Interesting statement about "fixing your dogs"

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.
medagrl

Postby medagrl » Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:57 pm

To be honest, in the future, I do not think I will alter my pet of choice until after the first year or so. I have done a lot of research in this area. The only thing I will miss is rescuing and giving forever homes to the ones who need it most. All of my dogs are now altered with the exception of Cesar, he has a retained testical and the surgery is too costly. I however, take that responsibility very seriously.

User avatar
chako
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:55 am
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Postby chako » Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:57 pm

Kingsgurl wrote:Funny. My female who was spayed at 4 months has great hips. Martin, who was altered after fully maturing, is mildly dysplastic AND had to have both knees repaired. Guess there are other factors to consider, like genetics.


Yes, true, and there are people who chain smoke all their lives and never develop lung cancer or emphysema.

However, early neutering does prolong the period during which the growth plates close, and so I can see how that might just tip the balance on a dog's hips depending on how things come together. The fact is, early sterilization has a good chance of making a dog taller and lankier than it otherwsie would likely have been if it had been exposed to the natural signaling hormones until after maturity.

Of course, I own a spayed bitch myself. I had her spayed after her first birthday (she's smaller and I figured she was probably about done growing... but it was a guess). I'm not opposed to sterilization, but hiding the truth -- pros and cons -- to push an agenda is never a good thing.

I'm not saying folks on this board do that... but I have certainly met spay/neuter crazies that refuse to consider an alternative viewpoint for any reason... and disagree with even buying a show dog b/c it "kills a shelter dog."

medagrl

Postby medagrl » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:01 pm

chako wrote:
Kingsgurl wrote:Funny. My female who was spayed at 4 months has great hips. Martin, who was altered after fully maturing, is mildly dysplastic AND had to have both knees repaired. Guess there are other factors to consider, like genetics.



I'm not opposed to sterilization, but hiding the truth -- pros and cons -- to push an agenda is never a good thing. "



I agree 100% :thumbsup:

User avatar
Michael
Super Bully
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:57 pm

Postby Michael » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:49 pm

I agree that your average Joe dog owner should alter their pets,

I'm not the average Joe.
none of my dogs have had any pups since somewhere around 1985.

It isn't that hard to contain a dog, and prevent unwanted pups.

User avatar
bahamutt99
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10059
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:56 am
Location: west TX
Contact:

Postby bahamutt99 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:55 pm

Roxers wrote:But that's a pretty big "maybe" and the major reason that there are tons of unwanted dogs killed every day in shelters. Accidents happen.


You're right. Accidents do happen. I could be walking down the street with my dogs, have an equipment failure, and my dog could run into someone's horse pen, starting a major stampede that wipes out half of Oklahoma. Or we could have an earthquake here that jars our crates enough to let Terra and Priest out and ooooops an accidental breeding. Or maybe they decide not to breed and just go straight to the fighting. Or perhaps they work together to chew the wiring in the house and cause a fire that again wipes out half of Oklahoma.

Flippant, yes. But like you said, accidents happen. We prevent them to the best of our ability. But just as I wouldn't defang my dogs to prevent fights, I wouldn't neuter them just because a meteor might hit the house and blow holes in the crates while Terra's in heat. Or even because of a less spectactular possibility like human error. The dogs in shelters are there because somebody dumped them there. They are not there because they are intact. People go out and obtain pets by choice, from many sources, and they dump them for many reasons. We shouldn't feel obligated to do something we don't want to do because other people dump their pets. I wouldn't give up my right to make my own decisions for my own animals, would you?

User avatar
bahamutt99
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10059
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:56 am
Location: west TX
Contact:

Postby bahamutt99 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:58 pm

KadillacGrrl wrote:Does owning an intact dog and encouraging spay/neuter make me a hypocrite? I don't think so... but this is also part of the reason I don't shove it down people's throats. I will still spay/neuter my pets as I see fit. I believe it's a Good Thing, and will continue to share that with folks.


^^What you said. Give people the correct, unbiased information and let them make their own decisions. Don't shove their noses in shocking Peta-like imagery and run them into the ground with guilt tripping. Let them consider what they want to do, and they will come to the option that makes the most sense. For a lot of people, that means spaying or neutering.

