Twice in the past half-year we’ve been treated to research that challenges the last few decades’ conventional wisdom on the subject of spaying and neutering dogs. This time it’s all about knees and hips—and it’s a good study.
Sure, this JAVMA study (from last week's edition, not yet online) has its population bias issues and leaves open the question on ideal timing for sterilization (crucial, IMO), but it also boasts an enormous sample size few can find fault with.
Employing a database that synthesizes data from US veterinary teaching hospitals (in this case, from 1964 to 2003), the histories of 1,243,681 dogs were analyzed to determine risk factors for cruciate ligament deficiency and hip dysplasia.
The results?
“Castrated males were significantly more likely than other dogs to have hip dysplasia, and castrated male and spayed female dogs were significantly more likely to have cranial cruciate ligament deficiency.”
Age and size were also considered:
Dogs over four were more likely to be diagnosed with cranial cruciate issues and those younger than four with hip dysplasia. Large and giant breed dogs were more at risk for both orthopedic conditions. In case you’re wondering, Newfies were voted most likely to win first prize for high frequency of hip and knee disasters.
This is a BIG study with major implications and that means big things for how veterinarians might approach the subject of spays and neuters in practice. As I’ve predicted here before, decade’s end will likely see a change in how we vets spay and neuter pets.
Vasectomy or tubal ligation, anyone?
Add Comment39 Comments
Please explain how this relates to spaying/neutering - a hormone issue? Or was the study meant to just illustrate the correlation?
anna June 15th, 2008 12:10:00 PM
Every time I read an article like this, I wonder if the study accounts for the probabilty that more dogs are spayed/neutered. In other words, did this study involve reporting the incidental of dogs s/n status coming in for these diagnosis & surgery?
Sort of like saying that "black" Scottish Terriers are at 'increased risk' for TCC, when that happens to be the most prevalent color.And for example, two of the six in my Pocket's litter with diagnosed TCC were brindle, and unfortunately, for me, Pocket's last u/s involved a SCAM, so I don't know what her TCC status really was ( http://clik.to/scotty ) at the end.
Or did this study note actual bone/structure differences not found in intact dogs? Dr. Khuly, could you please expand a bit?
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 15th, 2008 12:34:00 PM
Will you post a link when this goes online? I'd love to read the study.
I wonder if there's any correlation between good breeders neutering their males who have poor OFA scores, thus increasing the proportion of neutered males with HD? Did the study make a distinction between when the animals were altered and when they were diagnosed with HD or CCL tears? Or the severity of the HD issues? If a puppy displays HD so young, altering/not breeding would be the only prudent choice in that case. I also wonder if the study looked at animal body condition scores vs CCL tears; the whole "my pet got fat after being fixed" thing could have contributed to the animal's obesity putting such pressure on the knees.
A very interesting study! As much as I hate the idea of abandoning early sterilization for all pets as the "norm" so that intact pets are more of an anomaly, perhaps there will be greater client education about delaying altering and the additional responsibility related to having an intact pet.
anonymous in boston June 15th, 2008 12:34:00 PM
I have a question similar to Barbara's. Dogs that are spayed and neutered are probably more likely to have continuing veterinary care because they are owned by responsible owners who will pay for vet care. Does that mean they are more likely to be diagnosed with various other ailments?
Arlene June 15th, 2008 12:48:00 PM
This is such a hot button topic nowadays (especially with all the new mandatory spay/neuter legislation) but I think it's a good thing to have studies like this to start a dialog. As long as the dialog remains civil, eventually - hopefully - this will lead to better care and longer healthier lives for all our pets.
But please, lets avoid statements like "Dogs that are spayed and neutered are probably more likely to have continuing veterinary care because they are owned by responsible owners who will pay for vet care."!! A "responsible" pet owner is one who provides the best care possible, and doesn't allow accidental breeding. You don't have to spay and neuter to be a responsible pet owner, although that does make it somewhat easier.
Barb June 15th, 2008 07:07:00 PM
it sounds like a terrible study for all the reasons barbara pointed out. retrospectives are considered to be the least reliable of all medical studies. there are all kinds of confounding factors. the increased prevalence of CCL ruptures and orthopedic conditions does not imply a cause and effect relationship. i haven't received my most recent JAVMA since we just moved, so i'll hold off full judgment till i read it. but in our 1st year epidemiology course, they taught us that retrospectives were somewhat "worthless".
homeless parrot June 16th, 2008 01:07:00 AM
One detail that you have glossed over, and may confuse many people, is the word "significant". This is a technical term in statistics, which means something very specific that might be unexpected to the casual reader.
In the vernacular, this means "enough to worry about."
But in statistical paralance, it means "unambiguously detectable". (Actually, typically p=0.05 or below, meaning less than 5% chance of being measurement error.)
