when or if they were neutered? I think Anubis, that you would be surprised at how long many of the S/N dogs lived.
> 
> I tried to find it so I could link it on this thread but couldn't. Maybe someone else will remember it. It was very interesting and peoples actual experience as opposed to studies which support what one already believes.
> 
> I apologize for my sarcasm in the last post.



I apologize if I came off as some "high and mighty" crusador type. To be honest, I can't stand people like that. So I never meant it if I seemed that way.

The point that just frustrates me is lack of education... I know spayed and neutered animals live a long life. I know while there ARE risks to spaying or neutering, most s/n animals do FINE and will obviously die of something else. Every single one of pets right now, excluding the reptiles, are altered. Even my two rats are neutered! And most of the pets we see with cancer or other organ disease are obviously geriatric. We SEE young cancer and organ failure pets all the time. But the average cardio patient, if I had to guess, would be 11-14 years old, usually toy breeds. The average "other" cancer patients we usually have hospitalized would be on average 8-11 year old large breed dogs. 

I just feel, depending on the circumstances, breed, etc... some risks to some people might not be worth it. I feel it is the responsibility of us in the medical field to simply be open and honest. The rottweiler example was extreme. Rottweilers were chosen for the study because they are most prone to osteosarcoma. But I was just using that example to point out... if you happened to own a rottweiler, wouldn't you like to know that neutering before 1 year old would give your dog a 25% chance of getting a very painful, very deadly cancer? People deserve to know, that's all I'm saying. From a simply ethical stand point, even though I KNOW most altered patients suffer no problems associated with the procedure, I find it morally WRONG to lie to people and hide facts just because you think you are right about something. And let us close our eyes, pretend we aren't talking about animals anymore... If you're doctor lied to you about a procedure they wanted to perform on your child because they felt it was for the better good of the world, a procedure that may POTENTIALLY have life-threatening disease linked to it, would you be ok with that? 

You are right, you have seen more in your own dogs then I've seen from simply reading a study. But I also work with an oncology department, so I'm not just sitting in a blind room reading papers. You also have an OP making a very biased statement because they've been lucky enough to never own a pet with cancer outside of one! I've never had a pet with cancer, either (Well, outside of the rats. But a rat will either die of a tumor or die of a respiratory illness). Lucky me. Does that mean the 5-10 patients a day (on average) our oncology department sees don't exist or don't matter? What about the cardio patients with heart masses? Or the surgery cases getting splenectomies because of their splenic masses?


----------



## selzer

I think that when vets perform the surgery over and over and over and over again, hundreds of times a year, I think they cannot be very open to the idea that the surgeries themselves are causing problems. The same is true about over-vaccinating pets. If they thought that these vaccines were causing issues in dogs, they would have to feel bad each time they put shots in a dog. In that, they can at least site many cases where it protected a dog from certain issues. But most of them think we who do not want to vaccinate aggressively and spay/neuter without a reason to do so, as hysterical internet junkies who have sucked up too much questionable info from dubious sources. 

I think they have to think that way, for self-preservation.


----------



## AddieGirl

This topic was not created based on just my experience with the dogs I've owned and whether or not they developed cancer. I started this because I was frustrated (particularly frustrated at that moment) about the sheer number of perfectly healthy, adoptable dogs,puppies, cats and kittens that are euthanized daily due to over population. I simply work in a spay neuter clinic. I make appointments, answer calls, stand at the front counter and help out in the back when needed. All I want is for people to be responsible. In my day-to-day dealing with the public in my area, the only viable option to prevent litter after litter after litter is s/n. I don't care if it is done at 8 weeks or 8 years as long as the pet is not contributing to the problem. MOST people are not dedicated enough to keep an intact animal contained and that's a problem that I feel we are helping with every day by altering animals. I HATE seeing a third trimester dog come in and knowing that she must feel terrible after being spayed. Thinking of the puppies that were days away from birth never even getting a chance kills me. But I know it is the right thing to do. There are puppies already here, sitting in shelters waiting for a home and they deserve a chance, too. It's just not right to bring more into our area that is so overrun already.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## msvette2u

Anubis_Star said:


> I'm sorry  One of yours?


No...a foster spaniel...

Prosser, WA - English Springer Spaniel. Meet Remington-Rest in Peace a Dog for Adoption.


