Recall - Something 'special'

[OSoSwift]

Oh yes I agree. Desexing is more convenient for the owner.

I have entires and desexed dogs. One was when I got her, one was for health reasons. The other three are entire.

Having said that I personally will desex a bitch once past viable breeding age.

1 - to make sure there is no possible way for her to concieve

2 - To negate the potential of pyometra, which I have had in my own older entire bitches.

Generally I would desex a bitch at around 6 - breed/size dependant.

Edited September 29, 2016 by OSoSwift

[Willem]

Oh yes I agree. Desexing is more convenient for the owner.

I have entires and desexed dogs. One was when I got her, one was for health reasons. The other three are entire.

Having said that I personally will desex a bitch once past viable breeding age.

1 - to make sure there is no possible way for her to concieve

2 - To negate the potential of pyometra, which I have had in my own older entire bitches.

Generally I would desex a bitch at around 6 - breed/size dependant.

you mean 6 years?...sound like a reasonable approach to me...

[JulesP]

Oh yes I agree. Desexing is more convenient for the owner.

I have entires and desexed dogs. One was when I got her, one was for health reasons. The other three are entire.

Having said that I personally will desex a bitch once past viable breeding age.

1 - to make sure there is no possible way for her to concieve

2 - To negate the potential of pyometra, which I have had in my own older entire bitches.

Generally I would desex a bitch at around 6 - breed/size dependant.

you mean 6 years?...sound like a reasonable approach to me...

Why are you ok with it being done at 6 years old?

Do you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue because someone has told you that you aren't a responsible dog owner because your girl is entire.

[OSoSwift]

Yes years.

I also don't care too much what others think of the way I do it. I have my well researched reasons and pick the best for each individual dog

[Willem]

Oh yes I agree. Desexing is more convenient for the owner.

I have entires and desexed dogs. One was when I got her, one was for health reasons. The other three are entire.

Having said that I personally will desex a bitch once past viable breeding age.

1 - to make sure there is no possible way for her to concieve

2 - To negate the potential of pyometra, which I have had in my own older entire bitches.

Generally I would desex a bitch at around 6 - breed/size dependant.

you mean 6 years?...sound like a reasonable approach to me...

Why are you ok with it being done at 6 years old?

Do you have a bee in your bonnet about this issue because someone has told you that you aren't a responsible dog owner because your girl is entire.

I wouldn't de-sex my dog - that doesn't mean that I can't accept if someone else decides to de-sex a bitch for medical reason when she is 6 years old. If someone dealt with an entire bitch for 6 years he/she obviously knows what it means, and I assume that the decision for de-sexing is not thoughtless made as a result of the RSPCA campaigns - there have been obviously some concerns and thoughts about the risks wrt de-sexing her earlier.

The risk of Pyometra is a serious concern - you know this - and I can't ignore this. My approach is to keep my dog as healthy as I can, lean, exercised, with a strong immune system - but I admit that this is no guarantee that she will never get Pyometra. So if someone decides to de-sex his / her girl with 6 years to minimize this risk - well, I don't advocate it, but from all the various reasons mentioned for de-sexing a dog this is the only plausible one for me if done at an older age.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Willem

[Simply Grand]

Often people don't desex to modify behaviour, they do it to not have puppies.

...that is what happens if you give a 'straight' answer :) ...my understanding is that also the 'reproduction' is a kind of behavior, and as even the RSPCA admits, there are alternative methods to address this specific behaviour respectively the drive that leads to such behaviour. However, as the alternative methods are more complicated and more time consuming and therefore less convenient, people tend to choose de-sexing - not for the welfare of their dog, but for their own convenience.

But that's the exact reason why the RSPCA encourages people to desex! Because they are well aware that most people do not and will not use the more complicated, time consuming and less convenient methods. Therefore the only way to prevent unplanned, unwanted litters is to get people to desex their pets.

And because it is the RSPCA and the AWL and the council pounds and the other shelters and the rescue groups that then have to deal with these unwanted dogs they target the EASIEST, most convenient way to reduce the problem.

Do you really think the RSPCA or any other regulators are going round to houses where entire dogs are safely contained and not causing problems, or up to random people walking their well behaved entire dogs on the street and saying they have a problem with those dog being entire?

