pebbles Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Interesting? (Well if the link works, I'm hopeless at this ) http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHea...euterinDOGS.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I know about this. I found some other stuff as well and posted on DOL because I wanted everybody to be aware of negative effects as well as positive. Well, the debate was pretty rough at the moments, desexing is viewed as a politically correct thing these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebbles Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 Well, there is usually two sides to most things and I'm not into chopping into my dogs for my convenience. Ok ducks for cover now suit on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Age Outlaw Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 An interesting read - thanx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Yep I've read it. One of the reasons I figured I will keep Noah entire, but I would spey any future bitches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunnwarren Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Must admit I agree with Pebbles, I dont like to get my dogs/bitches operated on unless its really necessary, just not worth the risk. In all my years of breeding and owning dogs I have never had an unwanted litter, just a matter of keeping an eye on things and knowing what your dogs are capable of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Well, I am impressed. I just wish you guys were here when I posted something that showed desexing as less than perfect solution to all problems. My mistake was I posted it on the Main forum and not here on Health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think this article is fine for DOLers - but for the general public it is a different kettle of fish. Mr and Mrs Average don't understand/don't want to do all the things required to keep an entire dog from producing a "whoopsie" litter. Most people think that avoiding the off leash park is all that is required. As such, I'm a fan of keeping the general message simple. For the vast majority of people, desexing your dog is low risk and avoids unwanted mutts cluttering up pounds. And while I'm on it - the science is a bit dodgy in the research. Statistics 101 will tell you that correlation doesn't equal causation. Just because desexed dogs are more obese, you can't conclude that desexing caused the obesity. There may be other common factors that contributed to it that had nothing to do with desexing. For example, the survery could have looked at entire dogs who where show dogs. They are far more likely to be fit than the average family desexed dog. This has nothing to do with the state of their "bits", but rather a showie is more likely to get the top notch care and food compared to the family dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Good post, megan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunnwarren Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Perhaps Mr and Mrs Average aren't told of the pros and cons desexing can cause, there are not too many vets out there that will tell them what the cons are, just the pros. As far as obesity is concerned (it's one of my pet hates) I had to have a bitch neutered for health reasons and was forever cutting her food back because she tended to put on weight very easily, never have that problem with my entire bitches. People just do it for the simple reason that they can't be bothered with the 6 month cycle their bitches go through, more bitches are desexed then dogs, it's a known fact just for the owners convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candycane Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Perhaps Mr and Mrs Average aren't told of the pros and cons desexing can cause, there are not too many vets out there that will tell them what the cons are, just the pros. As far as obesity is concerned (it's one of my pet hates) I had to have a bitch neutered for health reasons and was forever cutting her food back because she tended to put on weight very easily, never have that problem with my entire bitches. People just do it for the simple reason that they can't be bothered with the 6 month cycle their bitches go through, more bitches are desexed then dogs, it's a known fact just for the owners convenience. This is true. I am just an average, everyday dog owner and I was scared into getting my girl desexed @ 6 months. I wanted to wait untill she was about 18 months and had finnished growing, but I was told that a male dog would get to her anyway possible when she's on heat. I didn't want to be fending off all these boys for 3 weeks, not be able to walk her ect, so I got her desexed @ 6months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pebbles Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 Megan, you say that this article is fine for DOLers and yet the number of times, regardless of the problem, the first question is "is the dog desexed", male and female, to avoid and/or help with behaviour, health, etc. Testicular cancer is mentioned often (I've never known of a dog with this) and other health risks but never given the other side where, apart from the risk, although perhaps minimal, of the operation, there are many long term problems which can crop up, some apparently affecting some breeds in particular. I think a balanced discussion of the possible outcomes of speying/neutering should be given. Desexing is not the answer IMO unless for a related diagnosed health issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Perhaps Mr and Mrs Average aren't told of the pros and cons desexing can cause, there are not too many vets out there that will tell them what the cons are, just the pros. As far as obesity is concerned (it's one of my pet hates) I had to have a bitch neutered for health reasons and was forever cutting her food back because she tended to put on weight very easily, never have that problem with my entire bitches. People just do it for the simple reason that they can't be bothered with the 6 month cycle their bitches go through, more bitches are desexed then dogs, it's a known fact just for the owners convenience. Obesity in dogs is one of my pet hates too. But I still stand behind my reasoning - because you have one bitch that is podgy and desexed and others that are entire and a good weight does not a scientific argument make - it is just an anecdote. My desexed bitch is on the skinny side, for example. There is something else amiss with the statistics the article presents. The article says "6 times more likely to get xxx" etc. Even if we accept causation, these numbers are pretty meaningless because they don't tell us the base rates of disease xxx. For example, if a disease as a 0.00001% chance of occurring, then a 6 times increase is only 0.00006%. Sloppy science at best, alarmist at worst. A lot of people would look at the list of cons and hit the panic button and not desex, they wouldn't analyse the statistics and look for causal links. What do you suppose should happen to the litters that get produced? There are plenty of good dog owners who desex their pets. There are plenty of good owners who don't and proactively manage the bitch/dog during this period with runs with covers, concrete flooring etc. Both my dog and bitch are desexed. I don't consider myself to be a bad owner who just did it out of "convenience". Rather, I looked at my home situation (I don't have dog runs, I