"Then there’s the question: Why would you do this on a pet at eight weeks knowing that a veterinarian would need to undertake another significant procedure to ensure ideal health conditions afforded by gonadectomy (ovary or testicle removal) at some future date? Isn’t that cruel?...in a way? Condemning a pet to two procedures instead of one?" Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that castration is still needed later on? To reduce risk of prostate/testicular cancer? Aggression issues? Speying to reduce risk of pyometra? Coming into season? Is that what you meant? I guess it does seem like a nice goal. For me, I would have no problem performing vasectomy, it's not that hard. Maybe an extra 5-7 mins compared to a normal castration, and possibly no difference once I got the hang of it. But what benefit does it really afford? To the individual pet? Probably none. It might help populations, bit what benefit to the individual? "Note: I now promise to stay off the topic of sex, breeding and sterilization for a spell lest more of you begin to wonder if I’m subconsciously in the market for more children (which I’m not, thank you very much). " OK. I'll bite the bait now - the outright denial seems more compelling to me of possibly being on the market...... chuckle....

AlexH April 14th, 2009 09:57:42 AM

Personally, I'd advocate responsible ownership first. There have been literally thousands (if not millions) of owners of intact dogs, who've never had an 'oops' mating.

Barring that, I'd be all for early sterilization, as opposed to complete, early gonadectomy. Sterilization-alone prevents unwanted pregnancy, while still keeping the gonads intact, to produce the natural hormones dogs need to develop as nature intended.

As the owner, and a long-time fancier of, a giant breed, the best recommendations at this time in history are to hold-off on gonadectomy until a male is 14-months-old, in order to avoid some of the negative effects of eliminating the hormonal influence on growth plates, etc., etc. It is still recommended to spay females by 6-months, but mostly to decrease the chance of an unplaned pregnancy. (Giant breed females still benefit from waiting 'til they're skeletally mature, before permanent removal of their hormone-producing ovaries.) As many already understand, complete removal of gonads removes the influence of sex hormones on skeletal development, thus causing growth plates to close much later. This results in too much growth in the long bones. While this makes for taller dogs, it also makes for sometimes skeletally malformed dogs, and even later-life cruciate problems related to unnaturally angled joints. This is especially problematic for giant breeds, whose skeletons don't finish growing until 12-14 months of age. It is best to have those growth plates close when they're supposed to, and remove the gonads after that, if the owner then wishes.

If there weren't negative skeletal consequences for removing gonads early, I'd be all for it I suppose (if the owner wanted it). Early gonadectomies might be okay for smaller dogs, whose skeletons finish growing earlier, and where the smaller degree of extra long bone length might not negatively impact the individual animal as much as it might in bigger dogs, where aberrant joint angles, for example, might be more obvious or problematic. I would simply hope owners would be provided informed consent, as we learn more and more about how sex hormones affect growth and health.

Myself, I doubt I would ever elect to have a gonadectomy performed prior to completion of a dog's skeletal growth. Early sterilization seems like a viable option for those who are worried about unwanted matings. The dog trainer in me can't help but point out that responsible ownership is still the best, most ethical, solution. Where companion dogs are properly trained, socialized, and supervised, the risk of an unplanned mating is exceedingly low.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 10:11:46 AM

Now, now, Alex, no psychoanalizing the blogger. ;-)

To you question of whether two procedures would be necessary: yes, I believe that dogs should all be spayed and neutered at some point to reduce the risk of the diseases you mantioned. The ideal timing, however, could then be individualized without concern for reproduction--which is what many breeders ultimately want.

And no, the individual patient does not benefit (though you could argue that females do by not having to suffer pregnancy, whelping and the possibility of a C-section).

As public policy, you could argue it's a double-edged sword. While animals would not reproduce and contribute to the overpopulation problem, their owners might be less willing to have them undergo spays and neuters in the future, thereby increasing the rates of many diseases we now control through traditional sterilization methods.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 14th, 2009 10:14:37 AM

"As public policy, you could argue it's a double-edged sword. While animals would not reproduce and contribute to the overpopulation problem, their owners might be less willing to have them undergo spays and neuters in the future, thereby increasing the rates of many diseases we now control through traditional sterilization methods." That was my concern, exactly. While I have had clients request vasectomy and have performed them, it is not something I would push. I guess it would appear, "moneymaking" to advocate something which requires two surgeries anyway. And then, how is that less invasive? I agree with Marjorie, it goes back to responsible ownership. Marjorie, you said that breeders would like this two-stage approach. Can you elaborate? Most breeders I know don't really want them to lose ANY reproductive ability so I'm not sure why breeders would be keen proponents of such an approach. I confess, this is an area where I am ignorant.

AlexH April 14th, 2009 10:20:33 AM

Also, I'm wondering how to get the paragraphs happening, and also the ability to quote and italicise... It's frustrating...