User avatar
Michael
Super Bully
Posts: 632
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:57 pm

Postby Michael » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:20 pm

bahamutt99 wrote:
KadillacGrrl wrote:Does owning an intact dog and encouraging spay/neuter make me a hypocrite? I don't think so... but this is also part of the reason I don't shove it down people's throats. I will still spay/neuter my pets as I see fit. I believe it's a Good Thing, and will continue to share that with folks.


^^What you said. Give people the correct, unbiased information and let them make their own decisions. Don't shove their noses in shocking Peta-like imagery and run them into the ground with guilt tripping. Let them consider what they want to do, and they will come to the option that makes the most sense. For a lot of people, that means spaying or neutering.
:clap :thumbsup: :goodpost:

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:41 pm

medagrl wrote: All of my dogs are now altered with the exception of Cesar, he has a retained testical and the surgery is too costly. I however, take that responsibility very seriously.

You do realize that his chance of getting cancer in that retained testicle are like, quadrupled?
Have you consulted your vet about the retained?
Because in our neighborhood, it's no more than a spay surgery but the risks of leaving it in, well, it's a ticking time bomb, literally.

The desire to keep a dog intact becomes associated with greed, masculinity issues, stupidity. In short, the dog's reproductive organs are demonized, and people that choose to keep intact dogs are reduced to slobbering buffoons.

Well, hon, from my observations in Animal Control, no, they already ARE "slobbering buffoons" and that's why their pets are unaltered.

I wish everyone out there was as responsible as some of you guys, but unfortunately they are not - just take a look at our petfinder page, ANY petfinder page, to see the unending litters of mixes out there, and then come back and tell me we ought not crusade for as much s/n as possible.

medagrl

Postby medagrl » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:45 pm

msvette2u wrote:
I wish everyone out there was as responsible as some of you guys, but unfortunately they are not - just take a look at our petfinder page, ANY petfinder page, to see the unending litters of mixes out there, and then come back and tell me we ought not crusade for as much s/n as possible.



I work for a rescue and post the photos and bios of dogs and cats who need forever homes, I do know the problem, therefore, I am responsible.

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:48 pm

The dog with retained testes has 13 times the risk of this tumor compared with a dog that has normally descended testes in the scrotum.

Just a real quick search for retained testicle.
http://www.animalhealthcare.ca/contents ... 3&cat=dogs

They can also become torsioned up there...
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Conten ... A=2743&S=0

In fact there's a greater reason to neuter a cryptorchid than one with both testicles in the correct position...

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:19 pm

Dude... if my pup was cryptorchid... I'd be eating Ramen until he could have his surgery.

Have any of you who keep intact bitches dealt with pyometra? I remember in school that 1 in 4 unspayed bitches will develop pyometra, but I couldn't find anything anywhere to confirm that statistic.

I dealt with an owner today who wanted to "possibly have just one litter" because a friend of hers might want a puppy. She thought I was trying to scare her into spaying by telling her the risks of mammary cancer and pyometra, so this discussion is a never-ending one.

Lastly, by waiting to spay, you are DRASTICALLY increasing your risks of complications. As a surgeon, the difficulty of the surgery increases exponentially with age. I'd much rather spay a young female in heat than a 6 year old dog. The tissues become flabby with age, and tissues can literally tear in your hands. Another reason to make a decision early is safety, and the longer you wait the higher the risks of both spaying and failing to spay.

Neuter is a much less obvious issue. If you want to wait until your dog is 2 to neuter so he can develop, thats FINE by me... just don't forget about it until he starts making a habit of jumping the fence!

User avatar
heartbullies
Moderator
Posts: 5196
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:10 pm
Location: Bay Area

Postby heartbullies » Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:23 am

msvette2u wrote:I wish everyone out there was as responsible as some of you guys, but unfortunately they are not


x2

The people I've seen in this post (I haven't read the whole thing) that have intact dogs-- bahamutt, kadillacgrrl, dawn-- are VASTLY more dog savvy AND breed savvy AND responsible AND involved in their dogs' lives than any one else I have *ever met in real life that is breeding dogs or has intact dogs. I meet between six and twelve dog owners per day. About half of their dogs are intact. You can do those numbers yourself, it's too depressing for me.

If anyone else owned Loki or Priest or Terra or John Gotti or Betty or Savvy they would have had about 436452390 litters from them so far or have lost the dogs or the dogs would have gotten hit by a car or been unvaccinated and got Parvo, or some other too-common fate. Instead these dogs are lucky, and have responsible owners.

There are obviously other factors at play than the dogs' genitalia.