[Simply Grand]

You also mentioned in a previous post that you may have difficulties keeping an entire dog if you lived in the ACT or SA. I can tell you that I had no issues having entire dogs in the ACT, I got mine as puppies so they were registered for lifetime registration prior to the six month age limit when desexing is required, one remained entire until he was fully grown at 13 months (small breed), when he was desexed because he had a completely undescended testicle, which increases cancer risk, the other remained entire the whole time she lived there with me. No one came knocking on my door once they turned six months insisting I produce proof they'd been desexed. Nor were rangers patrolling the streets or parks looking for entire dogs.

A permit is available to keep a dog entire, provided it meets certain requirements which include being registered with a recognised canine body, but even without a permit entire dogs that end up at the pound or RSPCA in ACT are not held to ransom until they are desexed, they are released to their owners generally with no issues. If your dog gets out once or twice and doesn't cause any problems but ends up impounded the government is NOT going waste any time trying to force you to desex. However for dogs that are constantly roaming, or that are causing problems with people or other animals, that are getting into other people's property etc etc the laws in place give the Rangers options for trying to those owners to do SOMETHING to reduce the impact of their dog on others.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you that desexing (for non-medical reasons) is the easier, more convenient option and that of course entire dogs can be, and by many of us are, managed in other ways. But as I said above, most people don't do it. And unfortunately the most efficient use of resources for Australia at the moment when it comes to the issue of reducing unwanted and unplanned-for litters is to promote desexing.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Simply Grand

[The Spotted Devil]

I must say that if I had $ to pour into education I would be focusing on training methods, mental stimulation, physical exercise, correct weight and pain relief. Desexing is not ideal, especially under 18 months but I understand and accept the motivation.

[Simply Grand]

So many people won't do it though TSD, even with one on one instruction people that aren't intrinsically motivated to put time and effort into training, stimulation and effective management of their dogs won't do it.

We need a whole mentality shift when it comes to dog ownership in Australia if we are to make wide spread education campaigns on that sort of thing effective.

I know it sounds like I'm being negative and cynical but I've experienced it time and time again, trying to get people who say they want help to implement even simple changes, as I imagine you have too, let alone trying to get through to people who don't even see there is a problem.

It is of course a marketing issue too, campaign slogans like "Adopt, don't shop" and "Desex" get through to people without them having to think much. "Carefully choose a suitable dog for your lifestyle, give it appropriate training, stimulation, and management, do your own research into what is best health wise and don't be an irresponsible jerk" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...

ETA - not aimed specifically at you TSD, I know none of that would be news to you!!

Edited September 29, 2016 by Simply Grand

[The Spotted Devil]

Yes I agree SG :)

[Willem]

Often people don't desex to modify behaviour, they do it to not have puppies.

...that is what happens if you give a 'straight' answer :) ...my understanding is that also the 'reproduction' is a kind of behavior, and as even the RSPCA admits, there are alternative methods to address this specific behaviour respectively the drive that leads to such behaviour. However, as the alternative methods are more complicated and more time consuming and therefore less convenient, people tend to choose de-sexing - not for the welfare of their dog, but for their own convenience.

But that's the exact reason why the RSPCA encourages people to desex! Because they are well aware that most people do not and will not use the more complicated, time consuming and less convenient methods. Therefore the only way to prevent unplanned, unwanted litters is to get people to desex their pets.

And because it is the RSPCA and the AWL and the council pounds and the other shelters and the rescue groups that then have to deal with these unwanted dogs they target the EASIEST, most convenient way to reduce the problem.

Do you really think the RSPCA or any other regulators are going round to houses where entire dogs are safely contained and not causing problems, or up to random people walking their well behaved entire dogs on the street and saying they have a problem with those dog being entire?

..while promoting education and training might be a slow process, the current strategy is not only contradicting animal welfare, but can't work at all and never will, not here in Australia or in USA or elsewhere!

I mentioned the maths already elsewhere: we have 4.2 Mill dogs in Australia, to maintain this numbers all it takes are just 84,000 entire bitches (males you need obviously less), that's just 2% of the dog population (assuming an average lifespan of 10 years for a dog and an average litter size of 5). Even if all 'private' owners would have their dogs de-sexed, there are enough entire dogs left on puppy farms, backyard breeders and registered breeders that can and will flood the market with puppies. The occasional accident prevented by this strategy doesn't matter and won't have an impact on numbers.