With a population of n=1,243,681, an <em>incredibly</em> small change in incidence can be detected as (statistically) "significant". It's real, all right, but is it enough to worry about? Or did your chance go from (pulling numbers out with a fecal loop) 5% to 5.001%?
How does it compare to other health benefits of neutering, such as reduced fighting injuries, or other health risks, such as obesity? Indeed, is it secondary to obesity? Is it a bigger health hazard than malignant hyperthermia from the surgery itself?
Herper June 16th, 2008 03:32:00 AM
I agree--there are so many other factors to consider beyond spay/neuter status. You've described a few of them in your comments above: body condition score, timing of spay/neuter (before or after puberty), and other population biases.
This study is significant because, though it is a retrospective study (and I don't dismiss them out of hand, especially when they're so big), it demonstrates an academic interest in getting to the when, whethers, and hows of spaying and neutering.
Whether we're looking at cruciates, hip disease, mammary tumors, pyometras, prostatic disease or perineal hernias, it's clear there are a lot of variables to consider (not to mention a dog's individual characteristics and how they factor into it). The *concept* of spay/neuter as a valid procedure is not what's at stake, it's the *mantra* that's on the chopping block.
We need to think more carefully about what we're getting (and not getting) when we use this tool in our practices. There's *potentially* a whole lot at stake. How much is what I'd like to know. And this study promises to bring home that answer and more by stimulating more studies on this subject.
Dr. Patty Khuly June 16th, 2008 08:13:00 AM
On retrospective studies- while our epidemiology professor also acknowledged the inherent weaknesses of retrospective studies, he also discussed the reality that prospective studies are still few and far between in vet med. Often a retrospective study has to be the starting point in order to get funding for a prospective study. Good for them for getting the discussion going and laying a foundation for future studies.
Megan June 16th, 2008 10:33:00 AM
I couldn't agree more that this deserves more attention & research, to best benefit the companion animal, whether longevity or disease avoidance goal. Breed clubs have long known that early s/n alters body structure and appearance, but not much known to how much it could contribute to early disease process (of various types!)
Personally, I become perturbed with the mantra that an immature rescue dog has to be altered before placement, or breeder's companion placements are given written instructions for early neutering, OR I become aghast to learn the pet's new owner's veterinarian insists on (all the repeat vaccines) and 4 month of age neutering! As if ALL people are irresponsible and allow free-roaming ....hopefully placements aren't with people that fall into that group in the first place, right??!!
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 16th, 2008 04:31:00 PM
My biggest issue with the use of the VMDB database from the numerous veterinary teaching hospitals has always been bias: only sick animals visit the hospital, that's the population you're drawing insights from. Worse still, the population at many veterinary teaching hospitals is drawn from both referrals and direct visits.
Anytime I see an article in JAVMA or any other veterinary publication that references VMDB I am suspicious of the statistical conclusions. Can you imagine if a human study came out and said "There is a strong correlation between people who have heart disease and people who visit the hospital" - well, obviously, that's why many of them would go.
Alex June 16th, 2008 06:34:00 PM
I have been a Newfoundland breeder for several years and bred my share of champions. My sales contract for all puppies/dogs sold, states that the puppy/dog will not be spayed or neutered till it is 24 months old. My rational has always been that the breed is not fully mature till that age. The same people that spay and neuter early are the pet owners that will take the puppy/dog home and will over feed and over treat. Spay/neuter + over feeding and treats = obese puppies/dogs. The undeveloped skeleton can't handle the excess weight so you get HD, elbow and crutiate problems..”
Bill Betchley June 16th, 2008 06:37:00 PM
Sorry, first link should be
http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/Ped...%5B1%5D.pdf
anonymous in boston June 16th, 2008 07:01:00 PM
GUH. Linky thing not working. Take out spaces.
http: //www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedSNVetJournals[1] .pdf
anonymous in boston June 16th, 2008 07:04:00 PM
"Unfortunately, the number of people who can responsibly own intact animals is very, very low. Very low. Minisculely low. And no matter how well you screen people, there are folks who will adopt an intact animal and then turn around and breed it and dump it. Check out the "pets" section of Craigslist. It will make you weep. The number of "my cat isn't spayed because she's an indoor cat, well she got out and now she's pregnant" posts is STAGGERING.
The average pet owner is not capable of properly maintaining an intact animal 100% of the time, getting all necessary health clearances before breeding, establishing an interest list for future puppies/kittens, keeping tabs on all animals they have bred for the animal's entire lifetime, accepting back any bred-by-them animal at any time for any reason.... it just isn't going to happen. The average home breeder breeds to give puppies to relatives and to make some cash. "
Actually, there are plenty of folks capable of keeping intact animals responsibly. Guide and assistance dog programs use them all the time! And I know plenty of people who show dogs but do not breed who keep an intact dog or bitch or both. And serious breeders routinely place intact dogs in homes under contract to let them mature to see if they will test out at two and be useful in work, competition etc...
Our rescue occaisionally has dog who cannot stand surgery until they are in better health than they arrived in or who have a condition making anesthesia to risky . If the right home comes along, they will be placed carefully with extra time spent on the hows and whys of canine abstinence!
It does not take long to teach a reasonably responsible person about canine reproduction and how to prevent unwanted litters. BUT almost no one is doing this brand of education anymore! The idea that only s/n is acceptable seems to have made the whole idea of teaching people the birds and bees of their pets taboo.
For the record I have no problem with spay neuter. Done at the proper age for the pet. For shelter pet populations, that is a very young age. For owned pets, one size does not fit all.
99% of dogs altered is the end of any and all breeds in this country. It is the end of all working, hunting, show, assistance lines. Already 70-75% of most breeds of dogs are altered before reproduction and that has had a profound impact on genetic diversity for many breeds.
If we trust folks to drive a car, raise children etc... we need to realize they can probably be educated to keep a bitch in heat confined for the 10-14 days of the year she is actually fertile and receptive. If they are made aware that for some breeds, this may spare them thousands of dollars in orthopedic work and months of painful recovery for their pet, they may take their new job of keeping Fluffy or Fido pure and virginal until maturity more seriously! If someone is obviously callous and careless then yes, push for early s/n better one dysplastic adult I suppose than a whole litter of them. But people are not all idiots and they can learn and they can be surprisingly receptive and responsible when treated as adults and offered education and assistance instead of being treated like infants. The success of organizations like BadRap in their voluntary out reach programs to at risk populations of pet owners is a good indicator of this
In most if the country, puppies will do OK in terms of getting adopted from shelters. People want puppies. I see lots of juveniles in shelters and lots of adults and even seniors. For these dogs, finding a home originally was not the issue. Keeping it was. That is another education and outreach issue. Nonetheless in a very throw-away society such as ours there will always be pets abandoned or relinquished, no matter where or how they are acquired.
I also see many people who have now decided that getting their dog it's shots and having it spayed or neutered is all it takes to be responsible pet owners. Training? Socialization? Not needed, my pet is altered, No sorry, it does not work that way. And when the un-house trained, unmannered, spooky fearful or aggressive shut in becomes inconveinent, it's off to rescue or the pound. This is now a major source of dogs for many rescues. Is being altered at fault? No. But people need to know it is not a substitute for putting hours and effort into a pet!
Sorry to rant but as a person who has had both intact and altered pets for twenty years with NO accidental breeding, none, I am troubled by the idea that an intact animal over 16 weeks is somehow offensive. I want the best for my animals and while I don't hesitate to spay or neuter, damaging an owned and loved pet's health because no criticism of early spay neuter is to be allowed is troubling as well.
JenniferJ June 16th, 2008 08:36:00 PM
Jennifer J, you said it much better than I did in my original post. Thank you :)
In Chicago June 16th, 2008 08:51:00 PM
It seems to me that a dichotomy has quickly sprung up. The solution for overpopulation is whatever works. Often we have more control of the dog's reproductive status than the person's ability to control their dog. I don't fault the shelter community for doing what they "can" rather than what others might think they "should". At the same time once a pet is placed, transitioning to being owned, the responsible owner and their veterinarian must have some discretion. I still think that neutering at an appropropriate age should be the norm and not doing so have some degree of justification. Not innately but out of the current societal concern about the number of pet dogs being euthanised.
If thier is a sound reason not to neuter I don't see the problem with asking for it or providing it. In my home town registering a dog is the norm, and expensive--but you can schedule a vist where you point out your appropriate training, fencing and other care and the fee is then reduce to a nominal level. It seems to me that good dog owners come in many forms and while not neutering in no way makes one a bad owner, it is certainly a common feature of the irresponsible ones who don't do things as their default, not as a choice on behalf of the animal. So if you have to report to some agency with a good reason not to neuter, or to neuter at a later age, that would seem only fair. meanwhile most dogs going to average homes would go down a mandated course to neutering at an appropriate age at veterinary and owner discretion.
emily June 17th, 2008 10:33:00 AM
Emily, if all local animal control agencies were as reasonable as the one you describe, this would be a better world. Unfortunately many aren't. Some of the proposed mandatory legislation will put tremendous burdens on owners and their veterinarians to prove an animal is unfit for surgery, and will also make it legally immpossible for many individuals to keep any animals intact no matter how responsible they are or what reason they have for not wishing to alter.
Some not only are pushing for unaltered licensing fees in excess of 150.00 or more, but by keeping an intact animal you become a breeder or pet dealer by default under the new law and must also purchase a 500.00 "breeder's permit" whether there are any plans to breed the animal or not.
Voluntary, low cost high volume spay neuter with intensive community outreach works. Threatening people with high dollar fines drives them out of the system and drives animals into shelters as people will relinquish if they are unable to pay those fees.
