De-sexing Debate

[felix]

Up to the owners.....or up to the breeders who desex before rehoming. Those figures are still insignificant compared to the benefits.

Desexing makes sense to me but I am against mandatory desexing. I get ticked off enough by pollies and councils telling me what I can and can't do already.

I don't see any benefits in having to desex my dog. And those figures are plenty significant to me as an owner.

The rest I agree totally.

[felix]

[Yes, it is. As long as they are given unbiased information, explained in a way that even people without a statistics degree can understand easily, it is up to the owner to decide what to do with their dog. I have left my own bitch entire, for example, for a variety of reasons, even though I probably will not breed her.

But I do want to say that IMO although that article you posted was interesting & in many ways valuable, it did IMO underplayed the risk of mammary cancer by not explaining the absolute risk increase. For most breeds, compared to the other cancer risks/benefits associated with desexing, the increase in risk in mammary cancer is overwhelmingly huge.

An increase of 0.25% to 13% of all dogs getting malignant, usually deadly, mammary cancer is a hugely significant increase in risk in real terms. In most breeds, no other cancer is increased by desexing nearly enought to counter that. For example, in real terms, on average, hemangiosarcoma increases from 0.2% to 0.4 - 1% of bitches, and osteosarcoma from 0.2 to 0.4% of bitches, after desexing. That's more than an order of magnitude difference in risk levels there.

I think the article could have done more to emphasise that.

Edited so my grammar actually made sense.

The article is just a summary of 55 actual articles. Of course it can be written more clearly to emphasise some points, but what is important is the general idea.

[Cordelia]

An increase of 0.25% to 13% of all dogs getting malignant, usually deadly, mammary cancer is a hugely significant increase in risk in real terms.

It is also one of the most treatable forms of cancer and is rarely inoperable... so if you have a diligent owner who actually check their bitch regularly.. a tumour is more likely to be picked up when small and cut out easily..

[Steve]

With the <1% and <0.6% "slight" risks of cancer (if altered) arn't exactly overwhelming figures to argue not desexing a dog.

'Im not arguing against desexing I'm saying I want the right to decide what I want for my dog.Im arguing against mandatory desexing where a government has the right to dictate to me how I should manage my dog.I'm arguing against being treated like an idiot and people wanting to take preventative action against me because some people don't do the right thing and allowing their dogs to have a litter.

Many people see their animals as valuable to them as their children and the reality is that side effects of lack of testosterone and estrogen are played down at best or not mentioned.

Forget for a minute about studies on dogs but look at what happens to male humans if they have no testosterone from an early age.Look at how women age more quickly after their estrogen levels drop

and you cant deny that testosterone and estrogen are used by a mammal for things other than just whether they are feeling horny or able to reproduce.

Many people opt to have their animals desexed because its easier to live with a less horny boy or an in heat female but they should know the side effects and be able to make that decisions based on what they think is best for them and their dogs. Personally I don't want to do a single thing which takes away the time I can have with them or do anything which may impact on their quality of life I want the right to make that decision.

None of this is logical to me. Taking tails off in case they have a tail injury was stopped, there are drums beating about muelsing in case sheep get fly blown,declawing in case they ruin the furniture is legislated against and yet its O.K. to tell me I have to rip out their organs under general anesthetic with side effects way way more profound that any of these other things in case they have an unplanned litter and thats O.K. ? I don't think so.

Some people will opt to have their animals de sexed and in the main thats what I encourage them to do but making it mandatory? Nup.

Making it so I only have the right to keep an entire dog if I am a member of one canine association which has a monopoly where in effect a government is recruiting members for them? Nup.

[Black Bronson]

Mandatory desexing would be an issue for me having an 11 week old working line GSD puppy that is planned to be trained for a working title. If he turns out well, he will be used at stud possibly in 3 years time, but I am not a breeder or have any inclination to breed, training takes up enough time There are many working dog people in the same position I am and males of certain breeds need to be preserved for the future of particular working lines presenting a problem with such legislation. There are ways around it, but there shouldn't be a forced necessity to bend the rules in these circumstances.

[sandgrubber]

You would have no trouble getting an exception for such a dog under any of the California mandatory desexing programs.

