Dew Claws??

[~Jessie~]

Pet overpopulation around here is a HUGE problem. In our county (Orange County), 23,017 animals were impounded last year. 5,142 were saved, and 1,534 were reclaimed. Doing the math, 16,341 were UNWANTED pets. Whether they were picked up for aggression or put to sleep, 16,341 pets were born that had to be euthanized by the county.

I do not like the idea of pediatric neutering, BUT if it keeps the pet overpopulation problem down then I am ALL for it.

Statistics

 

[Dekka]

The risks ARE studied, perhaps not as well as they should be. But really, who is going to do this reseach. Its almost heretical to suggest s/n may be unhealthy (not saying it is, just saying its not going to be a popular research topic, and hard to fund)

this paper gets pulled out frequently. BUT its got some excellently backed up points.

an excerpt

On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially
immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated
with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.
On the positive side, neutering male dogs
• eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
• reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)
On the negative side, neutering male dogs
• if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); 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
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
• triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many 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

now some of these are small increases... doubling a small risk is still a small risk, but these should not be ignored. Yes people should decide if these risks are worth taking by all means. But not by sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that removing important growth hormone producing organs before the animal is done growing is not going to have an effect.

 

[Dekka]

Well...some eat their dogs.
Many don't view dogs as household pets.
There's less fascination with them for sure.
I think Canada, the UK and a few others keep dogs as pets but many of your eastern countries don't.

Don't be obtuse. I was talking about countries where people keep pets the same way 'we' do. Not eating them, no one is going to think thats a viable option (its likely illegal any how). European countries for example don't have the same over pop problem. Thinking of the nordic countries, the UK etc. I never said all countries were better, but to look at those who ARE doing it better and see if one can apply it to the problem.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Who is sticking their head in the sand??
Seriously? I hope you are not talking about me because I stated I had read the studies, and the benefits outweigh the risks.

Did you even read my links??

Early Spay / Neuter How Young is too Young?

Early Spay & Neuter

 

[sillysally]

I don't see anyone sticking their head in the sand here. Again, I think it's more of a case of risk/benefit and necessary evils.

 

[Taqroy]

now some of these are small increases... doubling a small risk is still a small risk, but these should not be ignored. Yes people should decide if these risks are worth taking by all means. But not by sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that removing important growth hormone producing organs before the animal is done growing is not going to have an effect.

Dekka do you have a link for this? I want to send it to my mom.

 

[Dekka]

Yes I read your opinion pieces, and was not impressed. A sad lack of science for the most part.

for example

As far as I'm concerned, there are no "cons" to early spay/neuter. The younger ones are up and playing the same day. No matter how good the s/n contract, you're still going to have people who will give you a hard time, saying they don't have time or never answer the phone or move away. Spay/neuter
before adoption is the best solution." -- Diana Nolen, S.T.O.P

This person does have their head in the sand. Its fine to day you think the pros out weight the cons, but to go around dismissing the cons is only doing your cause a disservice.

 

[Dekka]

Dekka do you have a link for this? I want to send it to my mom.

Ack sorry forgot to put it in that post duh

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

 

[Laurelin]

The risks ARE studied, perhaps not as well as they should be. But really, who is going to do this reseach. Its almost heretical to suggest s/n may be unhealthy (not saying it is, just saying its not going to be a popular research topic, and hard to fund)

this paper gets pulled out frequently. BUT its got some excellently backed up points.

an excerpt


now some of these are small increases... doubling a small risk is still a small risk, but these should not be ignored. Yes people should decide if these risks are worth taking by all means. But not by sticking one's head in the sand and pretending that removing important growth hormone producing organs before the animal is done growing is not going to have an effect.

I'm not doing that at all. I just simply think that the risk in increase of health concerns is not large enough to cancel out the benefits from spaying and neutering rescue puppies. Namely population control, which we desperately need here. I think it can be misleading when you see that it 'quadruples a risk' when in reality that risk is miniscule in the first place. Also, there are so many factors going into health that we just don't fully understand. To me the likelihood of a dog from the shelter breeding is much much higher than a dog having an issue that is directly a result of being neutered is much greater.

