Please Neuter

[corgipower]

i found an interesting study regarding the effects of spaying and neutering. i have seen the data in several different places, however they all are referencing the same source.

i woud appreciate anyone who can either prove or disprove this.


from http://saveourdogs.net/health.html

risks of neutering a male dog:

• if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) by a factor of 3.8; this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis
• increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of geriatric cognitive impairment
• triples the risk of obesity, and with it many of the associated health problems
• quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

risks of spaying a female

• if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma by a factor of 3.1; this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis
• increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of more than 5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6 - 2, and with it the many associated health problems
• causes urinary spay incontinence in 4-20% of female dogs
• increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
• increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumors
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

from http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200509.html

The article then goes on to discuss the role of hormones and genetic controls in cancer. All agree that there is a connection, but no one knows exactly what it is. However, in his article Dr Hahn discusses a study done by Dr David Felman (and published in the June Nature) that I find intriguing because of how it may relate to the role the animal's behavior and his/her relationship with the owner plays in cancer. In a very tiny nutshell, the study looked at two gene mutations that lead the stress hormones cortisol and cortisone to trigger the growth of later stage cancer cells.

Because cortisol is also one of the hormones that's elevated when stress results in animal behavioral problems which, in turn, may result from human-animal relationship ones, it would seem that avoiding such elevations of this hormone by treating bond and behavioral problems could conceivably lower the probability of cancer in some animals, or improve the survival chances of those already afflicted with the disease. Although such a hypothesis might seem to require too great a leap of credibility for those who associate cortisol and cortisone with those drugs that counter inflammation and itching, another effect of these hormones is that they undermine the immune response. So while they may benefit animals who encounter occasional stresses of brief duration, these same substances may seriously undermine the health of those who daily live in stressful environments. In that case, not only will these animals have a higher probability of developing stress-related behavioral and medical problems (such as aggression or separation anxiety displays, irritable bowel syndrome or chronic or recurring urinary tract conditions), these animals' taxed immune response may experience more difficulty recognizing and dispatching mutant cells before they multiply and form cancers.

PDF of Dr Hahn's study that is mentioned in the website above.

[shawnawhitewolf]

I doint know what to say fore as i go.I doint fix my boyes one reason i lost two of them to to a butch spay were she bleed to death in hosp i lost my faith in that im sorry if i **** enty on off

[ron]

I've read a few different studies and synopses conducted by research vets on the health risks of neutered and spayed dogs. One did account for the predominance of some health problems related to breeds, such as Goldens being prone to cancer and Hermangio. The risk was elevated if the dog was altered before 1 year of age. And giant breeds can suffer bone plate growth problems if altered before two years. But, in neither analysis did they recommend not neutering. They simply advised to forestall neuter/spay until at least 14 months for small and medium breeds and at least 18 months for really large and giant breeds. And that special consideration must be shown for breed related problems. And that, in some cases, not enough data is present to form solidified conclusions.

Also, in saying that speuter led to weight gain and diabetes, what is not accounted for is the lack of exercise and good diet. A number of people I know who have altered pets, they never increased exercise as the animal got older. A walk that wore out a 6 month old puppy does nothing for a two year old. And I know a hunter with a Lab and he thinks Ol Roy is just fine to feed to his dog who will be expected to work on hunts.

I had Shadow altered at 2.5 years. He is 26 inches to the shoulder and 65 pounds. Health benefits are secondary. I had him neutered to prevent unwanted litters. He doesn't care about any alpha status, per se. He really likes female dogs. One thing that did change after neuter was that he quit humping.

I don't imagine him "missing" sex or his spark plugs. He's not human. Humans have the ability to control their reproduction. Dogs do not. As for being down, he was morose the day after surgery and I'm fairly convinced that it wasn't due to surgery. It was due to being in a kennel overnight at the vet's. Kennels will make him crap himself. He was morose because he thought he might be left there. When I made him some steak, he was back in the game. He knew he was home again.

I did not notice any change in aggression level and those issues were dealt with by training. Some studies show that altering does not affect aggression. Therefore, neutering can't cause it either. Or it does cause aggression and can also cure it. You can't have one without the other.

That's my two cents.

[Renee750il]

Good post, Ron.

I'm not an advocate of the pre-maturity speuter if it can be avoided. I know rescues really don't have the luxury of knowing that the adoptive families will be responsible so they have to assure that it's done in a timely fashion, but, when possible, I'd choose to wait until the animal is mature.

[ron]

Originally Posted by Renee750il

Good post, Ron.

I'm not an advocate of the pre-maturity speuter if it can be avoided.

when possible, I'd choose to wait until the animal is mature.

I sometimes think some of this debate could be resolved by postponing but not necessarily doing away with altering. But that still requires people to be competent enough to keep intact animals until they are altered.

We have a chainlink fence that Shadow could possibly get out of but never has. But that wouldn't stop a determined loose female from getting in if she wanted to. Shadow is deathly afraid of kennels. My wife and I both have to work away from home. The only choice is to have him in the backyard, for maybe 8 hours. Tie him out or a zip line? In some places, not here, you can only have your dog tied out for an hour or two. And a zip line? He has chewed through a harness when he was younger and can pull out of his id collar. And he needs his zoomies. He has to get over 30 mph a couple of times a day.

