Dew Claws??

[Shai]

dachshunds4me -- Thank you for the links -- I will read them when I'm on a "real" computer and not Tiny Screen of Eyestrain.

 

[sillysally]

I will say that it's amazing how many people are willing to breed random dogs to things like color (I had someone ask me to breed Sally with their dobe/pit mix because they were both the same color brindle), or because they just think it would be cool to have a litter, or to see what the pups of dog X and dog Y would look like. Many of these people are perfectly intelligent and educated people.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Exactly.
I am not unaware that there is controversy in one small study. But it simply doesn't matter in the long run.
Dekka - "people in power "?? Who is that?
Certainly not me.
I have a small rescue and we are pro s/n however that gets accomplished.
We won't send out dogs unaltered-however that gets accomplished.
if folks don't like that- simple solution - don't get an altered dog!
And yes - read Dobers explanation below. Makes sense to me.

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.

 

[Dekka]

Umm are you not reading my posts? I do agree with doberluv's post. I have never said your rescue is making the wrong decision..

I simply took exception to the idea that it was risk free and that it was the best thing since sliced cheese. And that you posted opinion pieces as evidence, mis construed the stance of various groups, and basically made it seem as if the only risk was dying on the table.

ETA
Dekka is fixed, I am not anti s/n. Please read that and realize I am NOT anti s/n. At no time have I said people should leave pets intact. I am not against s/n. There are reasons to s/n before maturity. We had Sport done at 11 months, I am not against informed descions for s/n (perhaps that's clearer)

 

[dachshunds4me]

I never said there was no risk. But it doesn't matter to me. If it dies during surgery, bummer but that's sometimes how life is. If it gets cancer down the road, oh well. That's how life is. Choose your poison.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Those opinions you sneer at come after years of performing prepubescent surgery, BTW.

 

[sillysally]

I never said there was no risk. But it doesn't matter to me. If it dies during surgery, bummer but that's sometimes how life is. If it gets cancer down the road, oh well. That's how life is. Choose your poison.

I was with you up until this point....This seems awfully dismissive and callous of some really sad circumstances to me.

 

[Dekka]

I never said there was no risk. But it doesn't matter to me. If it dies during surgery, bummer but that's sometimes how life is. If it gets cancer down the road, oh well. That's how life is. Choose your poison.

How heartless of you. I will note that I never was all that concerned with them dying on the table. The literature does indicate that it is just as safe, or safer than later alteration.

Really so why did you care so much about those dogs that got poisoned? I mean its just how life is?....

Personally I would be distraught if my beloved pet got cancer early and died young. But thats just me. (yes these things can happen anyway, but we are talking increasing the risk to these individual pets to stop the production of dogs, not to benefit the dog itself)

Those opinions you sneer at come after years of performing prepubescent surgery, BTW.

I am sorry but this makes no sense

You have been doing this yourself? Who is sneering? I am very lost here...

 

[corgipower]

I simply took exception to the idea that it was risk free and that it was the best thing since sliced cheese.

^This.^

 

[corgipower]

I never said there was no risk. But it doesn't matter to me. If it dies during surgery, bummer but that's sometimes how life is. If it gets cancer down the road, oh well. That's how life is. Choose your poison.

 

[MafiaPrincess]

So your rescue is so high and mighty you feel the need to change an adoption contract to restrict the possibility of having dewclaws removed in future.. yet you now call dogs 'its' and it doesn't matter if they die in surgery.

It would be the crazy holier than thou attitude you project that many people are having issues with. I see the need for high volume rescue to pediatric spay as a no other option.. You are pushing it as no risk no problem. You are coming across as under educated and uncaring about it. Most of the rest of us would rather learn more.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Whatever you want to believe...pages and pages ago I talked about the miniscule possibility of cancer "maybe" "later on" being an acceptable risk. A few of you don't like me, period, you've made it clear. Why justify what we do in rescue to YOU???
Ps- your signature under your name is quite appropriate - thanks for the chuckle.

 

[sillysally]

Whatever you want to believe...pages and pages ago I talked about the miniscule possibility of cancer "maybe" "later on" being an acceptable risk. A few of you don't like me, period, you've made it clear. Why justify what we do in rescue to YOU???
Ps- your signature under your name is quite appropriate - thanks for the chuckle.

Well, the post did seem rather callous---and this is coming from someone who does *not* dislike you and feels than many people on this board are far too critical of rescues. It's one thing to say a small chance for cancer is an acceptable risk compared to adopting the dog out intact, but to say "if they get cancer, oh well"? That just rubs me the wrong way...Just my 2 cents...

 

[Dekka]

its not minuscule? Where are you getting that from? Significant increased risk of bone cancer. Which makes sense when you realize bone density is much less in animals fixed prior to maturity. Also early s/n affects the closing of the joints and other bone related development.

Also I think you need a reality check. I like you just fine (ie the same amount as people I am not personally friends with on this forum, I don't know you well enough to dislike you )... why do you assume people not like you? Why justify? no one is asking you too, i have not seen ONE post in this thread asking for justification of your practises.

As to why we care. You as a rescue worker are in a position of power/authority. People will take your word as a dog 'expert' so those of us who don't wish people to be fed misinformation were simply debating that there is not NO risk to this. No one said your decision is wrong, bad or otherwise. In fact pretty much most people agree that it is a good thing for your rescue to do.

Why so defensive?

 

[RD]

Wow wow wow.

Are you guys REALLY arguing that a rescue should adopt out intact dogs????

REALLY?

You can give a person a spay/neuter certificate which covers the cost of the operation, but it's still no guarantee that they'll do it. Then what? The dog matures sexually. Then what? An "oops" litter? That's exactly what rescuers want to see. We can't police what happens to our dogs after we place them, so spay/neutering prior to adopting is for OUR peace of mind as well.

