Hard evidence on the benefit to waiting to spay and neuter your dog

[kinderdoggin]

On another thread, discussion about when to spay/neuter came up. There is a LOT of new research going on about this right now and many recent peer-reviewed articles that summarize things you may want to consider when you are deciding. I urge all dog owners to do your own research, independent of what your vet suggests (since many of them do not keep up with current research and/or offer standard advise without considering what is best for your specific dog. There are many things to factor- health, behavior, logistics of containing a fertile dog so that no accidental breedings occur, etc- so everyone's situation is going to be a little different, and what's right for one family's dog may not be the best for the next family's dog...

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

(http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf)http://www.vizslacanada.ca/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf

(http://www.vizslacanada.ca/SNBehaviorBoneDataSnapShot.pdf)http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055937)


http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/spay_neuter_considerations_2013.pdf

(http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/spay_neuter_considerations_2013.pdf)http://www.doglistener.co.uk/neutering_definitive (http://www.doglistener.co.uk/neutering_definitive)

[adriaticum]

Can you summarize?

[keoke]

Summary: Bob Barker can pound sand.

[Drillbit]

I can summarize dogs, but not from the article, from the farm.


Dogs are free. If something is wrong with a dog it is easy to replace it, with another free one. The list of "something wrong" is very long.

But every once in a while there is a Good Dog (also free). These ones are Priceless. They only do 1 thing wrong.


And there are a lot of Good Dogs, that don't get enough time and proper attention from their mentor ("owner" though I despise the term "dog owner"), these ones the only thing wrong with them is the "owner" and that's why they do so many things wrong.

So much wasted potential of Good Dogs.....


And as far as wasted potential goes, let talk rodeo horses.........

[adriaticum]

I can summarize dogs, but not from the article, from the farm.


Dogs are free. If something is wrong with a dog it is easy to replace it, with another free one. The list of "something wrong" is very long.

But every once in a while there is a Good Dog (also free). These ones are Priceless. They only do 1 thing wrong.


And there are a lot of Good Dogs, that don't get enough time and proper attention from their mentor ("owner" though I despise the term "dog owner"), these ones the only thing wrong with them is the "owner" and that's why they do so many things wrong.

So much wasted potential of Good Dogs.....


And as far as wasted potential goes, let talk rodeo horses.........

Sorry, I'm not getting what you are trying to get at. And I don't drink.

But I'm pretty sure if nature intended dogs to be spayed and neutered, it would have done it long ago.

The problem we have is the aversion to culling dogs. So governments find all these dumbass excuses to do this and that and take more money from the taxpayer for "programs" and "licensing" and "shelters".

If you have a politician standing in front a crowd of a thousand and one person yells something, the politician will claim that people demanded more "services".

[labguy]

Come on guys.....read the damn links. You might just learn something useful!!!

[BRvalley]

I've only read the first link, very good reading, thanks for posting....certainly contradictory to what my vet said, I have a 3 yr old male with nuts still, no negative behaviours, I haven't read anything really compelling to make me get him fixed

[adriaticum]

I've only read the first link, very good reading, thanks for posting....certainly contradictory to what my vet said, I have a 3 yr old male with nuts still, no negative behaviours, I haven't read anything really compelling to make me get him fixed

I think the fixing of dogs came from the need for population control and urbanization of dogs.
If you think about how many dogs are running around free in dog parks these days just in lower mainland it becomes abundantly clear to me why they are spayed/neutered.
For the urban dog owner the dog is a companion more than a utility and socialization is important.
If you have intact dogs you have to be constantly on guard making sure unwanted puppies are not born.
I believe this was the "agenda". And then the science was created to suit the agenda.
And over time when you repeat something enough times it becomes tradition.
Basically you will find the same thing with cattle. The breeding bull is mostly kept isolated somewhere and used when needed.
Otherwise there would be a whole lot of humping going on.

[Iron Glove]

But I'm pretty sure if nature intended dogs to be spayed and neutered, it would have done it long ago.





So, if nature had intended for humans to use birth control , we would have been born with a condom on?

[kinderdoggin]

Summary:
Spaying or neutering at 6 months is not the best choice for for the long term health of most dogs.

Early spaying/neutering may contribute to more cancers than it prevents. It also is believed to contribute to hip dysplasia, thyroid problems, and CCL tears.

There are also negative behavior changes that can be contributed to early spay and neuter, which is contrary to popular belief.

Hopefully that is enough of to encourage you to open the links to read the details. The traditional advice of spay/neuter at 6 months is not based on any health reasons, it is solely a reproduction control measure, though most vets still quote a study on mammary cancer prevention that has since been debunked.

