Pros/cons for neutering?

Curbside Prophet

The NAIA is hardly a credible source for individual dog care. Like many other ego centric organizations, they have ulterior motives that should be questioned. Because for every claim that states you should wait, there are claims that will contradict such statements. We should understand our sources before relying on them. Just a general disclaimer.

That being said, I always recommend dog owners to spay/neuter their dog ASAP with the recommendations of their vet. To argue a vet's recommendation over the internet is questionable IMO, as none of us know the dog as well as your vet should.

Now to those who will argue that vets don't know much, that's a different argument that can be remedied by finding the right vet for you and your dog.

Shalva

just for the record curbside, I have pulled most of the citations from the studies discussed in that site and while there are pros and cons to most things I would happily share my citations with anyone. I do not have the actual articles scanned but being a researcher and teaching at a university did allow me access to the actual journal articles which do support the claims made on that site.

s

Curbside Prophet

That's all well and good Shalva...I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not foreign to research. However, my conclusions may be different than yours...and there's a reason for that. Just follow the dollar trail, and that goes for any claim. At the very least more study is required before relying on sources that contradict those of your well selected vet's. It really may just be a question of choosing the wrong vet than deciding when is the right time to spay/neuter. I think it's prudent to take claims with caution, even those you support.

Inga

I have talked to over a dozen vets in my area that say 4-6 months is fine. Some will go as early as 8 weeks. I don't like that idea though. One of my rescues was neutered at 4 months He is huge but is a little leggy. Hard to say if it has anything to do with neutering as he is really crappy bred. I suspect that has more to do with it.

007Dogs

I have read most of those studies as well. And for a handful of people waiting might work. But most pro issues are related to rescue dogs, and the average pet owner. And again I will say in those situations, the Pros far out weight the cons for waiting. Too many times, these things get put off and then there is the Oppps litters. Studies also show that the highest percentage of dogs killed by cars are intact male dogs. How many times do we read about Fido getting out of the yard accidently. So if I had to choose between a leggy dog, or getting hit by a car or accidently producing an unwanted litter. I will go for the leggy dog everytime.

Puppy & Dog Forums

 

Shalva

I agree except for that you have smaller dogs so legginess is not a big issues.... however, in larger breeds this legginess can lead to orthopedic injuries and hip issues. I really do screen families intensely and make sure that I believe that they can handle an intact pup before I send them a puppy that I insist they keep intact for a while. its a risk it always is

Annamarie

Personally, I'm still not buying it. I fail to see how a lack of testosterone would cause any kind of health defects. If that were true, all female dogs would have a significantly higher rate of health problems than males, and that isn't the case.

Shalva

who said it has to do with the testosterone alone.... you don't have to "buy" anything just read the data not just the opinions on a website but the actual reasearch for which I have the citations and form your own opinion.....

I dont' think that there is any question that you castrate or do a hysterectomy on an adolescent human and nobody would expect them to develop normally.....I mean look at what happens wiht fully grown adults when they are missing a hormone..... I dont think that we can underestimate the necessity of any hormones, and as we are not endocrinologists I think we have to rely on the experts to tell us exactly what they do..... when you spay and neuter early you are removing an entire system from the dog one that is utilized not only for reproduction but for growth and developement......

I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to just look at a neutered dog vs. an intact dog and see the difference that those hormones make in width and breadth of dog..... size of body, muscle mass..... etc..... coat condition...... I see it in my own dogs.... the two who are spayed/neutered gain weight more easily, have fluffier coat..... have lost muscle mass..... and that is what I can visibly see on the outside.... who knows what is going on inside..... My girl Meghan was spayed at six.... Cuinn at almost five...... both were mature at spay/neuter and it was done for medical reasons..... but they both look significantly different than they did when they were intact..... an obvious visible difference.....

the research that exists on early spaying and neutering shows significant increases in an assortment of cancers, osteosarcomas, hemangiosarcomas, endocrine disorders, incontinence, trouble with kidney and bladder stones due to infantile genitalia...... etc..... not to mention that there has been some research not fully developed showing a connection between canine dementia and neutering as well as the most aggressive form of prostate cancer is in neutered dogs not to mention what we already discussed regarding the late closure of the growth plates which is what causes the legginess and thus the higher incidence of orthopedic injuries.

I personally did not say it had anything to do with testosterone..... but rather the results are troubling at best.... sometimes what we do that makes it convenient for us is not necessarily what is best for the dog.

saying "I don't buy it" without reading the research is ignorance at best whether you end up agreeing or not.

once you educate yourself and if you still don't agree then that is one thing.... but to remain ignorant and wedded to an ideal is silly in my opinion
regardless of what you end up believing..... the research is out there and I am happy to share the citations that I have.
s

Annamarie

I did read the information, that's why I'm not buying it.

First of all, the article is not written by a vet. It is written by a woman who's a politician in Maine. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's credible or true.

Yes she did some research and does cite SOME credible resources, however she has cited some that when I looked them up, were not scientifically sound studies. For instance the study regarding bone cancer only studied rotties, not other breeds, and was completed by questionnaire sent to owners. Most were sent out by a rottie magazine. One could argue that the type of dog owner that subscribes to a rottie magazine is probably not your average rottie owner and there may be other factors that influenced the results. My theory? The dogs that were kept intact up to 1 year of age were probably prospective show dogs with champion breeding and exceptional conformation and were kept intact up to 1 year to see if they developed as the breeder hoped. The dogs that were spayed or neutered were probably those that were undersized or didn't show promise or championship traits, or those that were not bred with champion bloodlines. The difference between breeding a dog for show or for pet. Therefore the dogs that were altered at a younger age were probably skeletally inferior to begin with which would explain why they had a higher rate of bone cancer.

In your example of neutered vs unneutered males, yes of course a neutered male will be more muscular, have a shinier coat, etc. That's what testosterone does. It makes the dog more sexually appealing. It doesn't necessarily mean the dog is healthier though. In your example of men who are castrated and women who have hysterectomies: men who are castrated will have less muscle mass, a higher more female sounding voice, lower sex drive, and less body hair. This does not mean they're any less or more healthy than a regular man though. Although they do have a lower rate of prostate and testicular cancer. In women, some studies have shown a slightly lower sex drive and other studies have shown no change in sex drive. The woman is no less or more healthy, although again the risk of cancer related to ovaries, cervix, etc is eliminated.

Removing the sexual organs only affects the body's ability to reproduce. But it does not affect the body's ability to survive.

Just because someone doesn't agree with a "study" you've posted or disagrees with your opinion doesn't make them ignorant. I have also done my research and for every study you post saying that spaying and neutering is bad, I can post just as many saying it's good.

Shalva

I dont care about that one article...... who cares about it..... have you pulled the research yourself????? the actual articles she is writing about????
if you haven't done that then you can't judge whether you agree or not about anything based on one article quoting the data. What I find interesting is how little you know about the importance of hormones for other things than reproduction.....
even my own vet has stopped spaying and neutering prior to 9 mos. of age due to health issues.

I think you should do your homework about the impact of hormones on an organism....

s

Puppy & Dog Forums