Furthermore there are strong clues (see the link I quoted above - I'm still waiting for others who claimed that there have contradicting evidence to reveal these contradicting studies) that the most frequent reason to surrender a dog are behaviour issues ...and these are the dogs that get pts. And there are also strong, very strong hints that early de-sexing can have a significant negative impact on behaviour (Viszla Study etc....). Therefore the RSPCA is promoting a strategy that causes them to have to euthanize more dogs, not less!!!! ...there is no substitute for the right thing to do, no substitute for education and training no matter how inconvenient it is!

ETA:...in a way RSPCA's strategy does pretty much the same the greyhound industry was criticised for: it produces wastage!...more dogs with behavioural issues plus less training equals more dogs to be euthanized.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Willem

[Two Best Dogs!]

Willem, I'd hesitate to jump from the conclusion of the article you link (specifically on the most common behavioural issues in dogs surrendered for behavioural issues) to (quoting you) "that the most frequent reason to surrender a dog are behaviour issues". Correlation does not equal causation and the like.

Not to mention, some of those behaviour issues I take issue with in that article as being labeled a behavioural issues - because now those dogs are labeled as dogs with issues when it's things like: too active, soils house, destructive outside, disobedient, needs to much attention. So many is just dogs being dogs.

There is also a very important question that relates to your main concern that goes unanswered in the article that the researchers need to do more work into:

Owners were not asked at what age the surrendered animal was neutered. Veterinarians often suggest neutering when male dogs develop behavioral problems. Those relinquished for behavioral reasons may have been neutered at an older age when the potential behavior modification benefits are decreased or absent.

The data doesn't let them draw causation from the above. So for these dogs assessed, it is which came first? The bad behaviour or the desexing? This study is from 2000, so ideally the researchers hopefully have been elaborating on it or someone else has. Perhaps check where this article has been citated to see if anyone builds on it?

Here's a couple of articles and the like for you to read if you want on various reasons dogs are surrendered:

This one is USA specific, like your article, and mostly focuses on purebreed surrenders (It is a book excerpt, not the entire book. I've had difficulties getting my hand on this one)

This one is a study comparing the intake of dogs through 3 victorian shelters:

Annually, welfare shelters admit many dogs, including those whose caregivers surrender them or dogs who are strays. This article analyzes admission data from 3 metropolitan Australian shelters. The study collected data for a 1-year period and analyzed them to identify the characteristics of the typical shelter dog; patterns of relinquishment, sales, reclamation and euthanasia; and duration of stay and reasons underlying euthanasia, relinquishment, and postadoptive return. The study tracked more than 20,000 admissions during this period. To facilitate reclamation, the local Code of Practice requires a mandatory holding period for stray dogs; assessment for suitability for rehoming then occurs. Dogs failing the assessment are euthanized. Surrendered dogs can be assessed immediately. The Code of Practice also recommends that unsold dogs be euthanized 28 days postassessment. Typically, shelter dogs in Melbourne are strays, sexually entire, adult, small, and-usually-male. The majority of admissions are reclaimed or sold. Most reclamations occur within 4 days, and postadoptive return rates are low. That current desexing messages do not appear to have reached the owners of stray dogs to the same extent as they have other dog owners is a major finding, suggesting that a targeted education campaign may be required.

it is a long study, I think Patronek is probably your main frustration so I guess you could hunt down his (or her?) research to see where these conclusions came from:

Patronek et al.(1996)also found that shelter dogs were likely to be sexually intact. Over the last 15 years, community education and incentive programs in both Australia and the United States have focused on reduced-cost desexing, reduced registration fees for desexed animals, and the automatic desexing of all shelter stock(Olson et al.,1991). Although these measures have significantly reduced the number of dogs admitted to U.S. shelters by 40% from 1985 to 1994(Luke,1996), they also have resulted in fewer puppies being presented; the typical shelter dog now is more than 2 years of age (DiGiacomo et al., 1998; Patronek et al., 1996). This means that dogs currently available for adoption are those also at greater risk of subsequent relinquishment.

and just in general, melbourne data trends:

As can be seen from Table 2, significantly more sexually entire animals (77.2%) were presented to the shelters than would be predicted from national statistics, where only 39% of dogs are identified as being entire,χ2(1, N = 20,729) = 129.36, p < .0001 (McHarg, Baldock, Headey, & Robinson, 1995). Male dogs were significantly more likely to be entire than females,χ2(1,N=20,729)=32.51, p < .0001; strays were more likely to be entire than relinquished dogs, χ2(1, N = 20,729) = 692.11, p < .0001.

