Spay/Neuter article

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.
User avatar
sol
Super Bully
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA

Spay/Neuter article

Postby sol » Thu May 22, 2008 11:13 am


User avatar
sol
Super Bully
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA

Postby sol » Thu May 22, 2008 11:16 am


msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Thu May 22, 2008 11:21 am

It also reduces many cancers. All in all, it evens out, with the benefit of fewer unwanted litters :thumbsup:

User avatar
sol
Super Bully
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA

Postby sol » Thu May 22, 2008 5:50 pm

msvette2u wrote:It also reduces many cancers. All in all, it evens out, with the benefit of fewer unwanted litters :thumbsup:


Ummm, did you even read them :huh?: Where does it say "it evens out"?

I listed this in the Health section so it wouldn't get into a discussion about unwanted litters. Hopefully people can look beyond the rescue aspect of the argument and seriously consider the health risks that may be associated with neutering their OWN dog. It's information that I was hoping the community would be grateful to have, NOT to start an argument about what is better for the dog population in general.

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Thu May 22, 2008 9:16 pm

It didn't say "evens out", but it DID say THIS:
The disadvantages, although real, are not stark,” Hamil says. “It’s not like if you neuter them they’re going to get [bone cancer]. You would have a very slight increase in incidence, and it’s going to be breed-related ... [Whatever the increase is] that’s not a very big reason not to spay or neuter your dog.”


I just offered my opinion since the article brought it up as well and concluded the same thing!

User avatar
Sarah
Dabbling Dog Coddler
Posts: 10361
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:21 am

Postby Sarah » Thu May 22, 2008 10:08 pm

The article seems to indicate that spaying in particular is beneficial. Interesting that they looked at the studies which I've seen brought up as anti spay/neuter arguments, and noted when the studies seemed weak. (some of them are)

It's a good article, presents the information fairly and without obvious bias.

User avatar
ZiggysMom
Super Bully
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Califonia
Contact:

Postby ZiggysMom » Thu May 22, 2008 11:02 pm

We were talking about this at work the other day... you really also have to consider what we call "linked variables"

Example: you might notice a link that people who carry lighters in their pocket get more lung cancer. Does that mean that lighters cause lung cancer? no, it means that people who carry lighters in their pocket are likely to smoke.

We were hypothesizing that because spayed/neutered animals live longer and older animals get more cancer, that might be a similar kind of link. You'd need to do some more studies and statistical correction to see if that's true, but it is certainly something to think about.

User avatar
Kingsgurl
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7459
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Kingsgurl » Fri May 23, 2008 12:29 am

Dog population aside, the little bitch I just pulled from the shelter and spayed (WICKED case of pyrometra) would have avoided that had she been spayed earlier. Not treated, she could very easily have died (of course, she was already slated for euthanasia anyway, but that ties in to the over-population problem you wanted to leave out) I tried to help another bitch earlier this year, but her mammary cancer was too advanced and she had to be put down, again a situation that could have been avoided. There are risks both ways, I've just seen more tangible benefits with spay/neuter.

User avatar
adoptanapbt
Super Bully
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Postby adoptanapbt » Fri May 23, 2008 12:31 am

I'm still boggling over the comment that we don't know the long-term effects of early spay/neuter. It's only been common practice (at least in my area) for 20 years! roflmao

User avatar
sol
Super Bully
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA

Postby sol » Fri May 23, 2008 2:12 am

adoptanapbt wrote:I'm still boggling over the comment that we don't know the long-term effects of early spay/neuter. It's only been common practice (at least in my area) for 20 years! roflmao


20 years really isn't that long, it's not even two generations for smaller breeds.

Kingsgurl: How many healthy unspayed bitches have you come across? Way more than unhealthy, I'm guessing. No-one would suggest(including myself) that this would be conclusive evidence that unspayed females are healthier.

I'm not pro or con here, just presenting some information that may be helpful to those considering spay/neuter for their own pets.

User avatar
Allie
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:09 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Contact:

Postby Allie » Fri May 23, 2008 5:26 am

Are you suggesting that the majority of pet owners are responsible enough to care for unspeutered dogs?

I think if the majority of dog owners are not responsible enough to put leashes on their dogs, why would they be able to take responisibilty for intact animals?

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Fri May 23, 2008 9:32 am

Allie wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority of pet owners are responsible enough to care for unspeutered dogs?

I think if the majority of dog owners are not responsible enough to put leashes on their dogs, why would they be able to take responisibilty for intact animals?


:goodpost:
I'm still baffled at how we're supposed to discuss benefits or risks of speuter, leaving pet overpopulation totally out of the equation :huh?:
All we need is more people running around giving idiots the justification to leave their already wandering and uncontained pets intact.
And as pointed out, there's two HUGE issues already, pyo and mammary tumors. Those two HUGE risks are eliminated with early spay.

User avatar
pblove
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 15599
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:28 pm
Location: east coast

Postby pblove » Fri May 23, 2008 9:39 am

Allie wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority of pet owners are responsible enough to care for unspeutered dogs?

I think if the majority of dog owners are not responsible enough to put leashes on their dogs, why would they be able to take responisibilty for intact animals?

that is a very good comparison Allie!
Most of the pet owners I know don't do anything other then let their dogs out in the yard or run loose if they do not have a fenced yard, can't imagine them being responsible with an intact dog.

User avatar
sol
Super Bully
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA

Postby sol » Fri May 23, 2008 3:55 pm

Allie wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority of pet owners are responsible enough to care for unspeutered dogs?

I think if the majority of dog owners are not responsible enough to put leashes on their dogs, why would they be able to take responisibilty for intact animals?


Nope, just the majority on this forum..which is why I posted it here :thumbsup:

User avatar
Allie
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10814
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:09 am
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Contact:

Postby Allie » Fri May 23, 2008 5:21 pm

Unfortunately, IMO, if people are coming here with questions about speutering, they probably should be speutering their pets.


Return to “Health Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests