Showing posts with label spay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spay. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Dr. Becker: Truth About Spaying and Neutering



Published on Sep 29, 2013
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/... Dr. Karen Becker, a proactive and integrative wellness veterinarian, discusses all about neutering or spaying in pets.

A Video released September 29, 2013 too important not to share with all owners or potential owners of Vizslas.  The best 25 minutes you will spend this week, hands down.  Share with your friends and put an end to the practice of unnecessary early spay and neutering in the United States and Canada.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Vizsla Spay and Neuter Debate Continues

Excerpts from an article by Sunbeam Goldens (website link sunbeamgoldens)

"Many uninformed people and veterinarians would probably tell you that six months of age is the optimum time. But there is absolutely no research to support this.

Your veterinarian probably attended a vet school before this research was available, and they may have attended a school supported by HSUS (Humane Society of the United States).

HSUS* promotes early spay and neuter without regard for the health of the dogs, but even they no longer promote mandatory spay and neuter.

How did we get to this place where it is socially preferable to subject our dogs to invasive surgeries that leave them less healthy than just to be responsible for their behavior?

There are a tremendous number of people who get their dogs from shelters and unlike responsible hobby breeders, the shelters cannot screen who is allowed to take their dogs.

We know that in California 47% of the dogs adopted from shelters end up back in the shelters.

So in that case, it is appropriate to help society, even as it hurts the long-term health of the dogs, by making sure all shelter animals are altered before they are adopted.

In Sweden, spaying and neutering is against the law,
under the animal cruelty ordinances.

It is a very uncommon practice in Western Europe and yet there is no animal overpopulation problem in those countries. The reason is responsibility."



Sophie and Bailey's litter

* HSUS operates no shelters; in fact the HSUS President, Wayne Pacelle has said this about distinct breeds "One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." He has also stated: "I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I'm kind to them, but there's no special bond between me and other animals."


Link to Sunbeams Goldens article

Regarding early male neutering:

"Loss of testosterone as a result of desexing may result in immature development of masculine characteristics and a reduced body musculature:

The testicles are responsible for producing testosterone: the hormone that makes male animals look and act like male animals. It is the testicles that make male animals develop the kinds of masculine, testosterone-dependent body characteristics normally attributed to an entire animal. These include: increased muscle size and development; reduced body fat; mature penis development; mature prepuce development (mature penis sheath development); the ability to extrude the penis from the sheath (prepuce) and the suppression of development of feminine characteristics (mammary gland development, milk production etc.). Desexing, particularly early age desexing, may limit the development of mature masculine features such that they remain immature and juvenile looking and cause the neutered animal to have a reduced muscle mass and strength compared to an entire animal of the same size and breeding."

Bailey during mating dance with Sophie
Rethinking spay and neuter in 2011

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Rethinking spay & neuter in 2011

By Geneva Coats R.N.

TheDogPlace.org

Genetics Editor / January 2011





"Is Pet sterilization a purely beneficial routine procedure?  Most breeders today sell companion puppies under contracts requiring spay or neuter as a condition of sale.
Ingrained in current culture is the notion of pet overpopulation and to prevent the deaths of animals in shelters all pets should be sterilized. To bolster that campaign, we are told that a sterilized pet is happier, healthier and longer-lived than one who remains intact.      What are the facts?

"PET OVERPOPULATION"

In the mid-twentieth century, there was an abundance of pets; many were available “free to good home” via newspaper ads. Few pets were sterilized, and many people unwisely allowed their dogs to roam the neighborhood, producing unplanned litters.

According to “Maddie’s Fund” president Richard Avanzino, in the 1970s, our country’s animal control agencies were killing, on average, about 115 dogs and cats annually for every 1000 human residents. This amounted to about 24 million shelter deaths every year.  Avanzino is also the former executive director of the San Francisco SPCA, and is regarded by many as the founder of the modern no-kill movement in the US.

"The Problem" of too many pets and not enough homes to go around began a huge campaign based on spaying and neutering pets. Vets began to routinely urge clients to sterilize their pets as an integral part of being a “responsible owner”. Planned breeding became a politically incorrect activity. A popular slogan today is “Don’t breed or buy, while shelter dogs die.”

