• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

Confusing/Conflicting Info on Spay/Neuter

knotinterested said:
That as you call it BS comes from 1999 - 2012, which is 30 years to 42 years after what you stated and originated by the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital in Madison WI and has been repeated by Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences and by UC-Davis.
Click to expand...

Interesting limiting yourself to 2012... you may need to update your reading material! in case you (or anyone else) is interested here is an up to date literature review from the "Dog Aging Project" on the subject. It's really an interesting read and covers both sides reasonably well.
"Desexing Dogs: A Review of the Current Literature" ( mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/12/1086/htm )

One sentence I want to put particular attention towards:
"there are no non-reproductive tumors that show a risk decrease following desexing in dogs"
I don't know which study you were referencing when you claimed that other cancers decreased as well but that sort of result appears to be the exception and not the rule.
 
kuchen said:
Interesting limiting yourself to 2012... you may need to update your reading material! in case you (or anyone else) is interested here is an up to date literature review from the "Dog Aging Project" on the subject. It's really an interesting read and covers both sides reasonably well.
"Desexing Dogs: A Review of the Current Literature" ( mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/12/1086/htm )

One sentence I want to put particular attention towards:
"there are no non-reproductive tumors that show a risk decrease following desexing in dogs"
I don't know which study you were referencing when you claimed that other cancers decreased as well but that sort of result appears to be the exception and not the rule.
Click to expand...
Your reference to material of 2012 was in answer to a statement made by another member. I can assure you that the material we go through in our veterinarian program is very much up to date. If you are a veterinarian student as I am, then you more than most should understand that old research as well as new research is studied and reviewed with long discussions in an effort to understand their validity.

BTW the paper you referenced says a lot of the same thing that I have been saying herein; This is from your paper referenced summary.

Desexing has consistently been shown to change various health risks, including a reduction in pyometra and mammary tumor risk, as well as an increased risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture, several forms of cancer, and obesity in both sexes. Other health effects vary considerably between breeds and sexes. A lifespan advantage in desexed dogs has consistently been shown in females, while the evidence is inconsistent in males, and the effect is smaller in studies that found one.
Click to expand...
Note: There has been a battle of opinion as to an increase of other types of cancers formed due to a lack of hormones. Both sides have valid arguments on this issue but the verdict is at present still under consideration.

However the veterinarian community is moving away from total organ removal and instead is pushing for sterilization techniques that preserve normal endocrine function. From my education in veterinarian care I believe that there is a purpose for each organ and that organ systems are interdependent. I believe that removing any organ and certainly organs of the reproductive system will eventually have health consequences. The sterilization techniques I speak of leave the hormone producing organs in place and operating as normal but the animal is unable to reproduce. At this time it is believed that this will alleviate the long term effects that have been caused by spay or neutering. Further research will determine what if anything is to be done in order to curve the risk of pyometra or mammary tumors. This at present is the only anticipated downside to these new techniques.
 
1000extra said:
Absolutely agree with Wolfy on the current research.

There are increasing number of peer-reviewed research showing that desexing at a young age can be linked to increased risk of some metabolic disorders, urinary incontinence in females, joint and bone problems, increasing risk of certain cancers, increasing risk of anxiety related behavioural issues due to the lack/imbalance of sexual hormones.

You can try and find a vet that is willing to perform a hysterectomy (Ovary sparing spay) or vasectomy for males. That way you can still preserve the hormonal balance in the body and still sterilise your pet. However, you still run the risk of ovarian and mammary tumours in older bitches, prostate and testicular issues in older males.

I agree that it is still your personally responsibility to manage your own pets at home and outside since you are the owner of the dog. No one else is gonna care for your pet the same as you would. It is common sense that intact bitches in-season must be kept away from intact male dogs or other bitches to prevent fights or pregnancies.
Click to expand...
I dont understand why people think spaying is a good idea. I keep telling people this but its like people dont want to bother with taking care of their dog and it pisses me off.
 
QuantumHusky said:
I dont understand why people think spaying is a good idea. I keep telling people this but its like people dont want to bother with taking care of their dog and it pisses me off.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. Spaying and neutering should not even exist. If people could be responsible, take care of and watch their dogs and of course not breed for profit no one would need to alter dogs. If someone does have a dog they let roam the neighborhood or county get them a vasectomy. Why is mutilation the number one option
 
Spays and neuters must be done when there's a health risk. Otherwise, stop being a lazy cunt and look over your dog while she's in heat or he's unbearably horny and wants to go out.