I'm not talking about personal dogs. I honestly don't care what people do with their own dogs as long as they're not having a bunch of oops puppies. The fact that the dog is a rescue changes things drastically for me.

The problem in the US is cultural mainly. The shelter I worked in was rural and in the south. We would get in hundreds of dogs a week and could only house maybe 40... MOST people here don't spay or neuter nor do they really care if their dogs breed or not. The way to fix the problem and the difference I see between my area of the US and say Europe where overpopulation isn't so bad is just the way pets are viewed. It's going to take a long time to 'fix' though and we have to try to band aide the situation for the time being. Our situation will not change until the american culture changes to view pets differently.

In other places I can definitely see having contracts waiting till the dog was older but I just don't think it's feasible here with our rescue/shelter situation. If we had contracts most would not be honored and we'd be getting in puppies from dogs we've adopted out. That would just worsen the load the shelter has to take in with already very limited funds and space. The end result would be many more deaths.

I still think it needs to be more definitively studied. I have only ever seen one (maybe two) studies on the matter and I would like to see more.

 

[Dekka]

Oh as I said there is nothing wrong with making informed decisions, but I think people should at least be looking at other options. Cause Bob Barker told people to spay/neuter their pets for decades lol and its not getting any better.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Yes I read your opinion pieces, and was not impressed. A sad lack of science for the most part.

for example



This person does have their head in the sand. Its fine to day you think the pros out weight the cons, but to go around dismissing the cons is only doing your cause a disservice.

LOL So you'll ignore all these folks, including the AVMA???

Columbus Academy of Veterinary Medicine

AVMA-American Veterinary Medical Assoc

HSUS, Humane Society of the US

The Ohio State University

FranklinCountyDogs.com

Cat Fanciers Association

Texas A & M

College of Vet Med, Univ of Minnesota

Knox County Humane Society

Massachusetts Soc for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

American Humane Association

Doris Day Animal League

AKC

AVAR (Assoc of Vets for Animal Rights)

The American Animal Hospital Assn

ASPCA

As I said, most of you are just here to argue for arguments sake and try to make yourself feel better, so have at it. If you can't discuss reasonably, then there's no point in it.
At this point I have ample evidence that you are yourself sticking your own head in the sand re: ALL the benefits of early s/n.

 

[Laurelin]

It IS getting better though. I don't have the paper on me but we are euthanizing less and less dogs and cats since spay/neuter education has become prevalent. The overpopulation in the US is in fact improving overall and I expect it will continue to do so.

 

[Dekka]

LOL So you'll ignore all these folks, including the AVMA???

Columbus Academy of Veterinary Medicine

AVMA-American Veterinary Medical Assoc

HSUS, Humane Society of the US

The Ohio State University

FranklinCountyDogs.com

Cat Fanciers Association

Texas A & M

College of Vet Med, Univ of Minnesota

Knox County Humane Society

Massachusetts Soc for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

American Humane Association

Doris Day Animal League

AKC

AVAR (Assoc of Vets for Animal Rights)

The American Animal Hospital Assn

ASPCA

As I said, most of you are just here to argue for arguments sake and try to make yourself feel better, so have at it. If you can't discuss reasonably, then there's no point in it.
At this point I have ample evidence that you are yourself sticking your own head in the sand re: ALL the benefits of early s/n.

Did I say there was no benefits to early s/n? No. You are the one who is taking this argument personally. The rest seem to be doing a good job discussing the issues with out flinging around hyperbole.

You don't have any evidence. Did you read the paper I posted? Did you read the list of references? Did you look up any of those references? The risks most of the people (from what I can see) are discussing is the risk of the operation itself. I am personally fine with the operation done at that age. BUT so far I havent' seen any discussion of long term effects in your links.


And yes many of those folks I would ignore. Why would the Cat Fanciers be an expert source of primary literature on early spay/neuter in dogs?

 

[Dekka]

It IS getting better though. I don't have the paper on me but we are euthanizing less and less dogs and cats since spay/neuter education has become prevalent. The overpopulation in the US is in fact improving overall and I expect it will continue to do so.