The crusade for spaying and neutering pets has been very successful. A 2009-2010 national pet owners’ survey by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association reveals that the vast majority of owned pets...75% of dogs and 87% of cats... are spayed or neutered. (As reported by the HSUS in Dec. 2009):

In recent years, according to Avanzino, annual shelter death numbers have dramatically declined to about 12 per thousand human residents, or about 3.6 million deaths each year. This amounts to a staggering 85% reduction in killing since the 1970s.  We have reached a nationwide pet shelter death rate averaging just 1.2% per population, effectively a “no kill” rate.

Feral cats and kittens account for the majority of shelter numbers, but many areas have actual shortages of adoptable dogs, particularly purebreds and puppies, and must import from other regions to fill the need. Dogs are being smuggled into the US by the thousands with rescue groups importing small dogs from Mexico, Brazil, the Caribbean, Taiwan and Romania, to name some of the most popular points of origin. The conservative estimate is that 300,000 dogs are imported into the US each year to meet the demand for pets.


According to shelter expert Nathan Winograd, every year in this country, approximately 3 million adoptable pets die in shelters.* At the same time, around 17 million US households are looking for a new pet. That is 17 million households above and beyond those who already will adopt a shelter or rescue pet. There are nearly six times as many homes opening up every year as the number of adoptable pets killed in shelters! It seems the greatest challenge these days is to find ways to match up the adoptable pets with the homes that are waiting for them. Breed rescues fill this niche admirably, but are privately funded and desperately in need of assistance in order to be able to effectively perform this service. Perhaps some of the public funds budgeted for shelters to kill animals could be better spent helping rescue groups who are proactive in matching adoptable pets to suitable homes.

SPAY/NEUTER AND HEALTH

Now that we have addressed the issue of pet overpopulation, let’s examine the claim that sterilization surgery promotes better health. While there are some benefits to sterilization, there are some drawbacks as well.

Sterilization will naturally serve to prevent any unwanted litters. In bitches, spaying will greatly reduce the risk of breast cancer, pyometra, perianal fistula and cancers of the reproductive organs.5

Spay surgery itself carries a somewhat high rate (around 20%) of complications such as infection, hemorrhage and even death.  Spaying significantly increases the rate of urinary incontinence in bitches….about 20-30% of all spayed bitches will eventually develop this problem. This is believed to be most likely caused by the lack of estrogen that results from being spayed.

Sterilization of males may reduce some unwanted sexual behaviors, but there are few other proven benefits to neutering a male dog. Testicular cancer is prevented, but the actual risk of that cancer is extremely low (<1%) among intact dogs. Contrary to popular belief, studies show that the risk of prostate cancer is actually HIGHER in neutered dogs than in their intact counterparts.

Several studies prove significant health risks associated with sterilization, particularly when done at an early age. The most problematic is a delayed closure of the bony growth plates. This results in an abnormal, “weedy” skeletal development that increases the incidence of orthopedic problems like hip dysplasia and patellar luxation. Working and performance dogs, if neutered before maturity, risk the inability to perform the jobs they were bred for.

But by far the most startling news to surface this year is the result of a study that shows that keeping ovaries to the age of six years or later is associated with a greater than 30% increase of lifespan in female Rottweilers.4 Similar studies in humans reinforce this finding.
A 30% longer lifespan means that you could have many additional years with your bitch simply by delaying spay surgery until middle-age or later.

Behavioral studies show that sterilization increases fearfulness, noise phobias and aggression. Other well-documented adverse health effects of de-sexing include increased risk of bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and cognitive dysfunction in older pets. Sterilization confers an increased susceptibility to infectious disease, and also a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines.

So there is no need to feel obligated to sterilize for health or welfare reasons. But what about the need to protect the puppies that we sell from unethical breeders?

PUPPY SALES CONTRACTS

Many breeders are justifiably very concerned about their dogs being subjected to neglect or abuse by falling into disreputable hands. To help prevent such situations, it has become commonplace for breeders to include spay/neuter requirements in their pet sales contract, and/or to sell the dog on a limited registration. Another common stipulation, particularly for a show/breeding dog, is requiring that the dog be returned to the seller in the event the buyer no longer wishes to keep him.