AlexH April 14th, 2009 10:22:29 AM

AlexH,

First, to get paragraphs, you have to use html, if the formatting is not showing up. The basics are a ''. All the text that follows will have that formatting. But you also have to complete the code. That means doing the same thing as you did in the beginning, but putting a '/' before the letter. Now everything between those two codes will have that formatting.

I don't think I specified that breeders would like the sterilization option (did I???), although I think some might. After all, in a mating between two championed, giant breed dogs, of the resulting 8-16 offspring, maybe one or two or maybe none are actually "breeding quality". Responsible breeders attempt to ensure that all "pet quality" offspring they release to the public never go on to reproduce. So far, this has been done with legal contracts and careful screeing of potential buyers/adopters. But some breeders still feel this relies too much on trust. When early spay/neuter came on the scene, it seemed like the ideal option. But we saw that dogs respond the same way humans do to early removal of sex hormones, and this is particularly problematic for giant-breed dogs with long growth periods, anyway.

I can envision some breeders opting for this kind of sterilization procedure to ensure the animals don't go on to create more of their kind, despite contracts and choosing "good" owners. At the same time, I think it would likely lead to fewer gonadectomies, which have some other benefits, besides reducing the chances of unwanted litters. Of course, gonadectomy also has other negative consequences, besides delayed growth plate closure. The same veterinarian who tells you there are no real downsides to spaying your female pup may very well use the term "spay incontinence" when that same dog presents, later in life, with incontinence issues.

I think informed consent is the best approach, in terms of the pros and cons of both sterilization and gonadectomy. Responsible ownership can pretty much deal with the issue of unwanted canine pregnancies.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 10:39:14 AM

AlexH, I was worried that might happen... The brackets didn't show.

There is a sideways pointy bracket facing left (the 'less than' symbol) at the beginning of the code, and then one in the opposite direction (the 'greater than' symbol) to finish the code.

Do an Internet search for basic html code, and you'll see what I mean. I, too, have to manually insert html to get paragraphs, italics, etc.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 10:42:22 AM

Yes, I thought you might be referring to "pet quality" offspring rather than breeder potential, however doesn't that then open a whole new kettle of fish?

While I definitely see the benefits for large breed dogs (and could not agree more), in these cases, who should bear the costs for the two-stage procedure (tubal ligation, then gonadectomy)? It might be too onerous for some prospective puppy owners.

AlexH April 14th, 2009 10:52:42 AM

"...who should bear the costs for the two-stage procedure (tubal ligation, then gonadectomy)? It might be too onerous for some prospective puppy owners."

hehehe... AlexH...you know...I trained dogs for 30 years, specialized in re-training aggressive dogs for 10-20 of those years, taught responsible dog ownership for at least a decade (if not my whole life, in ways), and was a canine legislation consultant for many years, too. I'll bet you can imagine what how I feel about that...(grinning)

If the first rule of dog ownership is, "A dog is for life," then the second might be something along the lines of learning what it takes to be a responsible ownership, and planning for that prior to acquiring a dog. ...No excuses.

Just going out and getting a dog without knowing how to take care of it, how much it will likely cost (and being able to afford that), along with all the ethical and legal remifications, is incredibly negligent and typically won't elicit any empathy in me. ;-) (For example, one of the most common excuses for abandoning Great Danes is, 'I didn't realize he'd get this big.' Uh, huh. You go out and get the largest dog breed...'The Apollo of Dogs'...and then abandon it because it's big. Well...the same goes for going out and getting a dog, any dog at all, if you can't afford its care. If you do your homework and learn about the early sterilization, and later gonadectomy, option, then you can plan for that expense before acquiring the dog. If you know about it, but don't plan to go that route, then you won't have that expense. If early sterilization is done by a breeder for the reasons I suggested, it would undoubtedly be paid by the breeder (since it would take place while still in his/her care), and the cost passed-on to the buyer/adopter. If the breeder expects a buyer/adopter to abide by this two-stage sterilization process, he/she will explain it and have it as part of the contract. Buyers/adopters always have the option not to agree with a breeder's policies, and go elsewhere to acquire their dogs.

Responsible ownership isn't just raising a good canine citizen. It is also planning financially for precisely these kinds of things (routine, preventative care; possibly spaying/neutering; emergencies such as foreign body ingestion, bloat, etc.; and even training; family vacations; relocation; and on and on). That's what it means to be a responsible dog owner. You do what's in the dog's best interest. And often what's in the dog's best interest is to be able to remain a part of the family in such a way as the owner is able to maintain the dog in a positive manner. (That's why being at least minimally-trained, and undergoing procedures like spay/neuter could be considered to be in a dog's best interests...because it means there's much less reason an owner would abandon the dog...especially for preventable reasons. Remaining in loving, reponsible homes for the rest of their natural lives is in the best interests of most domestic dogs.)