I don't have a problem with people having intact dogs in theory. However, the vast majority of owners with intact dogs have left the dogs intact due to lack of involvement with the dog (never been to the vet, it's on a chain in the yard 24/7), lack of money (can't afford S/N, wants to make money peddling pups), lack of knowledge about their dog or breed (conformation, temperament), lack of knowledge about dogs in general (bitches can be bred fine at or under a year old and every year thereafter, S/N makes them fat, that there is a huge market for cow-hocked easty-westy APBTs with poor temperaments), or other reasons, and these traits are a solid foundation for less-than-responsible dog ownership, and often involves some less-than-stellar breeding as well. And THAT is what I have a problem with.

User avatar
Roxers
Bully Lover 4 Life
Posts: 1104
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:23 am
Location: Athens, GA or Charleston, SC

Postby Roxers » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:25 am

bahamutt99 wrote:
Roxers wrote:But that's a pretty big "maybe" and the major reason that there are tons of unwanted dogs killed every day in shelters. Accidents happen.


You're right. Accidents do happen. I could be walking down the street with my dogs, have an equipment failure, and my dog could run into someone's horse pen, starting a major stampede that wipes out half of Oklahoma. Or we could have an earthquake here that jars our crates enough to let Terra and Priest out and ooooops an accidental breeding. Or maybe they decide not to breed and just go straight to the fighting. Or perhaps they work together to chew the wiring in the house and cause a fire that again wipes out half of Oklahoma.


I don't really mean you. You seem to be a very responsible owner and fully capable of properly restraining your dogs. The average dog owner, however, isn't always as responsible, and I hear all the time of "accidental" litters and mixed breed puppies that now need homes... or end up at the shelters. I agree with your points that responsible people should be allowed to make their own choices about what to do with their pets.

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:18 am

heartbullies wrote:
msvette2u wrote:However, the vast majority of owners with intact dogs have left the dogs intact due to lack of involvement with the dog (never been to the vet, it's on a chain in the yard 24/7), lack of money (can't afford S/N, wants to make money peddling pups), lack of knowledge about their dog or breed (conformation, temperament), lack of knowledge about dogs in general (bitches can be bred fine at or under a year old and every year thereafter, S/N makes them fat, that there is a huge market for cow-hocked easty-westy APBTs with poor temperaments), or other reasons, and these traits are a solid foundation for less-than-responsible dog ownership, and often involves some less-than-stellar breeding as well. And THAT is what I have a problem with.


Oh my favorite here is "Last time I spayed a dog, it got ran over-I'm not spending the money to spay another".
We ended up taking 4-5 FERAL litters from these folks. All but a few needed to be euthanized due to being so horribly wild and fearful and dangerous because of their fear.
I worked, over a year or so, to get ALL the dogs spayed, or neutered, on my own dime half the time.

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

Postby Sarah » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:40 am

Misskiwi67 wrote:Dude... if my pup was cryptorchid... I'd be eating Ramen until he could have his surgery.

Have any of you who keep intact bitches dealt with pyometra? I remember in school that 1 in 4 unspayed bitches will develop pyometra, but I couldn't find anything anywhere to confirm that statistic.


I definitely agree that the cryptorchid dog needs to be neutered! Yikes! Personally, I'd have left the 'nads on another dog, and castrated that one, if cost was an issue.

So far I have not personally had to deal with pyo. That statistic seems high, but pyo is indeed a fairly common condition. There's some indication that a tendency to pyo may run in families, which may be why I haven't had to deal with it... I could have just lucked into a line that is less inclined to pyo. I did spay Tully at 4, but she had a lot of seasons before that. (my girls come in every 5 months or so.)

Overall, with all available information, I still believe that spaying before the first season is the healthiest choice for most bitches... the main exception being bitches with a puppy vaginitis, which need a heat cycle to clear that. While I see the value in waiting on a male (with responsible ownership), I just don't see it with a bitch. Their growth is not so affected by reproductive hormones. I also think that for most pet owners, neutering a male at the traditional 6-9 months is the best choice.

I'm not quite as hardline about spaying as I used to be, primarily because I find Tully's spay incontinence really frustrating. lol This makes me reluctant to spay Tess, and a bit sorry that I hurried to spay Tully after her litter (I'm also a little sorry that I didn't try again for a healthy litter, since the sole survivor of her litter turned out so fabulously). I will eventually spay Tess, though, and still do encourage most people to spay.


Return to “Health Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests