Willem

quote: “… potential health problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an increased risk of prostatic cancer in males; increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large-breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity; and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism.” ... and this quote is from...?...supersize, surprise ...http://www.dogsports.com/rethinkingspayneuter.html

if he is one of the unlucky ones that get an early cancer due to de-sexing or joint and ligament problems he won't be relaxed either. Our family has always had male dogs and all have been desexed. To be honest they have all passed in old age and none of them have had cancer as you state Willem. Me personally, would always have my dogs, either male or female desexed because, even though I buy them through registered breeders, have no desire to show or breed with them. The decision is ours as a family and I envisage this decision will continue My last 4 male dogs were all castrated - None had cancer two lived into old age , two had catastrophic health emergencies and were PTS. All were VERY active - and one only had a luxating patella - due to an injury sustained as a youngster . It was surgically fixed, and he never had a relapse. I have had pet bitches who were speyed ..these all lived into old age with no cancer or joint problems Willem - can you show us what cancers and when desexed dogs get ? I provided 5 links to scientific studies in my post #80 - I'm very, very reluctant to summarize the findings of them on my own as everyone will tell me then, that these findings would be just my opinion. All these studies are scientific based, not blogs or opinions from an individual. And all the studies come to the conclusion that early de-sexing will increase health risks (it is not only cancer) and ligament and joint issues. I will keep my dog entire - would this be a guarantee that she will never has to cope with one of the issues? ...of course not. Nor is it scientific evidence if someone had 10 de-sexed dogs and none of them had cancer or ligament issues. I know people who lived nearly for 100 years despite that they have been heavy smokers - individual cases don't proof anything. Conversely, regarding to the 5 studies I listed, no one here came up with a recent study that would a) contradict the finding of the mentioned studies, and b) verify that de-sexing has no negative health effects. But again, everyone is entitled to take from this information provided in this thread whatever he / she wants. Eta: and I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer why we classify cropping of ears and docking of tails as animal cruelty, but at the same time we have no scruple to justify cutting a dog's ball off or remove the uterus following our desire for more convenience. We even accept it as a measure to manipulate the hormones to gain an advantage in a sporting competition like agility - and at the same time people wonder about the dodgy trainings methods adopted by some parts of the greyhound industry.

it is totally up to you what you put down your throat, really, I don't give a damn - if you don't want to read what I publish here just put me on the ignore list, I'm absolutely happy with this. Not nice : the only thing I do here is providing / sharing information - it is totally, absolutely totally up to everyone what he / she takes from it, and whether they think the information in the links I provide have some merits or not. Others are keen to claim the opposite and contradict my comments heavily, however, they are very reluctant to come up with something substantial....and that's ok too. I don't 'force' anyone to believe what I share here - everyone is entitled to his / her own opinion. If the questions I ask here, or the information I provide here, are inconvenient for some readers, they don't have to read it, they can even put me on their 'Ignore List' and that's absolutely fine with me.

it is totally up to you what you put down your throat, really, I don't give a damn - if you don't want to read what I publish here just put me on the ignore list, I'm absolutely happy with this.

if he is one of the unlucky ones that get an early cancer due to de-sexing or joint and ligament problems he won't be relaxed either. Our family has always had male dogs and all have been desexed. To be honest they have all passed in old age and none of them have had cancer as you state Willem. Me personally, would always have my dogs, either male or female desexed because, even though I buy them through registered breeders, have no desire to show or breed with them. The decision is ours as a family and I envisage this decision will continue just to clarify this: I never have stated that all dogs that have been de-sexed will end up with cancer - however, based on recent studies there are strong hints that de-sexing will increase risk regarding cancer and ligament issues significantly.

if he is one of the unlucky ones that get an early cancer due to de-sexing or joint and ligament problems he won't be relaxed either. Can you quote your source for this comment? I'm curious to read a validated paper on the connection between desexing and joint/ligament issues. I'm also really keen to see the study showing desexing and early cancer connections. see post #42... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0055937 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102241 http://www.caninesports.com/uploads/1/5/3/1/15319800/vizsla_javma_study.pdf http://saova.org/articles/Early%20SN%20and%20Behavior.pdf?hc_location=ufi Eta: here a recent one (May 2016) about the impacts on German Shepherds http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/vms3.34/full

if he is one of the unlucky ones that get an early cancer due to de-sexing or joint and ligament problems he won't be relaxed either.