I am NOT against spaying and neutering! I have a 6 month old toy breed puppy and a 10 month old rescue dog scheduled to go in to be altered on Thursday. Getting these services and information out there is extremely important. I just feel very strongly that for already owned pets, the decision should be made between the owner and their veterinarian based on the particular circumstances involved and the best scientific info available at that time.
JenniferJ June 17th, 2008 11:38:00 AM
If overpopulation is the concern and mandates seem the popular path, I favor mandatory tubal ligation and vasectomy. Interesting that few ever comment on this, much as I try to point it out as a reasonable solution to the dichotomy between those who want what's best for our individual dogs and those of us who believe that the needs of the entire population of dogs should come first. It doesn't need to be an either/or dilemma.
Dr. Patty Khuly June 17th, 2008 11:51:00 AM
Emily, in my city, every year, when I go in to renew my dog's license, I have to bring with me a copy of her spay certificate. Every year. Because they czn't manage the difficult task of keeping a record of the fact that she's spayed--or even of the fact that she was licensed last year. Or not licensed. If I skipped a year, as long as nothing happened, they would have no way to catch that, not even when I came in the following year.
The city sends all its dog license records to the state, and doesn't keep any copies or records. This isn't the normal practice in this state; it isn't even _legal_. They're supposed to have the records on hand and accessible. But it's what they do. Why would I trust these idiots to decide whether or not I'm a sufficiently responsible dog owner that I can be trusted to make major medical decisions for my dog?
Our local Animal Control officers are great, but they only enforce the law, not make it. City Hall is both crooked and incompetent, and I'm not going to trust them with those decisions.
As JenniferJ said, _voluntary_ low cost spay/neuter is hugely effective in lowering surrender and euthanasia rates. Mandatory spay/neuter has _raised_ surrender and euthanasia rates everywhere it's been tried. You say, "The solution for overpopulation is whatever works." Why are you so eager to support something which is proven not to work, in opposition to something that _does_ work?
Lis June 17th, 2008 12:06:00 PM
It's a very good point Dr Khuly. I am actually trying to find a local vet willing to vasectomize feral toms for us so that new queens wandering into our feral colony will get bred but not pregnant and give us more time to catch them. Currently the only intact male around (as fart as I can tell!)is a older kitten who is wandering in from the adjacent neighborhood. I have a trap and a can of salmon with the little bugger's name on it.
For female dogs my issue with tubals is that they won't prevent pyos, reduce the risk of mammary cancer etc... So to reduce that risk they would need two procedures, a tubal then a spay at maturity. It would be another added cost, another anesthesia etc... And for some owners maybe it wold be the thing to push for but honestly, keeping an intact bitch from being bred is not impossible by any means. And with tubal ligation you do not get the freedom from messes that spaying brings that seems to be the real issue for many owners. Call it the ick factor. So I do wonder if people could be persuaded into multiple surgeries if they still have to deal with the actual heat cycle too. Same with male dogs, will people be willing to pay twice to get rid of fertility then hormones 6 months to a year and a half later? It's an intriguing idea, I just wonder if it could be sold to the public or legislators.
While I don't mind or have issues with intact males, my dogs are very well socialized and trained. The fact that they are intact is always taken into account. While I do not believe in mandatory s/n for many reasons, I do think most folks are best off with their pets altered as it certainly does remove the hormones from the equation. In my opinion for most pets, it is a matter of when not if. And at my home, if any dog, male or female fails to measure up in terms of temperament, conformation, health, they will get that "tutoring" appointment!
Cats do not seem to have the health concerns with early spay/neuter? Are there any potential issues there? I did get our cats altered at around 16 weeks and the ferals whenever we can catch them!
The other problem I see with Tubal ligation and vasectomy is that the die hard "spay neuter everything" folks who are pushing for these laws here in Ca, and elsewhere have really hung their hats on the idea that ovaries, testicles and hormones are the cause of virtually all aggression, health problems etc... So even though tubal ligation and vasectomy would accomplish the same pet population control goals, it might be a hard sell as it would mean contradicting some of the main selling points for proposed laws.
Change takes time and what seems odd or radical now may be mainstream a decade from now. But I would really like to see both medical decisions and public policy based on solid research and results rather than simply clinging to an idea and an ideal at all costs.
JenniferJ June 17th, 2008 02:06:00 PM
I have noticed that in the US dog control is even more of a patchwork than most countries. It is under all sorts of different juristictions and funding ranged from barely enough to none. To bring in a construstive, effective and animal-centred approach to any of this at a regulatory level this needs to change. Without an effective, properly educated and funded enforcement team the options slump to doing nothing, or doing something arbitrary (like this breed ban stuff and registration that is ridiculously hard to comply with). There has to be a force on the ground with a plan and some discretion to put the plan in place.