Arguments about the costs and contraindications of various elective procedures only proves to emphasize why making them 'mandatory' is probably not in anyone's best interests: dogs and their owners.

Marjorie April 14th, 2009 11:29:16 AM

You know, "take all the parts out" used to be the standard for women with uterine fibroids.  There had to be a whole grassroots movement of women who didn't want ALL the parts removed when the problem was limited to only ONE part (or rather, part of a part...).  Though some doctors are still in the darker ages, it is now possible for women to keep their parts.   There is a whole myriad of structural and hormonal values to keeping the parts.  (http://www.myomectomy.net/)

 

I have to assume the same would be true for dogs.

 

 

EmilyS April 14th, 2009 11:36:01 AM

I was always brought up that dogs were spayed and neutered for two reasons- to reduce unwanted pets, and to make them happier animals who won't be frustrated by the inability to procreate... I wouldn't opt for a procedure that merely sterilized my pets, but left them marking stuff, doin the humopy dance, and wandering.. Trust me-I know why the ancient Egyptians made there male slaves into eunuchs- they were happier without all the drama of sex. I had a total hysterectomy 4 yrs ago, and I think if my dogs are half as happy as I am, then neutering is a good thing for them. I don't know why the common pet owner would even want a procedure that wouldn't address the social aspect of the problem...I can stop my dog from hooking up with another(no pun intended), but I woudn't be able to take the desire away if they just got snipped instead of stripped...

agadoresmama April 14th, 2009 11:42:15 AM

humpy dance not humopy sorry

agadoresmama April 14th, 2009 11:43:46 AM

Note: I now promise to stay off the topic of sex, breeding and sterilization for a spell lest more of you begin to wonder if I’m subconsciously in the market for more children (which I’m not, thank you very much).

Alright then Doc. How bout a few tales of weird clients so we can keep our people skills sharp. Perhaps adventures in dealing with veterinary product representatives in polos and khakis handing out pens and t-shirts.

 

 

Evet April 14th, 2009 11:47:48 AM

Based on prior discussions here and some additional research I did, I'm convinced my early pet cats were sterilized through tubal ligations and vasectomies.  All at about 6 months of age.  All of those pets were far healthier than those that were sterilized by the current "standard spay and neuter (ovaries, uteruses and testicles out".  Now I know that the docs here are likely to immediately go to the "that's anecdotal" place in their heads so...

I WANT SOME SCIENCE PLEASE.  One, the other, or both and 8 weeks v. 6 months.  Who do we have to petition, coax, or bribe to get it?  (And please don't tell me of the benefits of the current method when there is no science to speak of on this threshold issue because the lack of that makes studies of the diseases highly suspect in my book.)

(And another thanks to Dr. K.  My Shiba is down to 23 1/4 pounds and my Lab has lost enough so that her harness is quite loose [although I can't get this blinking vet scale to work since I moved it so don't know exactly how much she's lost] and their both getting down right feisty.)

PJBoosinger April 14th, 2009 12:31:38 PM

There would be no reason to spay if owners were responsible about females in heat....I have had several animals that I bred,, and they NEVER got bred by accident. On th eother hand I have had countless clients tell me that 1) she go tbred by accident, and 2) they couldnt spay her becasue she was pregnant. Bull hockey!! We spay and neuter not only for fertility but also to curb the secondary sexual characteristics-estrus behavior, roaming, aggression, bleeding on the furniture, vocalizing (all night), running out the door to get hit by cars in oursuit of sexual satisfaction (a basic biological urge in the intact animal). If one follows the vasectomy logic, one need only vasectomize stallions and the world would be great.... As a breeder I insured that my animals would not be bred by having them altered before leaving my care and custody or having them returned to me for surgery or having a letter ffrom a licensed DVM that such ahd been done. AKC would help us if they would disallow registration of affspring without the original breeder's permission. CFA (cats) has this provision. Maybe Hormone replacement therapy following altering... I did tubals on farm cats for a client. We did vasectomies on the males also. Bite abscesses were a problem. THe females disappeared persumably due to sexual frustration and looking for mates while pursuing their basic biological needs. After a few years of all the females going away, and treaing fight wounds, we decided that spay/neuter was more beneficial to them.

Kim Houlding April 14th, 2009 12:49:47 PM

Fascinating topic and discussion! Thank you so much. Do the buyers of the puppies KNOW they've been sterilized? (Yes, I know, with a "good" breeder the answer would of course be yes...) Can the owner of a sterilized animal still show them in the breed ring with the AKC? (Does the AKC get to know that the danglies behind are disconnected?!)