It's something of a misnomer to call them mandatory desexing. They are usually opt out desexing schemes . .. where you are required to desex by default but can easily choose to keep a dog / bitch entire if you play by the rules.

Mandatory desexing would be an issue for me having an 11 week old working line GSD puppy that is planned to be trained for a working title. If he turns out well, he will be used at stud possibly in 3 years time, but I am not a breeder or have any inclination to breed, training takes up enough time There are many working dog people in the same position I am and males of certain breeds need to be preserved for the future of particular working lines presenting a problem with such legislation. There are ways around it, but there shouldn't be a forced necessity to bend the rules in these circumstances.

[Staranais]

An increase of 0.25% to 13% of all dogs getting malignant, usually deadly, mammary cancer is a hugely significant increase in risk in real terms.

It is also one of the most treatable forms of cancer and is rarely inoperable... so if you have a diligent owner who actually check their bitch regularly.. a tumour is more likely to be picked up when small and cut out easily..

Depends on the type of tumour. Benign mammary cancer is often very operable, if the owners can or will pay for it. But I have one review saved on my desktop that puts the risk of malignant mammary carcinoma metastasising at about 77%. That's not generally operable - dogs need their lungs.

Not to mention the fact that cancer is only operable if people are prepared to pay to have it treated. Many owners will euth a cancer dog on diagnosis.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Staranais

[Erny]

Benign mammary cancer ...

Ok - pardon my dumbness. I never equate "benign" with the word "cancer". I have always thought that if a lump/growth was "benign" it meant abnormal tissue/cells, but not cancerous.

I understand about cancerous growths being "encapsulated", but never thought of those as "benign".

So I'm wondering how you can have "benign cancer" .

[~Anne~]

Benign mammary cancer ...

Ok - pardon my dumbness. I never equate "benign" with the word "cancer". I have always thought that if a lump/growth was "benign" it meant abnormal tissue/cells, but not cancerous.

I understand about cancerous growths being "encapsulated", but never thought of those as "benign".

So I'm wondering how you can have "benign cancer" .

Both are cancer Erny, benign and malignant.

[Leema]

Wow. It's pretty disturbing that this poll is winning in terms of "yes". I admit I haven't read this thread, but any type of legislation like this poses some pretty serious questions.

What determines a breeder?

What determines a non-breeder?

What about the people who might like to be a breeder but are in the process of deciding?

If you decide to define a breeder as someone working towards a breed standard, then who decides which breed standards are okay and which are not? Who decides if it's okay to create a new breed or not?

If you decide to define a breeder on welfare standards, then these are already in place and already, arguable, unenforced.

Who makes someone desex a pet? (i.e. which body?)

What are the penalties for not desexing?

Are non surgical means (e.g. implants etc) permissible?

What about animals that are deemed unfit for anaesthetic?

How would any body keep track of all dogs that are desexed/undesexed? (Considering that registration is currently compulsory but many dogs exist unregistered...)

How do we prevent people bypassing the system, especially with undesexed bitches?

And this doesn't even go into rights... What right does anyone have to tell me what is right for my animal? I should have the right to do with my property as ever I please, as long as it does not harm anyone or thing (including harm the animal).

Any restrictions on breeding, I think, are quite misdirected. I think sale of puppies is a more conceivable framework to work under, and I think most trading legislation could be tweaked a lot easier than creating legislation that impedes upon individuals' rights to own an animal in a manner they see fit.

[furballs]

An increase of 0.25% to 13% of all dogs getting malignant, usually deadly, mammary cancer is a hugely significant increase in risk in real terms.

It is also one of the most treatable forms of cancer and is rarely inoperable... so if you have a diligent owner who actually check their bitch regularly.. a tumour is more likely to be picked up when small and cut out easily..

Depends on the type of tumour. Benign mammary cancer is often very operable, if the owners can or will pay for it. But I have one review saved on my desktop that puts the risk of malignant mammary carcinoma metastasising at about 77%. That's not generally operable - dogs need their lungs.

Not to mention the fact that cancer is only operable if people are prepared to pay to have it treated. Many owners will euth a cancer dog on diagnosis.

