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

Veterinarian here: ask me anything!

Dear Deagle113
Question : What is the rationale for removing the ovaries together with the uterus in a bitch ?
Veterinary medicine, at least in the US, is probably ten to fifteen years behind human medicine.

I think the rationale is that we assumed estrogen/testosterone was primarily for reproduction initially and discovered it's many different effects piecemeal later on. One can cynically combine this with the thought that other species are here for us to use however we would like, and it is easy to justify simply removing all "reproduction" related parts and pieces, since the animals can't advocate for themselves.

Unfortunately, research wise animals will always be second to humans in funding and attention, so it takes an extraordinarily long time to collect the budget and interest necessary to study effects in them that don't have anything to do with basic bodily functions or ways that we can get them to grow faster for extra production or service to humans.
 
Last edited:
I have researched this quite a bit and also deep in this thread somewhere it has been discussed. In a nutshell the risks of not spaying at all increases chances of pyometra (obviously) and breast cancer. I dealt with pyo on one of my girls and it is not fun we almost lost her and also expensive. Vets in the US are rather ill informed regarding the reproductive system of dogs as most are spayed. I had to go to a specialist hospital. As for breast cancer it is super easy to screen them, just feel their mammary glands around their nipples for bumps and get it checked if you find something.

Risks of spaying as in a ovarihysterectomy which is removing the uterus and ovaries, what the term "spaying" means. Removes the risk of pyo obviously, and the removal of the ovaries means no more heat or sexual desire AND studies are showing increases the chances of other health issues such as other forms of cancers and bone/joint issues.

The meet in the middle is an Ovary Sparing Spay (OSS). This is basically a hysterectomy where they remove the uterus and one ovary, leaving one behind to keep doing its hormone thing. The dog will continue to go through heat cycles , but not bleed and of course not be able to get pregnant. Technically she would still get horny and enjoy sex if she was prior to the procedure. Some folks here report they may loose interest however, so YMMV. Also if getting this done, the vet needs to leave as much of the vaginal canal intact right up to behind the cervix. This is in case she accidentally gets bred by a male dog , he has less chance of hurting her. It is still not a zero chance depending on the size of dog as the healed end of the vaginal canal won't be as strong as if the cervix was there. This is also to be considered with sex with a human. If you are too big and go too far you could hurt her.

I'm in the boat of not spaying at all even having went through pyo with one of my dogs. I want to keep them as nature intended. There is always the quandry of breeder contracts to think about, as in them forcing you to prove the dog is spayed by a certain age. I'm in that boat and I'm hoping the breeder doesn't come looking for me to get that proof. In the contract they can sue you to repossess your dog or for many thousands of dollars compensation for not following it. The OSS may be the only compromise available in these situations.
Excellent answer. Thanks for engaging and adding it to this thread, erphy!
 
Serious question...I was wondering if you can tell when a male dog has been receiving anal sex by the looks of his anus? Sometimes after we have marathon days where I might put 3-4 loads inside him I think his hole looks kinda puffy and I get paranoid someone might suspect our relationship.
I don't have canine anatomical examples to refer to--just working off my own personal knowledge and experience here being on the receiving end, take a break for a couple days and let stuff reset before bringing him in if you are concerned.
 
Do horses have erotic zones like humans do?
Depends on what you define as an erotic zone. Is it an especially itchy area that feels AMAZING to pet and scratch? Is it somewhere that, when touched, put's you in the mood for more touching in other, more intimate areas? Is it just somewhere that is relaxing to stoke? Horses have all of these.
 
… You cynically combine this with the thought that other species are here for us to use however we would like, and it is easy to justify simply removing all "reproduction" related parts and pieces, since the animals can't advocate for themselves….
Glad for your answer - but - here a cut from your answer and I really can’t see this in my question 🤔. Maybe you thought on another question too, when writing ?
 
Glad for your answer - but - here a cut from your answer and I really can’t see this in my question 🤔. Maybe you thought on another question too, when writing ?
That's probably your ESL kicking in... The "better phrasing" for clarity would probably have been "If you then cynically combine this with the thought that..." (where "this" is the previous sentence) - He's not talking to *YOU* claiming you're cynical, he's talking to "the entire human population" and the (pretty cynical) concept of "critters are here for our use/entertainment/etc" that's very widespread, if not damn-near universal.

In other words, there's nothing being aimed at *YOU*/your question - You're just not understanding the intended meaning correctly. Likely due to (as I seem to recall you saying in the past) not being a "native"/primary English user.
 
That's probably your ESL kicking in... The "better phrasing" for clarity would probably have been "If you then cynically combine this with the thought that..." (where "this" is the previous sentence) - He's not talking to *YOU* claiming you're cynical, he's talking to "the entire human population" and the (pretty cynical) concept of "critters are here for our use/entertainment/etc" that's very widespread, if not damn-near universal.

In other words, there's nothing being aimed at *YOU*/your question - You're just not understanding the intended meaning correctly. Likely due to (as I seem to recall you saying in the past) not being a "native"/primary English user.
Lemme edit the original for better clarity. Thanks!
 
Back
Top