Can you UNDO the procedure? (I have a human friend who got untied and created a second family...)

Tubal ligation means they still go through a heat cycle with menstration and everything, right? Does it last three weeks like "normal" every six to nine months?

I know many dog mushers who refuse early spay/neuter based on this growth plate thing and their concerns that the body structure and the performance capability of the animal will be compromised by early spay/neuter. Of course they also don't invest because it's "too expensive"...but that's another story. Thanks so much for the post and for ALL the comments besides!

LynnO April 14th, 2009 03:26:04 PM

LynnO: When I've performed this procedure I've made sure that I've taken a big enough piece out of the middle of my slice so that the chance of being able to reverse it is minimal (not how it's done in humans.

I'm assuming the buyers know this and are informed. 

I'm not sure about the AKC issue. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 14th, 2009 04:43:03 PM

Hope Dr. Wosar didn't read that last line:)

I'm starting to rethink this, years ago I would have automatically said no. But if it were proven to be *very* safe, maybe at 4 mos. (8 weeks is awful small 4-6 lbs), and performed laproscopically, maybe it would be a good alternative.

I too subscribe to the bone & body development theory to avoid s/n. It is also published that some cancers pose higher risks in altered Scottish Terriers: TCC, bone.

And who's to say that pyometra is an "automatic" or very high risk---any studies on that? I suppose one could go ahead with the "early version" and make a decision whether hormones are too much to cope with either for the pet or the owner, or both!

Not all intact males are unbearable ---humpy pisspots!

Barbara's comments & pics

Barbara A. Albright/NH April 14th, 2009 04:59:34 PM

Barbara: I've always felt that if a female dog is lucky enough to live long enough she'll have a pyo. But really, it's closer to 50%.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 14th, 2009 05:01:50 PM

Dr. K: 50% is awful high risk, so a spay is definitely a recommend. The males are at least a "good realistic option". And you can't have unwanted pups without'em!

The 2 bitches I had spayed at 6 & 7 1/2 yrs. were my longest living gals...both outlived the ave. age of death for the breed by 3-3 1/2 yrs. I have an unbred spayed at 8 yrs., I'll be curious as to her longevity...but obviously won't prove a thing.

My only one with pyometra, got it on her 3rd season, unbred. Her whelping was no picnic either, with a "mummified" pup gumming up the works (only case of pyometra and only case of "mummified" pup I have ever had---but I don't have lots of experience either)

I always advocated & put into written agreement for companions, neutering by 18 mos., though 80% chose much sooner, typically 6 mos.

Barbara A. Albright/NH April 14th, 2009 05:44:09 PM

Bitches? Can't up the nomenclature a few notches?

Evet April 14th, 2009 06:26:02 PM

I'm all for tubals and vasectomies.  In fact, my females are not spayed until at least maturity and my males vary depending on personality - all eventually get done, but all are mature surgeries, and the males generally keep their bits much longer than the females.

The reason we opt for spay is not only the risk of pyo but also the increased risk of mammary tumors and the stress of heat seasons.  However, we wait until full maturity (physical and psychological, which can vary depending on breed and individual) until performing such a hormone-imbalancing procedure.

The reason we eventually opt for neuter is to avoid prostate enlargement in later years, although I have neutered a few of my rescued males because of negative behaviour that was allowed to manifest prior to our obtaining them.  Any male (or female for that matter) intact dog who has been raised in this home does not show any of the behaviours described above (marking, mounting, running out the door, roaming, etc). 

Why?  Ummm... we TRAIN them.  We are consistent in our communication with them from day one as far as what behaviour is acceptable, and what behaviour is not.  With rescued dogs, hormones can cause some aggression/mounting/marking behaviour in males that is then allowed by irresponsible/untrained OWNERS to become habitual.  When we receive adult males who have these issues, we neuter them as soon as they are healthy enough - simply to make our training easier.  That's not to say that leaving them intact would render them untrainable, or would guarantee that they would continue said behaviours - but removing the hormonal urge is just one step we can take to remove some of the pressure off of an animal who is 'misbehaving' because no one taught him how to control his urges properly.

I want to also stress that discussing this procedure in cats is a completely different basket altogether.  Cats are extremely different animals physiologically, and their sexual and reproductive natures are much stronger than that of a dog.  Their cycles are almost constant as long as the right stimulus is provided, and their behaviours much more difficult to modify - after all, while I'm not going to say cats are not trainable (we train ours for commercials) behaviour modification and training are two different things.  Introduce sex hormones into the mix and personally I don't believe there is a humane training theory strong enough to change a cat's intact behaviour.