I know some great dog control officers who are basically beat policemen crossed with dog social workers--but I fear they are the exception.
emily June 17th, 2008 02:27:00 PM
In Chicago, it is not fair to compare what has been accomplished in Berkeley where according to the article, they managed to dramatically reduce euthanasia their shelter comprised of 60 dog runs - to Los Angeles where there are currently over a thousand dogs impounded at a given time in hundreds of runs. The sheer scale of the problem is daunting and demoralizing, the rescue community is a varied patchwork of organizations, staff and volunteer morale is low and the community presents an enormous array of challenges including communication and education.
I agree with those who say that managing an intact dog is possible, and isn't rocket science but I'm sorry to say there is a huge population pet owners who are completely uninterested in being educated, however friendly and helpful the source. Whatever was good enough for their pets growing up, or in the part of the country or part of the world where they come from, is good enough for them. They don't even know their dog is in heat, the dog never sets foot in the house anyway. They want to have puppies because they can sell them, they don't care who they sell them to. Their dog gets out and runs loose and if anybody complains, they say they don't want the dog anyway, they're going to take it to the pound. They would laugh in your face if you told them they had to monitor their dog's heat cycles and keep them indoors. These are not your breed club friends.
I got one adolescent dog from a guy who left him in the yard all day and was going to take him to the pound because he chewed on things. This was an amazing dog (smart, good temperament, great with other dogs) who had no training and nothing to occupy him, and yes, he got loose often, he was intact and who knows if there are any little baby Buddys running around the 'hood. Fortunately he's in a good home now, and yes, he's been neutered.
I'd love to tell you this is not typical of pet owners but it's a widespread attitude that pets should require little or no effort and are disposable. It's not that it's rocket science to keep a intact dog from reproducing, it's just too much effort for a lot of people.
Anne June 17th, 2008 05:29:00 PM
Anne, agreed, Chicago and Berkeley are different. But the point of the success in Berkeley was that the folks BADRAP reached out to were written off as unreachable, unteachable and people who would never be responsible pet owners, pit bull and other dg owners in the "'hood". And yet the volunteers found that if they put their assumptions aside, the community was very willing to listen and grateful for the outreach. Not only that, the people who they worked with took the message to others in their neighborhoods.
So Berkeley is not a good analog, what about Calgary? Washoe County/ Reno? San Diego County too. All places with large, diverse populations, great variance in socio-economics and all of which have given harsh regulatory measures a pass and have seen tremendous progress by making the community partners in their animal control efforts.
California, according to the numbers reported by counties to the State, has seen a drop in both shelter admissions and euthanasia of nearly 85% since the late seventies, in spite of astronomic increases in the human population. There has been a gradual but steady change in the way pets are viewed and kept. My large rural county has slashed it's euthanasia rate by more than 50% in the last decade and a half and is poised to do so again by changing it's approach to feral cat management. Ferals currently are 60% of euthanasias here.
While these programs may not have all the answers, they have had the greatest success in reducing shelter numbers. When San Mateo passed it's "land mark" Mandatory Spay Neuter law in the early 90s, it was trumpeted as the answer to shelter population problems. Now as California considers passing a state-wide MSN law, San Mateo and Penninsula Humane Society ( which handles AC for San Mateo)refuse to endorse it because of it's failure in San Mateo and the damage done to the relationship between animal control and the community. It made people "angry and resentful instead of responsible" .
We all want to see fewer pets homeless and shelter bound or euthanized. But what we should be doing is looking at what has worked, what has not and adapting the successes to the needs of each geographic region and community
JenniferJ June 17th, 2008 06:20:00 PM
I agree with most posters here, maintaining an intact animal isn't rocket science; but it IS work, and requires a level of comittment a lot of people simply aren't able to give. Both of my dogs were spayed later rather than as juveniles (both were about 2 years old and had 2-3 heat cycles each before their spays); neither was ever unattended and there was never any question of an "accidental" breeding. Was it inconvenient for me, and messy, and just a general pain in the a$$? Of course it was, but was what I felt best for the animals. But a lot of owners (especially in the rural area in which I live) would simply open the front door and send their dogs out the door with "Oh, well, whatever happens, happens".
Lis--your license experience sounds like a pretty common one, unfortunately. Our county here in PA is solely responsible for licensing, although they have numerous other entities (vets and the local Humane Society) who are able to issue a license as an agent for the county. We do have one license option here which I think is an absolutely wonderful idea, and one I can't believe isn't more widely used elsewhere. One of the licensing options is a "lifetime" license. The fee is $40 (or was when I obtained my last one 4 years ago, it's probably more now). It requires proof of spay/neuter, as well as proof of a permanent form of identification (tattoo or microchip--mine each have both in case of a migration or loss of a chip). This license is only available at our county courthouse, not the satellite agencies, but it then issues a permanent license number good for the entire life of the dog. For me it's ideal, as my girls are spayed and ID'd; and as a bonus, I don't have to try to remember to get a new license for them every January (perfect, since I frequently forget to renew my car registration or inspection on time)!