That is good to hear. I have to say I haven't read any papers on it, was just going by what shelter and rescue people have been saying. So thats awesome.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Cats were included in the early s/n that is why.
Yes I have read the ONE article about early s/n posted on K9 sports.
That's not enough for us to decide to wait.
And again, why is this making you so angry? It's our rescue, our decision, our VET doing it (if they truly thought there was no benefit and only risk, they'd never do it) and our dogs, you're not getting one of them, so why the concern??

 

[sillysally]

Oh as I said there is nothing wrong with making informed decisions, but I think people should at least be looking at other options. Cause Bob Barker told people to spay/neuter their pets for decades lol and its not getting any better.

Honestly, I don't think there are other options for rescues, unless you want them to foster dogs until they are 6 months to a year, which means that other dogs cannot come into the rescue.

 

[Laurelin]

That is good to hear. I have to say I haven't read any papers on it, was just going by what shelter and rescue people have been saying. So thats awesome.

I wish I could find the papers. I'll try to ask someone I know would have them. It's actually gotten a lot better in the past 20-30 years. Some areas are still obviously worse than others. We have a lot of room for improvement around here.

 

[Dekka]

Cats were included in the early s/n that is why.
Yes I have read the ONE article about early s/n posted on K9 sports.
That's not enough for us to decide to wait.
And again, why is this making you so angry? It's our rescue, our decision, our VET doing it (if they truly thought there was no benefit and only risk, they'd never do it) and our dogs, you're not getting one of them, so why the concern??

Why do you assume I am angry? :rofl1:

Um perhaps I am interested in animal welfare. That is like saying its not ok to have an opinion of other people train their dogs using staves and shock collars cause they aren't going to give that dog to you...

I am concerned when people in 'power' doing at least concider the implications. Oh and by the way, why is YOUR vet the end all and be all of ALL things dog? I am sure they are great, but I know enough vets personally, and people in vet school. Many things are not even touched on... So far none of them have said they have been taught about the long term effects of s/n or feeding

Now doing some digging into your 'list' seems that many of those groups DO have some interest in the long term health effects for example

Rottweiler study links ovaries with exceptional longevity

once again, I am NOT saying your rescue isn't making the right decision for your dogs. I AM saying that denying that your decisions may have health related consequences is irresponsible. You should stay open minded and continue to make the best decision.. not just ignore things you don't like.

Oh and the AVAR is in bed with the HSUS so of COURSE they are going to be pro early s/n. They don't want any dogs...
HSUS and AVAR tie the knot | Facebook

 

[Doberluv]

I think it has to be looked at from a couple of perspecives; one, the individual dog owner/individual situation... and two, the over all population, JQ public, rescues, shelters...a sort of umbrella-look at this. If I ever get another male pup, I will wait until he's full grown to neuter or not neuter at all. However, not everyone is conscious of the serious consequences of random breeding and oops litters. Most people are just not thinking about the millions of homeless dogs languishing their lives away in little concrete cells.

So, the weighing of pros and cons comes out a little differently, depending on whose perspective you're viewing. Bone cancer, other health risks associated with early neutering are indeed horrible. However, I think what's infinitely worse is huge numbers of unwanted puppies spending their lives or large portions of their lives in shelters, with no family, no real home. Or puppies popping out by the thousands, only to be euthanized because they have no home and had no choice.

So for the public, the mainstream pet owners who are careless and clueless about the ramifications of letting their intact dogs roam and breed over and over, year after year, early neutering is definitely a pro. imo. Who cares about bone cancer? A handful of dogs dying from bone cancer or millions dying because there are too many of them? Or millions living a miserable life in hell?

For those who are aware and conscientious, responsible about their intact dogs, then holding off till they're full grown is a viable option and probably a pro, not a con. So, I don't think you can say one way is a pro always and the other way is a con always.

 

[MafiaPrincess]

The American Humane's position is based pretty much solely on published research from 2004. Sadly science improves. A lot has changed in 8 years.

A lot of the groups cited as pro juvie spay and neuter make no statements of the like. Did you create the list your self?

To my knowledge the AKC is most definitely not pro juvie spay and neutering.