Dogs, on the other hand, are far more willing subjects - after all, in a wolf pack only the leaders (the parents) mate.  Many wolves trade their sexual freedom for the comfort and security provided by the pack, and are seemingly content to do so.  With their domesticated behaviour patterns, dogs are even more willing, given the proper incentives.  The idea that an intact dog is out of control while an altered dog is not is silly.  After all, there are lots of intact male humans running around who don't feel the need to hump every leg they see.  Of course, there will always be exceptions, but again, it says more about upbringing than about gonads.  ;O)

My apologies for the wandering post...

 

Kim April 14th, 2009 07:37:01 PM

Kim: I don't see it as a good alternative in feline "queens" at all, anyone that has had one go in "heat" knows how bad it can be!

Evet: sorry for using the correct terminology...didn't mean to offend.

Barbara A. Albright/NH April 14th, 2009 07:51:29 PM

Interesting...so if we started doing tubals and vasectomies instead of spays and neuters, would spays and neuters then become "elective" procedures, done mostly out of convenience (to avoid behavioral issues, heat cycles, etc.), or considered "prophylactic" surgery (to avoid pyometra, prostatic hypertrophy, etc.)? Geez, I can only imagine the controversy that could cause. I think it's a neat idea, though - and I also think it's kinda funny that we haven't been doing it all along...I can hear the vet saying, "back in my day, we just tied tubes...not we take the whole mess out", lol.

anna April 14th, 2009 08:16:53 PM

Because my breed is at increased risk for CCL rupture, I prefer they not be altered until after one year. But almost all my puppy owners have opted for 6 months. 

I think I may suggest vasectomies or tubals for those who just cannot hold off. Better a second surgery to alter than a 3-5K TPLO.

An altered dog will often go through some adolescent issues. Neutering does not guarantee that with maturity, a young dog of either sex will not begin pushing boundaries.

My rescue operates primarily in the San Francisco bay area and a lot of the dogs we get were altered at 8-10 weeks.

We see dog aggression, shyness, excessive barking, destructiveness, resource guarding, fear aggression and dominance issues in these dogs too. More human directed and or fear based aggression frankly than in the intact dogs. Enough to make me very wary of pediatric gonadectomy.

My experience is anecdotal but CCI did a study and saw much the same.

I'm a big fan of spay/neuter, particularly low cost/high volume. My girls get altered, but generally after age five. Knock on wood, no pyos and no mammary cancers. My males stay intact. What I don't see, have never seen, is mental suffering/frustration in my adult dogs due to being intact. Most issues caused by hormones can be mitigated with training, exercise and good management.  Of course, teenagers are teenagers no matter the species! But get through that short period of an intact male dog's life and there's no reason that they should not be perfect gentlemen.

 

JenniferJ April 14th, 2009 08:21:25 PM

If ligation and vasectomy gets the job done, I'm all for it. In a perfect world, people would have sense and wouldn't have "oops" litters or "let's make a few bucks" litters and only folks who invested their sweat, blood and tears (not to mention money) would breed, so this discussion would be moot as folks with intact animls would treat them appropriately. However, this world is far from perfect. While I myself cannot foresee ever having a dog/cat/rabbit that wasn't spayed/neuterd (or done so quite soon after it was in my care, due to health/age etc), if someone else wants to, I have no qualms with it. So long as they aren't adding to the problem of animals with no homes, never mind bad breeding in general, that's fine by me. Especially since so many shelters have no choice but to s/n @ 8 weeks/ 2 pounds (cats, bigger for dogs I'm sure), maybe this would be better for the dog's overall life, esp. giant breeds. But that's just my .02, and I'm not a medical professional, just a sucker.

Brooke April 14th, 2009 08:34:08 PM

Thats okay Barbara I could fully justify your refering to the males as "bastards" being I am one on occasion.

LOL

Evet April 14th, 2009 09:49:15 PM

On a flippant note, when I reread this topic, I started wondering if we should start handing out icepacks or frozen pea bags for the boys post vasectomies?

AlexH April 14th, 2009 09:58:55 PM

How about vasectomies for feral tomcats? Some years back I did vasectomies on toms for a breeder who sometimes needed to quiet a queen in estrus. Generally she had one such tom to mate, induce ovulation and postpone breeding until the next heat -- often a few weeks. She also would loan him out to friends who needed this "service." Her alternative involved a modified Broxodent (electric toothbrush with modified tip) but that's a whole 'nuther story. In the case of ferals, the sterile, but otherwise ardent, toms could compete with the fertile tomcats in a particular territory for fettile queens. It would be comparable to releasing irradiated fruit flies. In this way, they might do more to limit overpopulation than released castrated toms who just hang around and watch. They might also be better fit to survive in the open than their gonadectomized counterparts.

Dr. Steve Dubin April 14th, 2009 10:17:51 PM

I wonder if these procedures aren't sometimes elected for the specific purpose of sterilizing a dog while continuing to indulge one's dog show hobby.