I live in a place where the government does not fund buildings to house and dispose of the unwanted animals. There are thousands of dogs on the street, and if pediatric spays will help cut that number down, then I'd much rather see pediatric spays done. The issue of dogs on the street isn't much of an issue in the US and Canada because these dogs are rounded up by animal control, thrown into a shelter and many are ultimately destroyed for the sake of population control. I'd much rather see a few little puppies spayed too early than see another "oops" litter put to death.

There are equal and terrifying cons to both leaving a dog intact and spaying too early. To each his own. I don't understand why everyone is jumping on the OP.

 

[RD]

I seriously think this is getting ridiculous...

Look, rescues and shelters need to operate differently than a regular owner. The idea that pediatric spay and neuter in these situations makes you gag or means a rescue is not reputable (as has been highly hinted at) is quite frankly ridiculous. Maybe your area isn't like mine but it would be SERIOUSLY irresponsible to not neuter the rescues here. When the kill rate of your shelter is 70% you have simply got to do something.

Each rescue will have to do what they believe best. The fact is there is absolutely NO guarantee a dog won't be bred without it being neutered before being adopted out. This is the ONLY foolproof method a rescue or shelter has to try to curb the intake. Don't like the policy? go elsewhere...

I don't care what you do with your own dogs, that's for each person or rescue to decide for themselves. What is so bad about letting other people make those choices for themselves? In rescue you are balancing a lot and often the goal is the bigger picture. We don't know the area or the situation so how can we tell them how they should run?

I see a lot of very anti-spay/neuter posts on more than just this board and it frustrates me to no end to be honest. It's actually quite amusing because the same people complaining that people push s/n on them will sit and call people irresponsible for neutering their dogs. The fact is, it's a choice that each person needs to weigh for themselves. I have not seen anywhere in this thread where the OP has said it's irresponsible to own an intact dog, just that she feels for her RESCUE it is best to spay and neuter before placing. Why are people reading all this 'intact dogs are horrible' into this? I don't get it.

And yes, I have always had intact dogs but that's besides the point. Rescues are quite a bit different than my own personal dogs.
Just my 2 cents. And yes, this has been brewing a while. :lol-sign:

:hail:
Laur, I do love you.

My own personal dog was 4 years old before I spayed her. My dad's male dog is still intact and my mom's female was spayed when she was 2. I do firmly believe in waiting for maturity to alter a dog, ESPECIALLY in the case of a working/sport dog.

That said, I've only adopted out one dog (Skittledoo's Cricket) to a home that wanted to do anything beyond "pet stuff" with her. Everyone who asks me about dogs just wants a good pet. And frankly, if you want a totally sound, super-competitive sport dog, getting a young puppy from a rescue is probably a bigger crapshoot than you want to play.

 

[dachshunds4me]

Yes. I am being jumped on, over and over, I am sick (at Dr right now) and sick of it.
And if I've lost all tact, Sue me. You want to anyway.

I might add that the one thing we hear over and over is appreciation we care enough to alter ALL our dogs prior to placement. Itd sure be cheaper if we didn't!

 

[Dekka]

Wow wow wow.

Are you guys REALLY arguing that a rescue should adopt out intact dogs????

REALLY?

No very few people have said that. Most are saying its a sad, but necessary choice for a rescue to make.

There are equal and terrifying cons to both leaving a dog intact and spaying too early. To each his own. I don't understand why everyone is jumping on the OP.

People for the most part aren't, except when the OP says things that are untrue, or tries to post opinion pieces as factual evidence. The OP just assumes because people don't agree with her (?) opinion we all hate her and are jumping on her.

 

[RD]

Yet being "sickened" and "disheartened" by a rescuer's decision seems like a rather harsh jab at someone who is doing a great deal of good for a lot of dogs.

When I didn't rescue, I had far different feelings towards situations like this. I would've been far more inclined to agree with most of you who have posted on this thread, because I really couldn't see past MY life with MY dogs. And no way would I have done that to one of my dogs. It was all about me, me, me and what I felt was best for my small household. To those of you who have never done rescue work, trust me - your outlook changes when you start taking in multiple generations of unwanted dogs.

For what it's worth I strongly disagree with the articles the OP posted (especially about there being no cons to pediatric s/n) but I still understand the OP's point. Any dog can die during surgery at any time. Any dog can die of cancer. You can't predict the future, but at some point you have to stop looking so closely at each individual dog and look at the bigger picture. It's not an issue of not caring or being callous, it's a preventative measure. And her outlook is realistic - yeah. Some dogs will die being spayed/neutered. Some will also die of cancer. It happens, it's sad, but it's a decision that is made for the well-being of the entire dog population and not just one animal.

When a better, equally foolproof method of population control comes around, please let us know.

 

[Doberluv]

Well, I too said something like, "Who cares about bone cancer?" And then went on to describe how millions more dogs are killed or live in shelters the rest of their lives. Of course I care about dogs with bone cancer. And I think Dachshunds4me also cares immensly about dogs with bone cancer or any other kind of cancer. Neither one of us is callous or uncaring about dogs, just in case anyone missed something all this time we've been on the forum.

The point I was making when I said "who cares?" was how can someone care about a small number of dogs (comparatively) that get bone cancer from early neutering and forget to think about the millions of unwanted puppies who die or live miserable deaths? And I didn't mean anyone here necessarily. Just a general sort of epiphany (lol) I was pointing out.

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure (at least that's the impression I'm getting) we can all agree that early spay and neuter has it's place and holding off until a dog is full grown or maybe not ever neutering/spaying also has validity. There are a lot of different variables and situations which make it rather an individual thing on some levels. And sometimes a more wide sweeping necessity on another level.