Shellie June 17th, 2008 07:52:00 PM
It's not fair to assume that intact dogs can reproduce on their own.
Most of mine need help or there won't be a successful breeding.
It takes a certain amount of skill, too.
eli June 18th, 2008 11:31:00 PM
I work in a pet supply store (no live animals, just supplies) and we specialize in high-end product (grain free kibbles/cans/treats, raw foods, real foods) offering accessories of the highest quality and also the highest price most of the time. We are also located next to a grocery store and dollar store, both of whom have extremely cheap food, treats, accessories and toys.
I'm lucky because for the most part our store attracts what one would assume are the highest quality clients. Those who can afford to spare no expense on fluffy's health and mental well-being. We are also blessed with a knowledgeable staff who consider it their personal mission to educate every single customer who walks through the door on all the ways they could be improving fluffy's way of life, whether it involves making a purchase or a lifestyle change, or providing free training (I'm a sucker, I know).
I would still say that approximately 50% of these clients are the type that are being mentioned here when people refer to the "average pet owner." If I have to hear that fluffy has to be bred because she's just the most beautiful flamepoint Himi you've ever seen (right after telling me that Fluffy is stress grooming and suffers food allergies) or that Fido has to be bred because "we want a puppy just like him" I'm going to literally throw something at someone.
I also run a dog and bird rescue, and all of our rescue dogs are neutered prior to placement regardless of age. My own dogs are another story, my male retriever was neutered at the age of 2, my St. Bernard at the age of 2, and my rott female will probably not be neutered for several years given the risks involved to rotts in particular. NONE of my animals have ever been bred.
But NO, the average pet owner is not capable of responsibly owning an intact dog.
As a matter of fact, my second biggest irritant is the client who screams a bloody tirade at me while storming out of the store because I refused to sell him/her a nylon muzzle for their unneutered male dog to wear pretty much all the time because they can't control him any longer and he's now controlling him with their teeth. I've of course offered a much more expensive cage muzzle (for god sakes you can't walk a dog in the middle of summer with a nylon muzzle, you idiot... says my inner voice while I explain how dogs sweat) constructed of stainless steel and handmade leather and the number of a cheap vet and a good trainer, while being told that I don't know what I'm talking about. To which of course I happily (and coyly) reply "well, I've got a house with 13 dogs in it at the moment, and none of THEM wants to eat ME."
Joe and Jane dog owner are NOT ready for the responsibility. Quite frankly, I don't think that Joe and Jane dog owner are capable of owning that rottweiler or Newf or Mastiff or (insert large dog, hunting dog, hound dog or terrier breed here) for the most part until they themselves have been trained. Last week I had a customer bring me a 9 month old lab he wanted to muzzle while they were in the house, because she was mouthing them. We quickly introduced her to a check chain and a pull tab, and saved the dog a possible lifetime of having it's mouth taped up 5 hours a day.
These customers are not rare, they are common, everyday situations. And as I said before, we are a high end specialty store. Can you imagine the people that the big-box stores have to deal with? We will continue to recommend early spay and neuter, unless we have a previous trusting relationship with a customer and are 99% sure there will be no problems.
I realize it's a conundrum, but when you work rescue, and you have to walk down the aisles of dogs, and choose the ones who get to live, knowing the rest are going to die... the decision is an easy one.
Kim June 19th, 2008 01:00:00 PM
I have requested a vasectomy for my dog only to be given the "you want to get rid of undesirable behaviors, testicular cancer" lecture. New scientific evidence indicates that just maybe we are doing the wrong thing by spaying and neutering instead of doing vasectomies and tubal ligation. Hopefully new discussion will lead to changes in the future. I would like to have the option of vasectomy for my dog.
Deb McFarland June 19th, 2008 02:11:00 PM
Amen, Kim. Bravo. Great post.
anonymous in boston June 19th, 2008 07:36:00 PM
Kim, I do work in rescue, actively and often, and I walk down those same rows and see those same ees looking at me.
Which is why, if you want to save animal lives, you need to base policy on what has been proven to work.
In the early 1990s, when the San Mateo legislation was introduced, it was the first attempt at mandatory sterilization. They actually euthanized/killed kittens, puppies and dogs on the evening news to emphasize the need.Now a decade and a half later. San Mateo rejected statewide mandatory spay neuter, BECAUSE IT DID NOT WORK. Licensing plummeted, people dropped out of the system, impounds skyrocketed and so did costs. This has been the pattern elsewhere too. It is well documented and I'm tired so I am not going to list all the examples here.
While No-Kill (as in the no-kill Equation, not hoarders using the term) may have it's weak points, communities using that model have done a alot better than those with MSN. Tear it down all you like, but I'd rather be a stray cat or dog in San Diego County or Reno Nevada than Los Angeles!