----------



## msvette2u

> The point that just frustrates me is lack of education... I know spayed and neutered animals live a long life. I know while there ARE risks to spaying or neutering, most s/n animals do FINE and will obviously die of something else.


Hm. 
Well, a few years ago when we made the decision to do pediatric s/n, we _did_ do the research. I'm not UNeducated. 
There's no "lack of education" on my part. I have studied and learned about all this and it simply is a non-issue to me. And yes, I read the papers, including Zink's (AND the rebuttal) and know about the potential for cancers, etc. on and on. 

These aren't my first dogs, and they won't be my last. I know what happens, I saw Old Yeller and the rest. The dog always dies. 

Even my "heart dog", the one I'll be devastated to lose, I'll take that chance and neuter, all ours are altered and as Jack's Dad points out, they are doing fine, wonderful, in fact none of the spayed older females we've had for quite some time, none have even had spay incontinence, yet that's also cited as a reason to "avoid" s/n. 

When you say "lack of education", I'd say the scales are towards lack of education being the main issue with pet overpopulation, not a random chance a dog may get cancer.
To me, that risk is so miniscule as to be...a non issue. 

It's funny, too, how we've had a few potential adopters freak out over puppies being altered, and assume we didn't do research. Oh, we did a ton of research.

But just as you see some cancers that may have been caused by s/n...the rest of us (well, me, Addies, Jack's, anyway to name a few) have seen the heartache and tragedy of leaving dogs intact, so no, it's not about lack of education. We know all too well what happens with all those intact critters, and we'll take the miniscule risk of a cancer, because the alternative just isn't worth it.


----------



## selzer

What exactly happens to all those intact critters, because I have a bunch of them who are healthy and happy at present, and no, most of them will never be bred. So, what happens to them?


----------



## msvette2u

You're not in my neck of the woods.
Here, they run around breeding rampantly. Some are even owned by what you'd consider "good" homes, yet get knocked up when they are let out to go potty or what-have-you.
Then the puppies are given away...HERE yakima pets classifieds - craigslist
And I wasn't talking about _your _dogs. 
I'm talking about the ones we see all freaking day long, the ones I'm constantly getting calls about. 
If the shoe does not fit, then don't try to wear it :thumbup: 
Unless you do give away or sell your dogs on CL, if so, I apologize...


----------



## Jack's Dad

Selzer, you are so not typical of most pet owners that it is hardly worth talking about.


You are a breeder and one would hope that you have the means to keep your dogs separate. Also to keep unwanted males away from your bitches. 

I have no problem with people who are willing to put in the time and attention required to keep intact animals. 

Most pet owners don't have the time, education (about what is required) or the lifestyle that is conducive to keeping intact pets.

If i could have loaned you my four kids for a couple of years you would realize how difficult it is to keep doors, gates etc... secured at all times.

Many people on this forum are single or just a couple who dote on their dogs. Not the case in the real world.


----------



## msvette2u

Jack's Dad said:


> Selzer, you are so not typical of most pet owners that it is hardly worth talking about.
> 
> 
> You are a breeder and one would hope that you have the means to keep your dogs separate. Also to keep unwanted males away from your bitches.
> 
> I have no problem with people who are willing to put in the time and attention required to keep intact animals.
> 
> Most pet owners don't have the time, education (about what is required) or the lifestyle that is conducive to keeping intact pets.
> 
> If i could have loaned you my four kids for a couple of years you would realize how difficult it is to keep doors, gates etc... secured at all times.
> 
> Many people on this forum are single or just a couple who dote on their dogs. Not the case in the real world.


The more Jack's posts, the more I like him 

For us...I really just don't want to be that involved with my pets.

It has been hellish the few times we've had intact/in- or nearly in-heat females and intact boys all at once. Heck, even the neutered boys think they can help the girls out 
It's even more fun when we take one for spay and the vet announces, when we pick up said freshly spayed girl, she was very close to being in heat and now "the boys will still think she smells good, so watch her close, if any boys try to mount, they'll tear up her stitches inside" 

Yes, the kids are complete dolts at times...nope, just don't want to be that involved and worried all the time, I'd rather just enjoy my pets!


----------



## selzer

The response I was responding to was about one of the posters here posting that they have seen the consequences to those animals left intact so they are spaying or neutering. I don't think MSVette would allow her dog to roam around breeding indiscriminately, so I was wondering if you were meaning healthwise. 