My personal agenda here is highlighting that surrendered dog does not mean more likely to have behavoural issues. If anything, my casual reading has suggested a pretty consistent rate of 10-20% of dogs being relinquished for "behavoural reasons" that range between severe issues like aggression down to digging holes and not toilet trained. Desexing brings you out of the woodwork willem, claims that the majority of shelter dogs are behavioural problems brings me out :laugh:

As can be seen from Table 4, one third of relinquishing owners did not give a reason for the relinquishment. A variety of reasons for relinquishment were recorded for the remainder. Of the relinquished dogs, 6.47% were puppies, the result of unwanted pregnancies or left overs from litters who could not be sold or rehomed by the breeder. Almost 8% of relinquished dogs were relinquished for owner-requested euthanasia, contrasting significantly with the 17.2% (Patronek et al.,1995) observed in U.S. research, χ2(1,N=3,123)=191.91, p<.0001. Almost one third of the reasons given could be characterized as owner-related factors. In order of frequency, the most common were owner moving; dog requiring too much effort, work, or time; and owner experiencing health issues. As in the United States, moving was the single most common reason given for relinquishments (New et al., 1999; Salman et al., 1998). Other reasons were cited far less frequently.

Behavioral reasons were given for approximately 11% of relinquished dogs. The three most commonly reported behavioral problems were the dog’s escaping, boisterousness or hyperactivity, and barking. Other behavioral reasons for relinquishment were cited far less frequently. Of the approximately 100 dogs relinquished for aggression (3.2% of all relinquished dogs in this sample), more than half actually had bitten a human, and 20% had displayed severe dog aggression. The rest were relinquished for nonspecific aggression or untrustworthiness. Other dog-related factors were relatively infrequent and included canine health issues, size,death (body disposal), and farm dogs unable to adjust to life in a city. Table6 presents data relating to the gender and desexed status of relinquished dogs.

As can be seen in Table 6, sexually intact animals were relinquished significantly more often for aggression, owner-related factors, unchangeable dog factors, and euthanasia. Indeed, such dogs formed a large proportion of the 51.56% of relinquishments who subsequently were euthanized. By contrast,desexed dogs were relinquished more frequently for behavior problems and issues with existing pets, χ2(9,N=3,123)=158.99,p<.0001. Surprisingly, a large number of relinquished dogs later were reclaimed.

Page 35-36 (for that particular excerpt)

This one is a look at abandoned animals in australia but it touches upon analysing surrenders to the RSPCA here and there:

In 2007 in the Queensland and Victorian large shelters where statistics are kept, on

average 72% of surrendered companion animals was for owner reasons, 12% for

economic reasons and 15% for behavioural reasons. It is not unreasonable to suggest

that these same statistics drive the abandoned companion animal figures.

This book I had arrive last month, but have not had a chance to read it. It is going to be quite a heavy read I suspect, as it's the cumulation of recent research, studies etc. I'm expecting to have a lot of my preconceptions changed! It's a really flipping big heavy book though, so I can't take it on the train with me. Hence not started reading it yet, but perhaps your local library can order it in if you're curious.

Animal Behavior for Shelter Veterinarians and Staff,” co-edited by Emily Weiss, PhD; Heather Mohan-Gibbons; and Stephen Zawistowski, PhD.

Here's an introductory articleon the book

Dr. Weiss said the survey “busted a few myths.” “Not everyone relinquishing was severely impoverished,” she said. A large percentage had household income greater than $34,000, the point where it’s often hard to get help. Most had finished high school, and cultural identity was not a factor. And most considered relinquishment for at least a week and had tried to get help.