don't want to put my girl in a kennel for extended periods), my level of expertise and made the best decision based on my circumstances. I believe that the decision that I made is the right one for the majority of pet owners, because their situation is very similar to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Ever the peacemaker, I think you're both right The science is poor in the article (way too many 'associations', poor methodology, animal selection etc) but, I agree, we do need to have both sides of the story So many people ask me whether I'm going to have Zig castrated when I get another (male) pup....for reasons of behaviour and health....god forbid I should have 2 males that will know their place in life and will get on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Megan, you say that this article is fine for DOLers and yet the number of times, regardless of the problem, the first question is "is the dog desexed", male and female, to avoid and/or help with behaviour, health, etc. Testicular cancer is mentioned often (I've never known of a dog with this) and other health risks but never given the other side where, apart from the risk, although perhaps minimal, of the operation, there are many long term problems which can crop up, some apparently affecting some breeds in particular. I think a balanced discussion of the possible outcomes of speying/neutering should be given. Desexing is not the answer IMO unless for a related diagnosed health issue. I have no problem with a balanced view been given - as long as the science is solid and the message is not alarmist. I'm also trying to look at this wrt the bigger picture. This isn't about my dog and your dog - it is about an issue we have in our society whereby we have a glut of dogs, and people (real world, not DOLers) talk happily about the "oopsie" litters and the $$$ they got for them. One way to stop this - the easiest way to stop this - is for desexing to become socially acceptable unless someone has a good reason not to (health, great example of breed to be bred ethically etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candycane Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Megan, you say that this article is fine for DOLers and yet the number of times, regardless of the problem, the first question is "is the dog desexed", male and female, to avoid and/or help with behaviour, health, etc. Testicular cancer is mentioned often (I've never known of a dog with this) and other health risks but never given the other side where, apart from the risk, although perhaps minimal, of the operation, there are many long term problems which can crop up, some apparently affecting some breeds in particular. I think a balanced discussion of the possible outcomes of speying/neutering should be given. Desexing is not the answer IMO unless for a related diagnosed health issue. I have no problem with a balanced view been given - as long as the science is solid and the message is not alarmist. I'm also trying to look at this wrt the bigger picture. This isn't about my dog and your dog - it is about an issue we have in our society whereby we have a glut of dogs, and people (real world, not DOLers) talk happily about the "oopsie" litters and the $$$ they got for them. One way to stop this - the easiest way to stop this - is for desexing to become socially acceptable unless someone has a good reason not to (health, great example of breed to be bred ethically etc). Comming from just a reg family owning a pet dog......I absolutly agree with the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The science is poor in the article. This is only a revision of the literature. It is not a scientific article. However, it gives a list of 55 published articles that you may read if you do feel so. I actually did read some of those, and there is nothing sloppy about them. I find the most interesting that a lot of this work came from human medical scientist. Why veterinary medicine have been so reluctant to take part in this is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) The science is poor in the article. This is only a revision of the literature. It is not a scientific article. However, it gives a list of 55 published articles that you may read if you do feel so. I actually did read some of those, and there is nothing sloppy about them. I find the most interesting that a lot of this work came from human medical scientist. Why veterinary medicine have been so reluctant to take part in this is beyond me. I understand that - I have read many of those articles as well and there are limitations. That in itself doesn't bother me, but IMO it's important to point them out if you are reviewing them and be critical - if this is aimed at the 'average' person then some may well take it for gospel. You see it on DOL all the time - the internet said "this", therefore it's true. It's just not that simple. Having done a review on early desexing and CHD, it's incredibly complicated and that point needs to be made. In fact, having used many of the articles the author also used on "orthopaedic disorders", they were very selective with the results reported. At the end of the day it's often about risk and weighing these up in terms of an individual's personal situation. One of my relatives is absolutely convinced that a bitch is not the same until she's had a litter......the priority for me was getting that dog spayed ASAP to prevent a litter of unregistered puppies. I'm not arguing for or against - but balanced representation and emphasis is important. It's probably also critical to remember that the dog owners on DOL tend to be more educated than the average dog owner....and many are actively looking for information which is quite different to others I've met!!! Many (not all) dog owners are inherently poor at compliance - that's why vets promote commercial dog foods, yearly vaccinating (and associated check ups) and desexing. Sure beats terrible diets/associated health problems and unwanted animals. People who research raw feeding, vaccinations and keeping animals entire and carefully weigh up the options are not the problem! Edited March 30, 2009 by The Spotted Devil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It's probably also critical to remember that the dog owners on DOL tend to be more educated than the average dog owner....and many are actively looking for information which is quite different to others I've met!!! Many (not all) dog owners are inherently poor at compliance - that's why vets promote commercial dog foods, yearly vaccinating (and associated check ups) and desexing. Sure beats terrible diets/associated health problems and unwanted animals. People who research raw feeding, vaccinations and keeping animals entire and carefully weigh up the options are not the problem! great post....what she said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunnwarren Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) And we wont even go into why vets recommend yearly vaccinations, another money making excercise. My point being that the normal Joe Blow isnt given the facts, just what the vet wants to tell them. I'm certainly not anti vets but I think at the end of the day it's the figures on the books that motivates certain vets. I havent always been a breeder but always had dogs, and none of mine were ever desexed and I certainly never had unwanted litters, it all depends on the owners. Edited March 30, 2009 by dunnwarren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now