In any case, neutering him was the responsible thing to do at the time and I still think it is. And my personal opinion, not including some health risks, is that non-breeding pets should be altered. Some may say it's not natural. Neither is topical flea treatments, vaccinations, kibble or any kind of balanced meal, or agility events where we expect a large dog to go through a tunnel rather than bound over it, as he would do if left to solve that problem himself. Docking is not natural, either. But then, many of the breeds we have are directly due to man's control. Dogs with splitting tails that must be docked would never have existed as a breed with that problem if we had not done the "unnatural" thing of creating that breed.

[Maxy24]

My opinion is that if you are responsible and confident enough in your ability to keep your dog from getting/making another dogs pregnant then try and wait until maturity to neuter. If not then please fix your pet before he can reproduce (unless you are a responsible breeder). I suppose if you can keep from reproducing then you can keep him intact as long as you want, but health benefits seem to be the highest when you do neuter but wait until maturity (since most of the intact dog related cancers happen in older dogs, keeping intact forever can be more dangerous health wise than neutering really early).

although I've read you still may want to spay females early, I'm not really sure why, it might be because of Pyo risk.

[ron]

And, I certainly don't want to imply that people keeping intact pets are irresponsible. Many have valid reasons for doing so. Show, breeding, competition and work, and breeding. Health risks where the health is at greater risk than having a litter. Some really do have a personal thing against altering. And as long as such people can competently keep intact pets, I suppose that's okay. But for the public at large who are just not as savvy, pets should be altered. And any pet adopted from a rescue or shelter will be altered. No, our practice of altering didn't stop those dogs from coming in. But it will stop the rescued dogs from having even more litters. It's like putting direct pressure on a gutshot. It will have to do until something better (i.e. education) comes along.

[Erica1989]

As someone actively involved in rescue, I am for neutering. Obviously, if people were different, and more responsible, I don't think we would have such the problem that we have. Right now, in my house, I have 1 neutered 2 year old mutt and a 5 year old inact aussie. The aussie is housetrained, he does not mark on walks, he does not hump everything with 4 legs (or 2!) - he's well mannered, and I tolerate nothing but. He goes to the park, and does not cause a problem. If he were with someone else, I cannot guarentee his behavior would be the same. I monitor and train - constantly.

However - I do not concider myself the general public, nor is this dog going to remain intact. And I think the general public needs altered pets. They are just not responsible enough. And if pro spueter campains are whats needed - so be it. Snip away!

If you have the ability and common sense to house an intact dog - go for it. I am not neccesarily for early spay/neuter (although, in resuce we have to) - but I do feel it's something that needs to be done at some point for the health of the pet.

[ma-vie-en-vert]

Originally Posted by soft pawz

and if the majority of puppys have had an owner before (and that would be my guess)......
doesnt that kind of mean that spay& neuter wont really change something about the huge amount of dogs that get PTS every year?

i'll try my best to explain it:
even if puppys can only by purchased from real breeders because every single dog not being used for breeding would be neutered, there would still be the same amount of people who want to buy a dog. and among those people there would still be the same % of bad dogowners who buy a puppy and then surrender it and bring it to a petshelter after only a couple of weeks or months or years.
unless people change (and they never do) the shelters will still be crowded, maybe with more purebred pups but does that matter?

so can anybody tell me how many dogs being PTS are truely without an owner and how many have had an owner before?
because unless the majority of dog in shelters are truely ownerless, spay & neuter wont change THIS problem......

I know when you say "real breeders" you're not just talking about "good breeders" but don't most reputable breeders say that you have to surrender the dog back to them in their contract? So wouldn't that prevent some dogs in shelters?

[Romy]

Originally Posted by ma-vie-en-vert

I know when you say "real breeders" you're not just talking about "good breeders" but don't most reputable breeders say that you have to surrender the dog back to them in their contract? So wouldn't that prevent some dogs in shelters?

Yes, and many of the good breeders that I know microchip all their puppies and keep their names as secondary contact on the chips so they will be notified if a dog they have produced is ever dumped at a shelter, and can come bail it out.

Also, keep in mind that while many wonderful adoptable dogs are put down, that huge number quoted by die hard spay neuter advocates also includes owners who brought in sick/injured/biting dogs to be put down because they couldn't afford a vet visit...and feral dogs who were unadoptable, dogs with temperament problems who were unadoptable, entire litters of stray puppies infected with parvo or distemper.

It's not a straightforward "X number of dogs are killed each year because there aren't enough good homes". An unknown percentage (because no records are kept to differentiate between the different situations) are PTS because they are unfit companions..due to temperament or health issues...or weren't even stray/surrendered to begin with the pound was just the only place their family could afford to put them down when the quality of life got bad enough to let them cross the bridge.

That being said..most companion dogs probably shouldn't be kept intact because most people don't have the inclination to supervise and manage them to prevent unwanted breedings.

Strider is intact, he's only a year and a half so still growing but we have no plans to neuter him at this point. I'm planning to show him, and going to do all the health tests necessary at 2 years partly because I want get a "snapshot" of what his health is like at that age and partly for his breeder's benefit so she will know how the health of her litter is doing. We don't have any behavioral problems with him whatsoever, he's a perfect gentleman and with me 24/7 so he doesn't have any opportunity to breed.