Behavior problems were not on the top of the list of reasons for relinquishment. Issues such as access to affordable pet-friendly housing, temporary life issues with the pet owner, and health issues with the pet were all drivers. Local ordinances and insurance restrictions often led to relinquishment of large and bully-type dogs.

Dr. Weiss said temporary help can often keep a pet with its family. Supporting an animal in its home could mean paying a pet deposit on an apartment or providing the cost of training or veterinary treatment. She commended shelters that already offer such help, noting that some are even taking back an animal from the family to give it needed medical care and then re-adopting to the owner. Finding pet-friendly housing is another challenge, and she mentioned Lollypop Farm, as one group that has been working on this issue.

Personally a favourite quote of mine, paraphrased is: “Most people want a $1000 dog and $100 training, most people need a $100 dog and $1000 training.“

But thing is, you can't force someone to do $100 of training let alone $1000 of training. You can't force people to desex (in most cases, clashes with the law pending) either. But one is much easier to encourage than the other.

Which is a shame. I'm up to about $800 in training I reckon, and the results speak for themselves. Even if I didn't practice outside of class, there would be improvement just from weekly sessions. But it's not an option for everyone, or they don't realise it is as an option, or they don't value it, or they're not interested or they just plain don't want to repeatedly train their dog.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Thistle the dog

[Willem]

...thanks for the effort, you put a lot of work into it - I really very appreciate this!...reading through all the stuff and links will keep me quiet for a while :D ...just wrt 'correlation does not equal causation and the like'....that is valid both ways, or?...and I'm still looking for an example where de-sexing dogs really worked wrt dog population control...doesn't work in USA, doesn't work here, and other civilized countries doesn't promote it the same way.

[Two Best Dogs!]

I think the one that is a study on victorian/melbourne shelter dogs makes references in the opening literature to studies on the effects of desexing dogs and shelter intake - i'm a bit brain dead from adventuring with my dog right now, but I think it was a US one so i'd skim the introduction section and look for that or I'll try to remember to skim it myself later. Confess I didn't read too deeply into it as my forays into articles are usually more about behaviour of shelter dogs and reasons for surrendering than the desexing status (not that it couldn't be related, just not what I was thinking about at the time so skimmed past)

Am thinking I really should start reading the big ass animal behaviour in shelter books I got. It's just so big, it's intimidating. It's heavy on the science too, so is going to probably need quite a few re-reads and googling of terms :laugh:

You'll know when I'm reading it, I'll probably be sharing the studies I find personally interesting in the science study thread as the book talks about them.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Thistle the dog

[Simply Grand]

Just thinking of this thread as I enjoy the fun of a season in a multi-dog household. Both males are desexed and were desexed prior to the female's first season and yet all three still totally change their behaviour towards each other during seasons. One minute they are fighting, which they don't nornally, the next one or the other is desperately trying to hump another one, the next someone is cranky again.

And I'm aware we have it very easy, others have more issues and that's without having to deal with multiple entire dogs.

Willem, we all know how strongly you feel about not desexing "for convenience" but I wonder, have you actually lived with multiple dogs where even one is entire, or (given your strong opinion) more than one is?

Also have you had a household where you have had to keep dogs totally separated, due to fighting or avoiding mating, or both?

I am interested because you seem to have a very black and white view of the issue and I wonder how much you've experienced the grey in order to know exactly how you would react. If you have had the experiences I would really like to hear how they went and how you managed them.

[Xyz]

Just thinking of this thread as I enjoy the fun of a season in a multi-dog household. Both males are desexed and were desexed prior to the female's first season and yet all three still totally change their behaviour towards each other during seasons. One minute they are fighting, which they don't nornally, the next one or the other is desperately trying to hump another one, the next someone is cranky again.

And I'm aware we have it very easy, others have more issues and that's without having to deal with multiple entire dogs.

Willem, we all know how strongly you feel about not desexing "for convenience" but I wonder, have you actually lived with multiple dogs where even one is entire, or (given your strong opinion) more than one is?

Also have you had a household where you have had to keep dogs totally separated, due to fighting or avoiding mating, or both?

I am interested because you seem to have a very black and white view of the issue and I wonder how much you've experienced the grey in order to know exactly how you would react. If you have had the experiences I would really like to hear how they went and how you managed them.

Great post????!

_ Awaiting reply.....!!