wrt your concerns about health issues you might also be interested in this thread http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/267474-vaccichecklooking-for-interested-dog-owners/. There are statistics showing that the average live span of dogs declined over the last years by approx. 11%, despite new science, better (?) food and better (???) medical care, and there are strong hints that over-vaccination and de-sexing play a major part in the shorter life span. http://www.doglistener.co.uk/why-are-our-dogs-dying-so-early There is nothing in that link to support your claims. The link you have provided is an opinion piece, not an academic study. Furthermore, if you go to the original source, you'll see that the results are descriptive statistics only. So no conclusions can be drawn about any associations with desexing etc. You also cannot conclude that there is a difference in lifespan; as is noted, the surveys are not comparable because there were substantial differences in the way they were conducted. This is why you need to review and understand the literature before using it in an attempt to support your argument. we still waiting for your 'scientific sources' you are still holding back (see post #44)- and I can conclude, leave this with me, sometimes you just have to put one and one together. I guess you would have also told people who claimed already 40 years ago that smoking wasn't healthy that they are wrong based on the arguments of the all mighty tobacco industry. Eta this quote from the link: Neutering removes or seriously reduces three of the most important hormones in any mammal. Oestrogen, Progesterone, and Testosterone. These are not optional extras like a satnav. They are vital components for a healthy, well-balanced dog. Think and research long and hard before ever having this procedure done three of the most important hormones - before I would do anything that would compromise the control of those hormones I for sure want to see the proof that there are no negative side effects when I gamble with the outcome of thousands years of evolution, and not the other way around. And if there are any serious hints indicating serious side effects, yes I take them serious...and the recent Golden Retriever and Lab studies are scientific studies that can't be ignored. Eta ....and wrt the 'academic horse' your are riding: I worked nearly 10 years for the American Battelle Institute as a scientist - I think I'm pretty capable of evaluating all kind of scientific and not so scientific information.

well, de-sexing a male wasn't done always under anesthetic too - so where is the difference? ...the point is that even if I would dock or crop my dog under anesthetic, all done by a vet (yes, I know I wouldn't find a vet to do it if there is no emergency) and with no more pain involved as it is associated with de-sexing, it is still classified as animal cruelty while cropping / docking the balls / uterus are not.

that's an interesting position paper from the AVA wrt mandatory de-sexing: http://www.naiaonline.org/uploads/WhitePapers/Mandatory_Desexing_Statement_Dec071.pdf quote: Unfortunately, this apparently simple solution has failed where it has been tried, including in Australia and will fail if introduced more widely . Mandatory desexing is easy to call for and appears, on the surface, to be a logical solution to high euthanasia levels in shelters and pounds. Theoretical modelling and real-world evidence however, strongly suggests that the logic is fundamentally flawed.

wrt your concerns about health issues you might also be interested in this thread http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/267474-vaccichecklooking-for-interested-dog-owners/. There are statistics showing that the average live span of dogs declined over the last years by approx. 11%, despite new science, better (?) food and better (???) medical care, and there are strong hints that over-vaccination and de-sexing play a major part in the shorter life span. http://www.doglistener.co.uk/why-are-our-dogs-dying-so-early

@ corvus & WoofnHoof: I could use the same argumentation (...pros and cons, old fashion overthinking, no apparent ill effects....) wrt docking and cropping of tails and ears - so how do we justify that latter is classified as animal cruelty and heavily fined, and the 'docking and cropping' of balls and uterus - which is unquestionable a much more extensive surgical modification - is ok as it serves our convenience?...isn't that the pinnacle of hypocrisy?

you might check out Applaws http://www.mypetwarehouse.com.au/applaws-its-all-good-sm-md-breed-adult-dog-food-15kg-p-24342 ...it seems Woolworth gave up on selling it (they had the 2.7 kg packages), I might go online - just have to freeze it as I only feed kibble as an addition.

if 'we leave it at that' I'm concerned we soon will have laws like in SA and ACT, and look what's happening now in VIC...and then there is no individual owner decision anymore! The more 'de-sexing' becomes a normal procedure or even a first choice of surgical modification, the sooner we will have the same laws here in NSW.

Their dog breeding laws are super strict. and the Swedish dogs know this so they behave differently :D ? That is just a silly comment. I will only respond to you if you stop trolling. no it is not. I only want to indicate that at the end it is up to the owner - the Swedish dog owners might have different motivations and drivers behind them, but at the end they demonstrate quite convincingly that you don't have to de-sex your dog to control over population. Conversely we can have the strictest breeding laws here in Australia, but if the puppy farmers and unregistered breeders don't do the right thing, nothing will have any impact on over population.

Their dog breeding laws are super strict. and the Swedish dogs know this so they behave differently :D ?

unfortunately, staffies are also a breed prone to cancers http://www.ufaw.org.uk/dogs/staffordshire-bull-terrier-mast-cell-tumour

Not really. Much of the research examining risks for certain types of cancers and joint disorders is breed-specific. For example, the second article you linked to is a study of labs and golden retrievers. Findings from studies such as this cannot be generalised to other breeds. So not very helpful for the OP who is getting an SBT. There are more recent and more rigorous academic studies reviewing current literature which conclude that, in general, the benefits of desexing likely heavily outweigh the risks. That's without even considering the benefits of reducing the number of unwanted dogs being dumped at pounds. if this is a valid argument, can someone explain to me why countries like Sweden where only less than 4% of male dogs and approx. 7% of bitches are de-sexed do not have any problems with overpopulation and pounds?...fact is that only USA and Australia is promoting de-sexing as the silver bullet for over-population, and fact is that obviously both countries have problems indicating that this strategy obviously doesn't work. Perhaps because Sweden has super strict pet ownership laws and dogs are expensive to buy there. wouldn't that be an even greater motivation for mass production?...with all the entire dogs available?