[FirePower]

I can summarize dogs, but not from the article, from the farm.


Dogs are free. If something is wrong with a dog it is easy to replace it, with another free one. The list of "something wrong" is very long.

But every once in a while there is a Good Dog (also free). These ones are Priceless. They only do 1 thing wrong.


And there are a lot of Good Dogs, that don't get enough time and proper attention from their mentor ("owner" though I despise the term "dog owner"), these ones the only thing wrong with them is the "owner" and that's why they do so many things wrong.

So much wasted potential of Good Dogs.....


And as far as wasted potential goes, let talk rodeo horses.........

Your "sage" observations belong in another thread, May I suggest the "Joke of the day". Good dogs are not free sir not even on the farm and can not be easily replaced free or otherwise, ask any shepherd or cowboy.

Kinderdoggen, while I respect your knowledge, for every study/theory there is an equal and opposite study/theory folks just have to weigh them and make their own decisions, I personally will stick with the tried and true from my over 60 years of experience

[adriaticum]

So, if nature had intended for humans to use birth control , we would have been born with a condom on?

lol, yes you are born with a condom on. Just just take it off during birth.

[FirePower]

So, if nature had intended for humans to use birth control , we would have been born with a condom on?

I can think of some I have met that should have been.

[kinderdoggin]

Firepower- these articles are summaries of current research. They show both the pros and cons so I'm not sure what you are arguing, unless you haven't actually opened them. The point of this post is that someone (maybe you?) in another thread made the general reference that there is no hard evidence that there is a benefit to waiting to spay or neuter your dog. I understand that point of view is believable because most vets still don't tell people about the benefits to waiting- they either don't keep up with research or think that people will make irresponsible decisions if they have the full picture, which is unethical, IMO. I am only showing that there IS (growing) evidence that there are benefits. Since most don't seem compelled to read on, I'm going to post a summary from the first link and anyone interested can find references in that article for more details. Feel free to post anything that refutes what I am sharing, I will read it and am happy to learn more.
<<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

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the
relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

On the positive side, spaying female dogs
• if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common
malignant tumors in female dogs
• nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female
dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• removes the very small risk (
0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors
On the negative side, spaying female dogs
• if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a
common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis
• increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by
a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many
associated health problems
• causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
• increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
• increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs
spayed before puberty
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumors
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. >>

[FirePower]

I was not arguing Kinderdoggin, there are two schools of thought I was merely stating my belief in the tried and true, and yes I have read those and others. I am just nor a beliver yet. Things do change at one time we believed you should always let a bitch produce one litter to settle her before she was altered, not any more.

[lorneparker1]

Firepower- these articles are summaries of current research. They show both the pros and cons so I'm not sure what you are arguing, unless you haven't actually opened them. The point of this post is that someone (maybe you?) in another thread made the general reference that there is no hard evidence that there is a benefit to waiting to spay or neuter your dog. I understand that point of view is believable because most vets still don't tell people about the benefits to waiting- they either don't keep up with research or think that people will make irresponsible decisions if they have the full picture, which is unethical, IMO. I am only showing that there IS (growing) evidence that there are benefits. Since most don't seem compelled to read on, I'm going to post a summary from the first link and anyone interested can find references in that article for more details. Feel free to post anything that refutes what I am sharing, I will read it and am happy to learn more.
<<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

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the
relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

On the positive side, spaying female dogs
• if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common
malignant tumors in female dogs
• nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female
dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• removes the very small risk (0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors
On the negative side, spaying female dogs
• if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a
common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis
• increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by
a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many
associated health problems
• causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
• increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
• increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs
spayed before puberty
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumors
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. >>

Thanks for that!

I have tried to talk to as many breeders ( not vets) as possible . and from that i have decided that i will spay my bitch at about 18 months. IF we decide that spaying is what we want

Lorne

[Iron Glove]

Thanks for the references - interesting reads.
Your point about making "responsible decisions" is the best summary.
We've always tried to have Vets that are prepared to consider different treatments, diagnosis and such and so far are pleased with the response we have received from our Vets.
Whilst I may, or may not subscribe to the current neuter / spray protocals, I am a firm believer that when you remove a hormone producing gland from a living thing, there has to be consequences. Those consequences may be beneficial, they may be detrimental, but having the knowledge of those consequences allows us, as responsible pet owners to make reasonable decisions based on that knowledge.
I well remember the era of tonsil & adenoid removal - cough and the Dr. Said "remove 'em." I had mine removed twice. :cry: Nowadays you almost never hear of their removal.
Thanks again for posting.