It really isn't rocket science to keep intact pets. My worthless brother managed it for years, two bitches and a dog, and he did not have the kennel set up I do, in fact his yard wasn't even fenced. People get the idea that some dog is going to jump your bitch when you are out there with her for a potty break. Now, if you put her out on her chain and go inside for a few hours, yeah you are going to have an issue. If you have male and female both, and intact, then the average pet owner might feel more secure spaying or neutering. 

People make out like these critters are totally unmanageable if they are intact, and my own experience is that nothing is farther from the truth. But maybe that is something in my dog's lines, that they don't have crazy high sex drives.


----------



## msvette2u

Not rocket science but not something I prefer to spend my time doing, either


----------



## Anubis_Star

I think we're ALL great responsible owners posting on here  Was never denying that. Nor was I ever saying that spaying or neutering makes you a BAD owner. Like I said, all my animals are done.

My "lack of education" comment was more towards one of the main points of this thread... OP said they hate seeing people post warnings against pediatric spay/neuter because it might lead to people having intact pets and therefor accidental pregnancies. Many have posted in here that we should NOT tell owners the risks of spaying and neutering because then they might not spay/neuter, and most owners SHOULD spay/neuter. 

My whole point was I believe this is ethically and medically wrong. That is all. Not to encourage people to leave animals intact, but instead to teach them both sides. Maybe we push so hard to spay/neuter in the medical field that we don't instead teach owners how to handle intact animals? And I've known owners that have stated their vet has alienated them by pushing issues they feel are right - like spay/neuter, instead of listening, explaining, and working with the owner. Someone on this thread stated their vet made them feel like that!

OBVIOUSLY there are tons of idiotic, irresponsible owners out there. But I feel like when you work in rescue all you see is bad owner after bad owner, and you forget the good ones are out there. And when I worked in an emergency clinic in a low income neighborhood, I euthanized animal after animal because owners had no money or desire to treat, so I feel like I got the same feelings and judgement. But after working in a day practice in a nicer neighborhood, I realize that those bad owners are not the majority. There are SO many owners that love their animals and would do anything for them, I see them every day. And if they asked and you told them, they would try to work with you to do their best for their pets. These owners, I just feel they deserve to know all the information. 

You catch more flies with sugar 



And MsVette, I am SO sorry to hear about the loss of your foster dog  That is so heartbreaking, and sad. I lost three patients this weekend (one tonight) that were major surgery cases that I ran anesthesia on, my patients that I've been working with hard all weekend. I can't even imagine if they lived with me and I tried to treat them for over a month before losing them. I use to foster ferrets and cats when I was younger. I don't know if I could foster dogs. Too hard.


----------



## msvette2u

Thank you...he went into (severe??) CHF/pulmonary edema while we were away yesterday and by the time I got home, he was breathing at some 60 respiration per min. We gave lasix and started an IV, blow-by O2, and some nitro but it just basically made him comfortable until he passed. His years of neglect caught up with him in a big, bad way 

As for s/n...I really tend to think most owners don't even really want to deal with intact pets. 
They really just don't. 

And so when they are told their dog will die of cancer or be taller, maybe they will leave it intact when they should have just gone ahead and done it. And then, faced with a pregnant bitch, don't do the spay/abort. AND now another litter to deal with.

Don't you just wonder about the millions of Americans who manage to make those decisions daily without the advice of this forum...? Shocking


----------



## selzer

For the few that come on and ask, I will always tell them what I believe, which is that it is better to wait until they are are at least 18 months. 

It too believe the ordinary pet owner does not want to deal with an intact pet. I lay out the pros and cons and leave it up to them. The vast majority spay or neuter, and most of them before they are 18 months or 2 years. They are all house dogs, and most of them do not want to deal with heat cycles. I understand that. My girls usually go into heat at or about 10 months old. They are pretty well grown by then, and I think it is better than six months or earlier. But I actually keep my thoughts to myself unless they ask. If they ask, I think they are putting thought into it. 

The other side has all the goodies. They have vets on their side. They have public mood on their side. They have the pet-overpopulation issue. And in some places they have to pay more to license their pet if it is intact. I think a few individuals on an internet forum that trot out the same studies and tales will not sway the masses. Only a few individuals might decide to wait. 

