I agree that traditional spay/neuters are the ideal default for most owners. Those who are likely to research further into the other options are those who are most likely to be able to judge if they can handle those options. I don't support false information (on either side - if one more person tells me hormones don't affect behavior, I'm moving in with them for a particular 3 days of the month), but I also don't think encouraging average owners to leave their dogs intact is the answer.
I'm just grabbing a quote from you BB, this isn't directed just at you!
I have no issues with people altering their dogs be it if they've done the research or not. What I DO have a problem with is lying to the public "for their own good" and having it rather hard if you aren't completely computer savvy or happen to have a 'good' vet to get information about spaying and neutering.
If you go and say "I want to alter my dog" and don't care about anything else to look deeper that's fine, it's probably for the best (though I still agree with Sael about alternative s/n options) . But saying that because people weren't able to find the minuscule amount of information out there about the pros and cons of altering or were told by their vet, who they trust on their dogs health, or by the million and one flyers passed out from every organization that you should ALWAYS alter a dog unless it's being bred? I find that just wrong. If they care enough to try and look or ask they should be given information. They should be EDUCATED. They should be told the options, they should be given the resources. That's what I'm trying to say.
I think the mass amount of misinformation out there about altering IS an issue. The idea that taking out the hormones does nothing but good things and only prevents terrible things is misleading and does in fact end up hurting dogs in my opinion. And maybe, just maybe if people had more information given to them about what a heat looks like and how to take care of an intact dog rather than just a "DON'T DO IT" people might just happen to become dog owners that could, quite easily own and care for an intact dog.
I find it wrong that the women that came into my store was telling me how she did a lot of research and decided to keep her large breed puppy not fixed until she was at least 18 months but was starting to worry that because her vet, the store people and most of the things online said it would be the worst thing ever. That's not right. Someone who tries to put in the effort shouldn't be getting scared away because she's worried she's going to end up hurting her dog.
I may have more faith in people than a lot of you, I don't necessarily think that's wrong or right. But I do know that the bad stories stick with us. Jo down the street breeding his mutt because she's cute is the story we remember. Mary up the block though that's never had a litter, never bred a dog but always had her dogs intact (known or unknown to us) doesn't get a blip on the radar. I know as many, if not more people that have kept intact dogs with no issue and no puppies and they aren't DOG PEOPLE. They are just people.
So I guess what I'm saying is that no, not everyone or maybe even the majority of people should or want to own an intact dog and I'm cool with that. But I do think the information should be more readily available and lying to them about the realities of altering both pro and con just sets up a self fulfilling prophesy because they remain ignorant, and not necessarily by choice.