And I am not not not against spaying and neutering dogs and cats. I do do do believe shelter and rescue dogs and cats should be altered if they can physically stand the procedure prior to adoption (we've used neutersol on a few old or ill males). I am a very ardent believer that responsible breeding require that breeders place dogs with care and on contract to be sure that pet dogs are altered and follow up on to enforce it. MOST pets owned by MOST people should be altered, but why should owners be faced with thousands of extra dollars in hip or knee repair, or increased cancer risks by having to perform that procedure too young? Perhaps Dr Khuly's suggestion of tubal ligation or vasectomy could help prevent "accidents" in some slow maturing dogs. And maybe for those clients who seem motivated and willing, teaching K-9 repro and birth control 101 might be appropriate too.
But how and when and if should be based upon science, research and results. As the goal of all of us posting here is to save lives, we need to base policy and law on what actually works.
JenniferJ June 20th, 2008 01:39:00 AM
I also meant to add in that last paragraph in my previous post that if new research is compelling that early speutering may contribute to potentially crippling and life threatening painful conditions in some animals, then we need to deal with that and consider the welfare of those pets. Do shelter pets deserve any less? From an ethics standpoint based on the individual, no. But the overall greater good that results from policies requiring shelter pets be altered at the moment trumps that IMO. Maybe if practitioners become more comfortable with tubals and vasectomies and they become more mainstream then they could be utilized for large and giant breeds and mixes or dogs at risk for certain other conditions prior to adoption. But owned pets need to be considered as individuals and decisions regarding their medical care should made by their owner under the advice and guidance of their veterinarian. (whom they hopefully listen too)
JenniferJ June 20th, 2008 01:14:00 PM
Nowhere in my post did I mention MANDATORY spay/neuter policies.
I would have assumed after admitting my own dogs were not altered until a later age (or remain unaltered) would have immediately given the impression that I am NOT a fan of MSN laws.
However, I DO take offense to anyone claiming that average Joe dog owner is capable of handling an unaltered dog. Because the truth of the matter is exactly the sad, sad opposite.
So what is the answer? Well, I never claimed I had it, either. As for vasectomies, etc, it's already difficult enough to prove that a dog has been spayed if said dog was spayed young by a skilled surgeon, and the potential for fraud would be astounding. Exactly how are we supposed to know whose been tied where?
I'm sorry, but until the mass slaughter stops, I will continue to spay and neuter all rescue animals who come through my home, regardless of age. I will also continue to urge every single intact dog owner I meet to do the same. Just today, I had an argument with the woman who runs the store next to ours about breeding her illegal pitbull. Pits are banned in Ontario and her dog is illegal, being born a year after the cutoff date, being unregistered, unlicensed and unaltered (not to mention unmuzzled and generally out of control). Even the argument that not only her own dog, but all of its progeny could be picked up at any time and be disposed of by Animal Control, she just pattered on about how lovely her dog is and how much she wants a puppy from her.
Or the unaltered male doberman whose owner can't understand why her dog seems to get in more dog altercations than the rest of the dogs at the dog park. Today I got to hear about how he was loose wandering the ravines for the entire night before after slipping his collar. Anyone in the Stoney Creek Mountain area, if your intact female is suddently pregnant with red dobe-looking pups, I know the father...
Do I believe that the government has the right to step in and dictate the choices I make with my own pets? To a point, yes, if it serves their well-being (cruelty laws, etc.). But as the breed ban here has shown, MSN punishes only the responsible people. What we need is to change society's way of looking at these things... instead of wanting your children to experience the "miracle of life" or being too "manly" to remove your dog's testicles, we need to make is socially unacceptable to have an intact dog. It should be embarrassing for Joe dog owner to admit that Fido or Fifi haven't gotten "the snip" yet.
Until that mindset changes, nothing else will change. And as I said before, in the meantime, I will continue to ensure that every dog that changes hands in this home is rendered infertile, one way or another.
Kim June 20th, 2008 08:54:00 PM
I work at a very, very, large animal hospital. We see specialty cases as well as critical care/emergency. Part of running a successful hospital like this is to study where our cases are coming from and maintaining good relationships with the general practices in our area. On check in sheets, clients are asked to write down who their family vet is so we may keep in touch with them about their pet. So which doctor provides us with the most cases? Dr. No, as in "No veterinarian." I hate to clump all pet owners together as irresponsible (because we see plenty of owners who are responsible), but when the majority of the people who come through our doors vet hop or simply never take their pet to the vet until circumstances are dire...well, it doesn't inspire my confidence.
I also used to work in a general practice that had a close relationship with a pet store that sold animals (a practice that I don't agree with but despite that personal issue felt that the vets did good medicine). I'd say that a good 40-50 percent of the clients who purchased puppies from that pet store had the intention to breed them later. We would take our time educating owners on all aspects of pet care including reproductive issues and what it truly meant to be a responsible breeder. We would explain that the pets sold by the pet store were sold as companions only (it even said that in the pet store contract), that breeding such dogs would do nothing for the betterment of the breed (and often the "breed" was something like maltipoo, puggle, doxi-doodle, whatever). More than not, our advice would fall on deaf ears, and back yard breeding goes in my area like crazy. These clients would shrug off my advice in the general practice and then scream at me on emergency when their dog needed an emergency c-section and it was expensive.