I really don't think you have all that much to worry about.


----------



## Anubis_Star

That's horrible. Did he have any signs of cardiac disease before the CHF? Or was it just kind of sudden?

I agree most owners don't want to deal with it, and fine. I'm not necessarily saying every owner that comes in to have their pet's altered, should get the whole long lecture about why they should or should not do it. If someone walks into my clinic and says "Ok, I want to schedule an appointment to get my puppy neutered" I'll say "Ok, when is good for you?" But for those owners that DO ask, DO seek more knowledge, I'm not going to shove the other issues under the rug and say "Nah, you should just do it now, don't worry about it..."


----------



## msvette2u

He had what we thought was kennel cough about 2 weeks ago. Had gotten over it though. Other than being slightly tired this past few days he seemed okay but then when I got home yesterday, I realized he was sick.
It went really quickly from there :-(


----------



## Kayos and Havoc

Anubis_Star said:


> Exactly, who's side is more important? I'm biased towards cancer, you're biased towards the shelter system. Point is, the whole point of this thread is almost a pointed finger at those of us who simply feel it is important to warn people about the potential effects of early spay/neuter. SO, my question is, since obviously we both feel that the other is "wrong" (even though I don't feel YOU are wrong, I greatly respect what you do because I did it for YEARS and I know how hard it is), why do I have to hide my side because of your side? Why shouldn't owners be warned because YOU feel it is potentially damaging?
> 
> Instead, why shouldn't owners be well informed and left to make their own decisions? And if they make stupid ones? Well, they probably would of made stupid ones anyway. It's not your right to hide potentially SERIOUS facts and studies from people because you are sick of euthanizing healthy pets. It's not your right to tell every owner they should alter their pet before sexual maturity because you feel it's what is right for your problem. Like I said, what about MY problem? ON the flip side, it's not my right to hide the fact that intact animals obviously CAN get pregnant, there IS an over-population problem, people SHOULDN'T breed most of the time, some may feel it IS harder to handle an intact animal, if they WANT to neuter young then ok, at least they've been given all the information.
> 
> Like I said, instead of hiding stuff from owners, why don't you euthanize every single animal in your shelter with temperament issues (extreme fear, reactivity, etc...) instead of trying to "fix" them, and maybe THAT would open up a lot more room? I've almost been bit by more rescue dogs then I can count. If SO many animals are being killed, so many litters of puppies being killed, why are we adopting out fearful, potentially dangerous animals? Why aren't only the happiest and healthiest being adopted out?
> 
> Just another view point. BTW, most of Europe doesn't commonly alter their animals. Maybe we need to see what they're doing that we're not?


:thumbup:

There are two sides to every argument. I used to believe in early S/N. I totally bought into the argument that it prevented unwanted puppies and was better for the dog. I no longer agree with that. 

As I have said before early S/N is the RIGHT answer for the pet owner that cannot or will not keep pets from reproducing. 

Early S/N is NOT the RIGHT answer for the owner that can prevent unwanted preganancy and chooses NOT to alter early or ever. It is probably not the right answer for the performance dog either which is why I choose not to early S/N.

Education is the right thing for every issue in life, unfortunately there are many that simply ignore the education too. Maybe they should be snipped.


----------



## LifeofRiley

Hi all,

I believe that spay/neuter programs play an important role in achieving the larger goal of a "no kill nation." Toward that end, below is a program from the HSUS to provide free spay/neuter services. Please read and spread the word.


EXCERPTED FROM THE HSUS WEBSITE
In celebration of World Spay Day, and thanks to a $40,000 grant from the Doris Day Animal Foundation, *The Humane Society of the United States’ Pets for Life program will work with local partners to provide free pet spay/neuter services in under-served communities throughout February*.

“The Humane Society of the United States provides free spay/neuter services all year long, but thanks to the generosity of Doris Day Animal Foundation, we will be able to help even more people and pets,” said Amanda Arrington, director for The HSUS’ Pets for Life program. *“World Spay Day gives us the opportunity to recognize and celebrate the local spay/neuter providers, our partners in the effort to reduce community suffering and prevent animals from being relinquished to shelters.”*

The following is a list of Spay/Neuter events being sponsored by The HSUS:

Atlanta:
The HSUS’ Pets for Life Atlanta team and The Ark Animal Hospital “Fix a Pet.” Each Saturday through the month of February, The HSUS and The Ark Animal Hospital will provide 100 free spay/neuters for dogs and cats from the 30318 ZIP code area.