Not really. Much of the research examining risks for certain types of cancers and joint disorders is breed-specific. For example, the second article you linked to is a study of labs and golden retrievers. Findings from studies such as this cannot be generalised to other breeds. So not very helpful for the OP who is getting an SBT. There are more recent and more rigorous academic studies reviewing current literature which conclude that, in general, the benefits of desexing likely heavily outweigh the risks. That's without even considering the benefits of reducing the number of unwanted dogs being dumped at pounds. ...and you will enlighten us and publish the links to those 'more recent scientific studies' that contradicts the findings of the papers I provided? I'm not going to do your research for you. I have enough of my own to do. :laugh: Also, I'm not going to post articles that I have access to as an academic, as not all are publicly available. Before taking such a strong stance against desexing, it would be beneficial to do a more thorough and objective review of the academic literature beforehand (you will find relevant articles if you do this). Then if you decide to post study findings in an attempt to support your argument, you need to ensure that you have a good understanding of the study methodologies/limitations etc. that's a strange advice from someone hiding his/her sources of knowledge...you don't have to copy the articles, just provide the link to the published scientific study here.

at this stage no scientist can tell you exactly what impacts early de-sexing has on a dog - all the hints point to negative side effects, and assuming that there is any positive side effect is just gambling with the health of the dog. We know that the right hormone levels are vital for the mood / behaviour and immune system of a dog. In stress situation the adrenaline level is up, causing mammals to become less pain sensitive and increase overall performance, and we know roughly how the thyroid level effects the mood. We know that the testosterone level increases significantly in a young growing dog and that it will reach a peak after 6 to 18 month (approx., depending on individual dog and breed) if we don't cut his balls off before it happens. We know that the hormone levels vary over times and for different development periods, some hormones level will change even through the day. These hormone patterns are quite complex and they change all the time, one hormone level goes up, the other decreases, following a perfect program designed by thousands of years of evolution. If we interfere with this program without even knowing the details, we risk negative impacts regarding the dogs' immune system, reproductive system and normal behaviour. Those hormone patterns will vary even more during the development of a young dog when compared to a matured dog. We know that young dogs go through fear phases, and these fear phases are likely linked to specific hormone patterns - however, no one knows the details. So how can anyone make sure that the date of de-sexing a young dog doesn't interfere negatively with a fear phase?....no one can. There is very strong evidence (e.g. Viszla study) that early de-sexing increases the risk of anxiety in dogs (separation anxiety, fear of thunder, fear of humans and dogs leading to fear aggression etc.) significantly, and this is no surprise considering the importance of fear phases for the development of a dog.

Not really. Much of the research examining risks for certain types of cancers and joint disorders is breed-specific. For example, the second article you linked to is a study of labs and golden retrievers. Findings from studies such as this cannot be generalised to other breeds. So not very helpful for the OP who is getting an SBT. There are more recent and more rigorous academic studies reviewing current literature which conclude that, in general, the benefits of desexing likely heavily outweigh the risks. That's without even considering the benefits of reducing the number of unwanted dogs being dumped at pounds. if this is a valid argument, can someone explain to me why countries like Sweden where only less than 4% of male dogs and approx. 7% of bitches are de-sexed do not have any problems with overpopulation and pounds?...fact is that only USA and Australia is promoting de-sexing as the silver bullet for over-population, and fact is that obviously both countries have problems indicating that this strategy obviously doesn't work.

Not really. Much of the research examining risks for certain types of cancers and joint disorders is breed-specific. For example, the second article you linked to is a study of labs and golden retrievers. Findings from studies such as this cannot be generalised to other breeds. So not very helpful for the OP who is getting an SBT. There are more recent and more rigorous academic studies reviewing current literature which conclude that, in general, the benefits of desexing likely heavily outweigh the risks. That's without even considering the benefits of reducing the number of unwanted dogs being dumped at pounds. ...and you will enlighten us and publish the links to those 'more recent scientific studies' that contradicts the findings of the papers I provided?

saw 3 dead ones on the way dropping off the kids for school (along the Princess Highway before the Figtree / Wollongong exit); couldn't stop. On the way back I found this one approx. 500 m before the Dapto-Kanahooka exit; already in a bad decomposed state (based on the smell I would estimate that it was dead since 3-4 days), but no signs of being smashed by a car - really looked like it dropped dead from the sky.

I found it helpful to exercise it on staircases (also a good exercise for the own fitness level :) ) - when going up and down, the stairs dictate a certain rhythm and force the dog into the right position. If the staircase is interrupted by rest platforms: even better as these provide holding points. Find some public places with a lot of stairs and off you go.... Eta disclaimer: obviously exercising it on stairs is not suitable for all sizes of dogs - smaller dogs might struggle.

when working in Jabiru / NT the trees around the mine mess where shared by cockatoos and bats - in the morning the cockatoos flew out, the bats in; in the evening the bats out and the cockatoos in. A pretty noisy and stinky spectacle.