I can't find any useful info on this right now, so does anyone know whether mammary cancer is hereditary? I'm just wondering, if the bitches line has no history of it is the risk decreased?

[Staranais]

Benign mammary cancer ...

Ok - pardon my dumbness. I never equate "benign" with the word "cancer". I have always thought that if a lump/growth was "benign" it meant abnormal tissue/cells, but not cancerous.

I understand about cancerous growths being "encapsulated", but never thought of those as "benign".

So I'm wondering how you can have "benign cancer" .

Technically you're right, a benign "cancer" is more properly called a benign tumour or benign neoplasm, since the term "cancer" does technically imply malignancy, whereas a tumour or neoplasm can be either malignant or benign.

A benign tumour basically doesn't metastasise (spread to other body parts) and doesn't invade surrounding tissue. It can still hurt the animal, mostly by compressing other nearby structures (mass effect), or sometimes by doing more of what the tissue originally did (like make too much hormone).

If a neoplasm is encapsulated, that would normally make it a benign tumour, since it's locally contained and not spreading.

It's not a black & white definition, though, more of a sliding scale, some tumours are "more" malignant than others, and some apparently benign neoplasms can become malignant if they're not treated.

[Shmurps]

After scooting around GT (for example) and seeing all the mix breed puppies for sale, yet seeing all these mix breeds being advertised on the same page needing new homes. And again in shelters and pounds. And the crazy combination of breeds leads me to believe that desexing should be compulsory.

[Mystiqview]

I voted other.

There are plenty of people who show their dogs. They keep their dogs in good health and are generally responsible for the animals in their care. Why should they desex their dogs?

As for true pet people. You could ask why not desex?

I know some who have whole dogs, and look after them responsibly.

[Lowenhart]

Compulsory desexing won't stop people relinquishing their pets because it doesn't address:

1. Difficulty in finding accommodation that allows the keeping of dogs (think a marriage breakup, leaving an existing home due to abuse, change of work location mandating a move to another town/city), especially affordable accommodation.

2. Sale/Transfer of pets to impulse buyers who aren't aware of the full extent of their commitment or full and accurate disclosure (ie "Yes! Maremma's are just like Golden Retrievers but bigger" or "We don't have time to play with him..."(which means he is a chronic barker and digger who will need to be completely retrained)

3. The mass production on pets by licensed businesses

I don't believe in compulsory desexing. For a few reasons:

1. Limits the ability to form new or resurrect existing breeds. What would have happened if compulsory desexing came in before the Tenterfield Terrier was acknowledged? And the development register was opened on Stumpy Tailed Cattle Dogs? Non-ANKC breeders and owners were needed in both instances.

What will become of "Murray River Curly Coats", "Koolies" and "Smithfield Collies" or another type of dog that was developed in this country?

2. It forces breeders to hold on to more and more potential breeding stock lest it go to a non-show/breeding home. The ability to place potential breeding stock in non-showing home is utilised extensively in Europe and gives breeders the option to choose from a large number of dogs. This is most important in rare/unusual breeds were the gene pool is already small.

3. Dogs require hormones to develop physically. No one age can be deemed to be the ideal to desex for ALL breeds.

4. It is unenforceable. No one can know with 100% accuracy that a bitch has been speyed without opening her up. Not all dogs are registered with councils.

[jackie_a1]

Just to add.

Those of you who voted and posted on this thread how many of you own entire pets or desexed pets?

Both of mine are entire but I am planning on desexing Boss.

[Shmurps]

I think responsible, ethical breeders, show dogs, dog savvy people etc know how to own an entire dog it's the d' heads that don't.

[~Anne~]

Just to add.

Those of you who voted and posted on this thread how many of you own entire pets or desexed pets?

Both of mine are entire but I am planning on desexing Boss.

I have 3 dogs, all desexed and a moggy who is also desexed.

[jackie_a1]

Oops Anne I forgot my kitties too

2 cats 2 dogs and 2 birds.

Both female cats are desexed (One heat cycle and I rushed them to the vet, sounded like I was murdering a baby in my house.)

[furballs]

I have two females, one desexed and one not. The desexed one has so many health problems which I have recently discovered are most likely caused by her being desexed at 6 months. All previous dogs of mine have been desexed.