Chicago:
The HSUS’ Pets for Life Chicago team will partner with the Tree House Humane Society to offer free spay/neuters to pet owners on the lower-west side of Chicago all month long. The HSUS’ Chicago’s community organizer, also a veterinary technician, will volunteer at Tree House Humane Society’s BVDM Mac Lean Spay/Neuter Clinic to assist with surgeries on World Spay Day, Feb. 26. That day, the clinic will fix 50 feral and community cats in Chicago.

Los Angeles:
The HSUS’ Pets for Life Los Angeles team will team up with North Figueroa Animal Hospital on World Spay Day, Feb. 26, and with East LA Dog and Cat Hospital on Feb. 28 to offer free spay/neuter surgeries and vaccines to residents of 90033 or 90023.

Philadelphia:
The HSUS’ Pets for Life Philadelphia team will be celebrating World Spay Day the entire month of February by targeting specific neighborhoods in North Philadelphia to sign up pets for free spay/neuter appointments, in partnership with the Pennsylvania SPCA and Animal Care and Control.

*For more information about these events, visit worldspayday.org.*


----------



## Konotashi

Personally, I will never neuter my males and none of my females will be spayed until they're 2 years old. 

However, I ALWAYS push for speuter, because I know most of the general public can't keep an intact dog without them reproducing.


----------



## AddieGirl

Konotashi said:


> Personally, I will never neuter my males and none of my females will be spayed until they're 2 years old.
> 
> However, I ALWAYS push for speuter, because I know most of the general public can't keep an intact dog without them reproducing.


Exactly! 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Freestep

Just wanted to add something.

I groomed this lady's dogs this week, a Yorkie and a Shih Tzu. Here's the Shih Tzu male. Cute, isn't he? 










He's only 9 months old and is a perfect little gentleman. He is intact. So much for the argument that intact dogs have behaviors that the average pet owner can't handle, right?

Yeah. He knocked up the owner's Yorkie, because she "didn't think he was old enough" to breed. So she didn't bother to neuter him, or spay her Yorkie.

Puppies due any day. The Yorkie had milk in her teats when I groomed her.

Both dogs way overdue for grooming.

To be honest, the male is so sweet I was tempted to steal him. I hope the puppies find good homes, and that the owner gets her female spayed--she said she was going to, but the male got to her first.

Very typical of what happens when the average pet owner doesn't spay/neuter.


----------



## martemchik

Freestep said:


> Just wanted to add something.
> 
> I groomed this lady's dogs this week, a Yorkie and a Shih Tzu. Here's the Shih Tzu male. Cute, isn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's only 9 months old and is a perfect little gentleman. He is intact. So much for the argument that intact dogs have behaviors that the average pet owner can't handle, right?
> 
> Yeah. He knocked up the owner's Yorkie, because she "didn't think he was old enough" to breed. So she didn't bother to neuter him, or spay her Yorkie.
> 
> Puppies due any day. The Yorkie had milk in her teats when I groomed her.
> 
> Both dogs way overdue for grooming.
> 
> To be honest, the male is so sweet I was tempted to steal him. I hope the puppies find good homes, and that the owner gets her female spayed--she said she was going to, but the male got to her first.
> 
> Very typical of what happens when the average pet owner doesn't spay/neuter.


Unless she realizes that she can get $500 or more for each of those "designer breed" puppies. And that a $2000 - $3000 paycheck every year or six months is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Powell

OK here is a study that says early neuter spay is not good:

Golden retriever study suggests neutering affects dog health :: UC Davis News & Information


----------



## msvette2u

Powell said:


> OK here is a study that says early neuter spay is not good:
> 
> Golden retriever study suggests neutering affects dog health :: UC Davis News & Information


No...it doesn't say "early neuter spay is not good". It says "study SUGGESTS". 
Not "study says s/n IS NOT". 

Suggests isn't a definite, and I wish they'd picked a healthier breed to study!
Any overbred dog like a Golden is going to have health issues and apparently they have a high propensity towards cancer, high enough to discount this "study".