I am against spaying and neutering because the owner can't take the responsibility of looking over their dogs but I'm also against not spaying and neutering if there's a health risk that gets nullified or lowered drastically by the procedure.
 

ovary sparing spays, yrs ago my girl friend had her wolf/husky mix spayed and ended up having bladder issues.​

 
Did not read the post at all but I am in the pet community in other places (not in the zoo way) and spay and neuter is conflicting for all!

Things are more likely with intact animals including certain cancers and diseases. You will need to be willing to take that chance or not.

It's not horrible to allow animals to be intact. In fact hormones are good to stimulate mental and physical growth usually until they are more developed/fully developed at age 2(for smaller dogs) while some larger breeds take much longer!

Castration can be a blessing
(longevity) (lesser likelihood of certain specific cancers in diseases or removes them entirely depending)
While it can quite possibly take away the dogs muscle mass, fur quality, etc.

It's a very personal choice. Just make sure you have the steps in place to take care of your pet if health issues arise.

Have a good vet. Do your research on your BREEDS or mixes (what breeds they have) and what health issues may or may not be common. Anywho bye
 
The cancer argument never sat right with me. Getting animals fixed is absolutely appropriate for most situations, but saying "if you remove these organs, they won't develop X cancer" is silly. Like...yea no shit. The organs are gone. It always seemed to minimize the impact losing them has on animals.
 
Maui69 said:
stop being a lazy cunt and look over your dog while she's in heat
Click to expand...
I have more than once seen pens and such that seemed inpenetrable. Turns out they were penetrable, and so was the bitch. They were honest attempts to keep a female intact without making unwanted puppies.

I just don't know. Surely situations are different.
 
Gigelina said:
its conflicting inside your head only if you are an american
rest of the world believe in real and not made up scientific facts
Click to expand...
Gigelina said:
its conflicting inside your head only if you are an american
rest of the world believe in real and not made up scientific facts
Click to expand...
I'm going to need some documentation supporting the fact that Americans are less fact driven than whatever 6th world country you are from. I wish to see your papers now...
 
lol
I just noticed: trying to control dogs or cats in heat must be kind of like trying to control your teenage kids.
 
The bodily systems that rely on testosterone or estrogen are fundamentally similar between most mammals, if not all, therefore it is reasonable to assume that symptoms experienced by humans related to these hormones being low are also experienced by most mammals. But the existence of many of the discomforts and symptoms experienced due to these hormones being low can be difficult to prove through testing or examination, and animals are unable to confirm how they are feeling via communication; fatigue, cognitive decline, hot flashes, depression, all may only cause subtle behavioral changes that pet owners have been conditioned to believe are normal as pets simply power through it while going about their daily lives.

Some other common symptoms of low T/E that can be veritably observed both in humans and animals, such as weight gain and reduced physical activity, have been widely acknowledged by veterinarians as typical side effects of neuter/spay yet are usually downplayed with no further consideration of the implications.

I won't dive into the "why" of the animal healthcare industry turning a blind eye to the drawbacks of these forms of sterilization, but I'm sure you can imagine a at least a couple reasons.
 
MetalHeadHomesteader said:
won't dive into the "why" of the animal healthcare industry turning a blind eye to the drawbacks of these forms of sterilization, but I'm sure you can imagine a at least a couple reasons.
Click to expand...
It looks like a financial thing. Cheaper to take the gonads away than to clip and tie so they can't reproduce but stil hav their hormones and have sex.
But are there problems with that, too?
 
milabue said:
It looks like a financial thing. Cheaper to take the gonads away than to clip and tie so they can't reproduce but stil hav their hormones and have sex.
But are there problems with that, too?
Click to expand...

For the purpose of cutting back on unwanted animals in shelters, it's simpler to convince everyone that spay/neuter is a good thing with absolutely no downsides than to attempt to distinguish responsible owners from irresponsible owners and discriminate accordingly. It's also very profitable.

Some shelters also prefer the hormone-reducing option to vasectomy and tube-tying to reduce potential aggression in new adoptions, again taking a simpler nondiscriminatory approach for safety's sake instead of employing the procedure only as needed. Lump that on top of pet parents who are prone to fainting at the idea of their domesticated descendant of a wild animal sweet little angel baby having unclean thoughts, and what you get is what we have now in the United States.

While I was calling around to get one of my boys a vasectomy, a couple vets gawked and probed at why I didn't buy into the script they learned in school, then became agitated because they were convinced that the organ they'd evolved alongside since before mammals even existed was actually harming their health, therefore making me a bad owner.

Right.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top