The judge can't tell the boy has been snipped, and I assume there would be no scar on a bitch.  Altered animals are specifically banned from the pageant ring.  But some dog show junkies just want to show the dog, and aren't interested in breeding.

As for vasectomizing feral toms -- interesting, but not only is much mortality among feral males the result of testosterone-fueled fights, it makes them nasty and dangerous to to other animals.

I was very worried when the local feral colony thought to set up shop in my barn, where my own kittens lived.  A tomcat would kill them as soon as look at them.  This remains true now that they are smallish sterilized adults.

If you want humans to accept feral colonies, de-tomming the tomcats, which cuts down on noise, violence, and chemical warfare, is a cornerstone of managing the colony.

H. Houlahan April 14th, 2009 11:09:16 PM

I think vasectomy/tubal ligation is a WONDERFUL option, and most of the people I know who would be interested in doing this ARE breeders. 

 

Not too many of the readers here are breeders - but a lot of you volunteer in shelters or rescues, so you also understand that no matter how carefully you screen new owners, sometimes they turn out to be less responsible than you would wish.  As a breeder, I would definitely be willing to have vasectomies or tubals done on young puppies who are going to families that I don't know VERY well.   And yes,  as the breeder I would foot that bill - you lose so much money anyway what's another thousand or two? :-)

 

Even if the dog is very likely to turn out to be breeding quality, it would be worth it to avoid an accidental breeding or irresponsible breeding.  Of course, I also do Limited registrations, but those are only effective if the owner wants to register the offspring of "my" puppy with the AKC.  It's too easy nowadays to just register puppies with one of the fly-by-night registries out there if they can't be registered with AKC.  Selling puppies who have been sterilized but still have their hormones available for proper development sounds like the best of both worlds.  This also would be a good option for giant breed rescues - every time the Dane rescue I volunteer with gets a young puppy I cringe when we spay or castrate it  and worry that we may be dooming the dog to premature orthopedic problems, or an increased rate of osteosarcoma - but we are committed to only adopting out dogs that have been sterilized.

 

In the case of the females, most pet owners will still want to get them spayed as soon as possible because it can be a bit of a hassle to deal with the heat cycles.  It's really not hard, but it does take some knowledge and some management.

 

For the males, I think the health issues regarding neutered vs. intact are pretty much a draw - at least for large and giant breeds.  Behavior problems are usually more a matter of training than anything.  How many obnoxious neutered males do you know?  I know a LOT of them.  But I also know  a lot of intact males that are wonderful.  So I don't really care if a pet owner eventually gets his vasectomized pet castrated or not - as long as the family is happy with the dog that's all that matters.  And even if he does get out, at least he can't produce unwanted puppies.

Barb April 14th, 2009 11:11:02 PM

I should also point out that when we take in rescue dogs for the purpose of re-homing, we alter them regardless of age - mostly for the reasons outlined by Barb above.

If these less invasive procedures were available to me instead, I would feel far more comfortable and far less conflicted with the neuter/not neuter quandry I face (pet population/trust vs. medical concerns).

We have an "altered" vaccine schedule, which includes fewer and less frequent vaccinations (parvo and distemper only, initial and booster, and then rabies after 6-8 months of age, and possibly one booster a year later depending on breed and genetic risk level).  It only follows that we would then look into tailoring every aspect of their medical care to our (hopefully) cautious existing program.

As previously mentioned, the expense of an additional small, standard surgical procedure is small compared with the increase in cancers, ligament and bone issues, spay incontinence and endocrine disorders that have been connected to early speuter.

Our choice to alter ALL rescue animals is made for an obvious reason, but is nonetheless a difficult one for us to make with our holistic-leaning practices.  The option for tubal ligation and vasectomy would make this decision an easy one for us, and the remainder of which could be left up to the new owners - who could then research the issue and make their OWN decision.

Kim April 14th, 2009 11:55:29 PM

I'd be surprised if many show exhibitors who don't breed opt for these procedures. It's just not that hard to separate a female in heat for a few weeks twice yearly. I have a good friend whose shown dogs, both sexes,  for thirty years in both conformation and obedience,  but has never had a litter.  The dogs are not kenneled either, they're house dogs. I know she does nothing more than basic good management and has never had a "whoops".

Now there may surely  be a few jackasses out there who spay bitches to keep them in coat and then show them against the rules, but there are a few in every crowd.