Rather like the "microchips cause cancer" study done on rats...a species prone to cancer anyway :thinking:


----------



## Dainerra

honestly, if you read the studies, they only "suggest" that smoking is bad for you


----------



## msvette2u

Seriously?

They picked a group of dogs with a higher propensity towards cancer already...not very convincing if you ask me, if you want to prove s/n actually kills dogs, then pick breed untainted by other issues such as poor genetics (skeletal issues) and one not known for dying of cancer early anyway.


----------



## selzer

Actually, cancer is pretty rampant in our breed as well, so studying GRs, whether the cancer rate increases and by what percentage if you spay or neuter at a certain rate does make sense. 

If you were dealing with a breed that seems to be unaffected by cancers then what will that tell us about our breed that does have quite a bit of cancer?


----------



## Anubis_Star

Golden retrievers ARE cancer factories, this is true. But spaying/neutering early is the norm, as well, so who's to say that isn't a factor? And even if it wasn't, goldens are so over bred because they are very common dogs. So if an owner of a golden asked about spay/neuter and possible cons, wouldn't it be wise to at least warn them? Same with my study I posted earlier on rotties. Rotties are the breed most affected by osteosarcoma, this is true, but even at that the rate isn't EXTREMELY high. Until you spay/neuter before a year of age, then 25% of those dogs get it. Again, just warn the owners. Again, don't hide facts simply to support your agenda. If you have to LIE to people to get them to do what you want, maybe you're going about solving your problems the wrong way.


----------



## Freestep

Anubis_Star said:


> Again, don't hide facts simply to support your agenda. If you have to LIE to people to get them to do what you want, maybe you're going about solving your problems the wrong way.


Nowhere have I seen anyone say we should lie to people, or try to hide the facts. 

We're still in the midst of figuring out what the facts ARE; so far we have studies that are suggestive of certain things, but until these studies are replicated across the board, we can't say we have any facts yet.

And that is exactly what I would tell someone.


----------



## msvette2u

Freestep said:


> Nowhere have I seen anyone say we should lie to people, or try to hide the facts.
> 
> We're still in the midst of figuring out what the facts ARE; so far we have studies that are suggestive of certain things, but until these studies are replicated across the board, we can't say we have any facts yet.
> 
> And that is exactly what I would tell someone.


This. 
So my comments are usually something like..."some studies say blahblahblah and others say blahblahblah, so the best solution is still s/n". You can make statistics and studies say anything you want to :shrug:


----------



## GatorBytes

Freestep said:


> Just wanted to add something.
> 
> I groomed this lady's dogs this week, a Yorkie and a Shih Tzu. Here's the Shih Tzu male. Cute, isn't he?


 
My cousin has this cross...they call it a Shih-tie

true story...LOL


----------



## Freestep

Freestep said:


> He's only 9 months old and is a perfect little gentleman. He is intact. So much for the argument that intact dogs have behaviors that the average pet owner can't handle, right?
> 
> Yeah. He knocked up the owner's Yorkie, because she "didn't think he was old enough" to breed. So she didn't bother to neuter him, or spay her Yorkie.
> 
> Puppies due any day. The Yorkie had milk in her teats when I groomed her.
> 
> Both dogs way overdue for grooming.
> 
> To be honest, the male is so sweet I was tempted to steal him. I hope the puppies find good homes, and that the owner gets her female spayed--she said she was going to, but the male got to her first.
> 
> Very typical of what happens when the average pet owner doesn't spay/neuter.


Update--I saw this client's mother yesterday. The Yorkie had three pups the same day I groomed her.  One was stillborn, and one is very weak and has to be bottle-fed. The dam came down with eclampsia and had to be rushed to the emergency vet.

I also found out that this same client allowed her Chocolate Lab to have puppies just a few months ago (just in time for Christmas--how about that?). Here is a photo of the Lab after I groomed her last summer.











Clearly, this person can barely keep up with a dog's basic care, much less the care needed to properly manage intact dogs. At least she does bother to call me once every 6-8 months to get professional grooming help.

And yes, I used a Furminator on Brownie, amongst other things!


----------



## msvette2u

I'd have used a Furminator on Brownie too... 

See...you're describing the typical every day pet owner in America.
I wish folks realized that 
Because I hear of it and see it almost daily as well!


----------