All that being said, I don't think I particularly agree with spaying or neutering being MANDATORY. I do think that if a client comes in asking for some alternative method of population control, a vet should be more open to new ideas. Heck, at least the owner is caring enough to want to do SOMETHING for the pet.
robyn w June 20th, 2008 09:23:00 PM
Dogs and cats can be ID'd permanently by microchip. That animal can then be proven to have been rendered sterile by whatever means it has been done. This is how fraud is prevented with OFA.
If you read my posts above, I do say that all animals healthy enough to stand it should be altered prior to adoption and release from rescues or shelters. Our rescue does not relinquish ownership of intact animals but may place them in a foster situation (who may be adopters eventually) until the dog is healthy enough to withstand surgery. I neuter every feral cat and kitten I can catch at whatever age
But please do consider that many breed rescues receive dog who have developed heath problems which are beyond the financial reach of their owners. While some would say that they should not have the pet if they are not prepared to do whatever it takes to deal with such things, that is not very realistic. A very nice home may have real trouble dealing with bilateral cruciate rupture to the tune of 5000.00.
This is where tubal ligation and vasectomy may be appropriate. I would think that if people were presented with the option and the possible consequences of early s/n , they might choose said path. or conversly, they might be willing to learn about confinement as a form of birth control. This applies only to already owned pets, not shelter or homeless pet populations.
As far as reducing deaths, Calgary seems to be a very good example of how incentive and service based animal services can reduce euthanasia rates and improve licensing compliance. the fact that many Western European countries have low euthanasia rates with low spay neuter rates seems to suggest that here are more pieces to the puzzle than sterilization alone.
The examples you sight are of people who have chosen to keep pets intact. Yes I run into them all the time too. I have found that they are more willing to listen to me if I approach the subject in a mild way. Tell them about oh, God I love puppies but the work! The mess! The potential for law suits if anything goes wrong! Then I drop it and tell them to call me if everything goes to hell or mom gets sick or the puppies are dying, whatever. Sometimes it gets through, and if so you usually have a lifelong convert who will spread the message. Some folks are beyond help, but there are people out there willing to learn but sometimes not given that chance.
0
JenniferJ June 20th, 2008 09:43:00 PM
Dr. Khuly,
Instead of tubal ligations, what about partial hysterectomies? Uterus removed so no pregnancy or pyometra but ovaries remain so normal hormonal influence. Would females like this still have an effect on un-neutered males nearby?
Shannon Watts June 22nd, 2008 07:55:00 PM
We assume they would, Shannon. And mammary tumors wouldn't be avoided either. Part of my liking for tubal ligation is that it's not big surgery, unlike a hysterectomy. For my money, though it hasn't been studied, I'd bet on a simple tubal ligation (done through a tiny incision) until spay seems appropriate for that particular bitch. I still believe all dogs should eventually be spayed.
Dr. Patty Khuly June 24th, 2008 08:38:00 AM
I agree that many here are giving the "average pet owner" WAY too much credit. The general population of pet owners, as we have seen, often to want to breed (for various reasons) or do let breeding happen 'accidentally.' Pet advocates work so hard, giving myriad reasons again and again why it's not in the pet's, the owner's, or the pet population's best interest. Countless hours and dollars have been invested in stemming the tide of pet overpopulation. Yet while working in an animal shelter, and just in day-to-day life, I cannot believe how many people breed intentionally or accidentally. And MOST often, they know better. And yet they'll trot out some old wives' tale of an excuse as to why THEY needed to breed.
Give them just ONE 'good' reason not to s/n and there goes so much of the hard work and dedication of those trying to educate people against breeding.
I am against taking ANY chances of giving "average pet owner" any ammunition against s/n. The rare, informed, ultra-responsible pet owner who have the time to dedicate to preventing unaltered pets from accidentally breeding will do what rare, informed, ultra-responsible owners do: find out on their own the whole story and make decisions accordingly, like I and others here have.
Erin in Indy July 7th, 2008 01:24:00 PM
I was told that spaying my dog would/could alleviate her skin problems as being in heat caused such a hormonal imbalance that it could not possibly help her ailment. I was also told that spaying would reduce the chances of cancer. My dog is a pure bred cocker spaniel prone to many different kinds of disorders/complications down the road if the profile on these breeds is accurate. I wish I had known the argument against spaying before I had her spayed.
Faizal Deen March 8th, 2009 10:58:52 PM
AVI to DVD Converter
gtrte June 5th, 2009 02:40:34 AM
Add Commment