 

JenniferJ April 15th, 2009 12:01:27 AM

What i'm wondering is if there would be a way to prove that a dog had a vasectomy long after the fact. For example, I wouldn't personally want to see such dogs in the show ring since the show procedure is essentially an evaluation of breeding stock. And I can see fanciers entering vasectomied dogs to make points, or even breeders making "pet" people show vasectomied stock aiming for that all-champion litter. In small breeds where you have two or three puppies, I can easily see that happening. When the dog has something that the breeder doesn't want in their bloodlines but isn't that bad of a fault. Or a hidden health problem in an otherwise well-structured dog. I mean I don't think its a huge problem, it wouldn't bother me too much if a sterilized dog was shown in the same ring as my dogs. But the principle bugs me a bit. <br><br>

But if i theoretically had a sterilized but not neutered dog, I'd want official documentation of it. Like an official collar tag, or a card that can be carried in my wallet, or even a tiny but evident tattoo on the dog given at the time of the sterilization procedure. I mean for everyday pet-related activities, like boarding/day care, or for the dog park. Since the dog would still have the same biological urges to mount a bitch in heat, and sometimes accidents happen, i'd want to be able to prove on the spot that the male was sterile to prevent trouble. I think vets should implement some sort of system, sort of like with rabies tags/certificates/numbers. <br><br>

Honestly, though, I think that this sort of sterilization is a great option and needs to be advertised more. I'm sure that there are plenty of "macho men" owners that hate the idea of neutering that would more easily be convinced into allowing their male dogs a vasectomy.  And IMO every dog sold in a pet store should have it done. Many puppy mills already implemented microchipping (otherwise they wouldn't be able to get AKC registration... it works for the mills who still use AKC as opposed to CKC at least). I mean I'm personally totally against mandatory spay/neuter laws that have been brought up recently, but legislation pertaining specifically to sterilizing pet store puppies (but not removing their gonads) wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Tatyana April 15th, 2009 02:37:24 AM

Eli - sorry to hear about your ACD (go cattle dogs!!!).  So many people think that only large/giant breeds are affected by the lack of hormones, however any dog with a structure on either end of the spectrum (thin, wispy build or square, heavy build) is likely to be affected - and even those "moderate" dogs are certainly at some level of risk.

Cattle dogs are a good example - males are only 30-55lbs, generally, but they are squarely built and well-muscled.  Not to an extreme, but certainly moreso than the "average" (generally accepted as a cur-type build).  Add to that their extreme range of motion and urge to "play through the pain" and you have a dog in serious trouble should you do anything to stack the deck against them in the field of skeletal or muscular development.

We understand what pre-pubescent castration does to humans... why do we wave these issues away when it comes to dogs?  I think Christie Keith has written the best overall article on the subject, with references to numerous studies.  Her overall view is that yes, pet overpopulation is an issue, and perhaps Joe Average can not be trusted with an intact dog... but that doesn't make it RIGHT to fudge the facts to lure them into speuter surgery.  As with any procedure, owners (like human patients) should be made aware of all possible negative outcomes and side effects.

Dr. K - what would the veterinary community's reaction be if the 4-20% of female dogs who experience spay incontinence (the usual number that gets thrown around) sued their veterinarians for not informing them prior to surgery that this was a potential side effect... one that is serious enough in some cases to cause the dog to be shelter-bound or even slated for euthanasia.  Not to mention the damage and stress wreaked on the home and owners...

I'm not saying this is what should happen, but certainly given the laundry list of issues related to early speuter should require some kind of disclosure statement to be signed prior to surgery, no?

Kim April 15th, 2009 06:14:57 PM

Not being a dog show junkie, I would never have thought it through that this was an end run around the silly AKC rule of not showing altered dogs.  I know several people I'll be passing it on to though since I do adamantly think the "in tact" rule is beyond silly.

PJBoosinger April 15th, 2009 07:19:46 PM

Kim: Interesting question. Because it's considered the "standard of care," nothing would come of any lawsuits. But, the times they are a' changing. I predict this issue will get murkier before it gets clearer.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 15th, 2009 07:30:33 PM

All of the cat registries allow alters to be shown.  They must meet the same standards as the in tact animals and are shown in an "Alter" or "Premier" class earning their own point totals but not competing head to head with the in tact cats.  They are registered in the same manner but there is a separate box on the forms to indicate the alter class.

For anyone who wants to keep an in tact male cat in the house, it is not easy.  The fighting behavior may not be a problem, but the spraying and strong odors are!  Pyo isn't the only problem with the females, mammary cancer is also more common in in tact females. 

I think another concern would be in the shelter and rescue area as to whether a dog or cat has been sterilized or needs to be.  If there is no easy way to tell, the animal is going to be subjected to another surgery.

Moira April 16th, 2009 12:01:14 AM

As a breeder, I think that it allows for a wonderful compromise.  I already have in my contract a spay/neuter clause.  I have considered early spay/neutering and in a few instances have had puppies s/n prior to them going to their new homes.  I agonized over the decision to do so from the time of birth to the day I had it done.  What tipped the scales into the s/n outcome was hearing from the breeder who I had gotten my first dog from.  She had sold a puppy to someone she met and trusted (he had great references), complete with a s/n and a take-back clause in the contract.  The person decided the puppy wasn't a good fit and then went and sold it to someone else, who then sold it to a puppy miller.  My friend found out a few months later.  It would kill me to have a dog that I brought into this world end up in such a situation.  Not only that, but her kennel name is now found in some puppymill's pedigrees (which is such a minor point when put next to the fact that one of her babies is in a puppymill - but it is still another bad thing to come out of the whole situation).  If s/n a dog prior to placement in a new home will prevent that I would do (and have done) it, even if it meant that I was increasing the risk of other potential health issues associated with early s/n.  To be given another option such as tubal ligations and vasectomies for sterilizing puppies prior to placement, is a win/win for me.  The puppies are sterilized before leaving my home, and they can keep their reproductive organs until which time their new owners decide to have them removed.  It also puts some choice into the hands of the new owners.  If they decide that they want the dog to participate in sports (racing/coursing/agility/etc), then they can keep the testicles in or neuter after growth plates close.  

Since I register entire litters in my name with full AKC registration for the potential show puppies, and limited registration for the pet puppies, there are no surprises for the new owner nor the AKC (in reference to showing sterilized pets).  People are either ethical or not.  If you spend time in the presence of someone who is not ethical, it does become apparent eventually.  These people will always find a way around the rules, so I try to protect my own interest in the best way I can.  I am definitely going to talk to my vet about the possibility of doing these procedures on future litters.

 

JP April 16th, 2009 01:32:25 PM

Shelters who take payment upfront for spay/neuter surgery find that between 40-60% of adopters don't follow through and have the surgery done. This includes both cats and dogs and my guess more dogs then cats are altered but there is still a large leakage that contributes to the over-population problem.

Robert Garnett April 16th, 2009 01:58:20 PM

Kim, you said, "AKC would help us if they would disallow registration of affspring (sic) without the original breeder's permission." This confuses me, because doesn't the Limited Registration option do just this? Co-ownership of breeding stock pretty much takes care of your concern too, although dishonest people could forge a signature.

 

Deanna April 17th, 2009 10:36:54 PM

What's funny is that one of the nicest cats I've had was an intact tom who wandered in one day from the local feral colony. Given how comfortable he was with people, I have to assume he was an abandoned pet, but all I know is that the neighbors had seen him fighting with the other cats for months. I spent several months looking for an owner before deciding that I was justified in signing the surgery authorization. In that time I had an intact tom sleeping in my bed who never did anything even slightly antisocial.

Bob Brown April 19th, 2009 05:41:37 PM

شات

amal_ May 22nd, 2009 09:57:05 AM

The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .

 

GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:55:11 AM

“Marriage bridal gown world pictures pictures of wanted to plan a happy surprise, a number of wedding photography studio is the purpose of holding more money ‘Kengren’, they set a ‘trap’ let you keep track of.” Wedding photos has just finished a small selection mother told the journalists, was originally a good original price 7999 yuan Zhao Shuren said that the wedding package, less than 2,000 yuan only to 5999 yuan.

bridal November 25th, 2009 12:24:28 AM

M65 Field Jacket

m65 field jacket January 21st, 2010 01:42:00 AM

I had two intact tomcats for years, who were wonderful pets. They were indoor/outdoor cats, always free to come and go. One eventually decided he'd rather go, and left us to live with our neighbors. The other lived with us until a ripe old age, and is buried in the yard. We never had any problem with nastiness or spraying urine. The only unusual thing people would notice was that they had big heads.

My next batch of cats was a pair of males, unfixed, acquired as kittens. Unfortunately, when I was on a week's vacation, my then-partner sneaked them to the vet and got them neutered without telling me. I only found out years later by coming across the vet bill! It caused one of our first real fights.

After one of them died in traffic, I sought and eventually got a kitten. (It took about a year -- we wanted one without a microchip. We don't chip our kids, nor our pets.) We ended up with a feral female kitten, who has become very loving with good training. She has been in heat once so far. Now I'm looking for a vet who'll do a tubal ligation on her. I think it's likely that I'll just have to let her breed, which is stupid because neither I nor the vets want that. But they're bullheaded; we're in California and they're so politically correct that they'll rip out half a dozen of an animal's organs without a second thought, but they refuse to do a much simpler procedure. They claim it's to reduce the risk of cancer, but I don't see them doing it to their own kids. What a crazy perversion of preventive medicine has developed here! Might as well get rid of ALL the organs while they're at it -- it eliminates all chance of future cancers and all other diseases too. Just leave the skin as a nice throw-rug for the cat owner to enjoy.

Anybody know of a sane vet who'll tie tubes in the San Francisco bay area?

johnny March 4th, 2010 08:27:11 PM