Such contracts are highly effective when selling a puppy to someone who is honest and ethical. However, contracts are easily skirted by the unscrupulous, particularly if the buyer lives in a different region. Someone intent on breeding may do so regardless of contract language, and then sell the puppies without registration. And without personal knowledge of the living conditions at your puppy’s new home, it is impossible to predict what sort of care and attention he or she will receive. Even some show breeders may have very different ideas on what constitutes proper care. There is no substitute for a home check to follow up that initial puppy application!

Bottom line, the best insurance for your puppies is making sure that you get to know the buyer personally. If something about the buyer or his attitude doesn’t seem right, then it’s probably best to cancel the sale. If you want to sell puppies on spay-neuter agreements you might consider advising the buyer to wait until the puppy reaches maturity before having sterilization surgery performed. Another idea is to ask your vet if vasectomy would be a viable alternative to castration for your male. This would preserve sex hormones and possibly prevent some of the adverse health effects of castration.

PUREBRED GENE POOLS

Sterilization of all dogs sold as companions may have some unintended adverse effects. The nature of breeding for the show ring involves intense selection that severely narrows the gene pool in many, if not most, breeds. Some breeds started with just a small pool of founders. Through the years, overuse of only a few popular sires further reduced the genetic variety available in the breed. When troublesome health problems surface and become widespread, where can we turn for “new blood”?

The show-bred population of a breed may have become too small as a result of intense inbreeding or the genetic bottleneck created by overuse of popular sires; or the breed gene pool may have become genetically depleted because of unwise selection for specific, sometimes unhealthy physical traits favored in the show ring. As a result, dogs from the “pet” population may actually be the salvation of the breed gene pool.


Trying to guess which dogs are the "best" to keep intact for showing and breeding can be hit-or-miss. Imagine the scenario where a successful show dog eventually develops a heritable health issue, while his brother is much healthier...but brother was neutered long ago, thereby eliminating those good genes forever. What about that Champion's non-show quality sister, who has good health, great mothering instincts and the genetic ability produce exceptional offspring? If sold as a spayed companion, her genes are effectively lost.

And what about the very future of the dog fancy? Many people (myself included) bought an intact dog as a pet, and only later sparked an interest in showing and breeding. Developing new breeders is critical to the survival of our sport, but if we sell all companions on spay/neuter agreements, we will lose many fanciers before they have the chance to discover the joy of dog breeding and showing!

Sadly, mandatory sterilization laws are sweeping the nation and may further compromise the future of the dog fancy. AKC registrations continue to decline and the push to legally and/or contractually require spay and neuter of most every dog will only worsen that situation.

Regardless, there is a huge demand in society for healthy pets; a demand which the responsible breeders could not come close to meeting even if they wanted to...and sometimes, they do not want to. The choice we have as a society is how that demand will be filled. Many believe that only responsible people should be allowed to keep intact dogs and breed on a limited basis. However, the attempt to legally force well-regulated and inspected commercial breeders and the casual small home breeders out of the picture leaves only the unregulated, less visible "underground" producers and smugglers to fill the need for pets. Perhaps it is time to re-think our preconceived notions about who should and shouldn't possess intact dogs!

As a dog owner, one must weigh the risks of sterilization against the benefits in order to make that very personal decision. Popular culture and many veterinarians downplay or even ignore the risks involved with spay/neuter because of their own belief in the need to reduce dog breeding in general. Many people still believe that overpopulation remains a pressing concern and that sterilization always promotes better health. Some even believe that breeding a female is abusive. It seems the animal rights groups have done an excellent job of brainwashing the public on these matters!

As breeders, we may be wise to re-examine the routine request to have all our companion puppies spayed or neutered. The future availability of pets, the perpetuation of the dog fancy, the health of the individual dogs and the gene pools of the breeds that we love may all depend on keeping a few more dogs intact!

*An adoptable pet is one that does not have insurmountable health or temperament issues. Per California’s Hayden law: The California Legislature Defines No-Kill Terms ■ California Law, SB 1785 Statutes of 1998, also known as "The Hayden Law" has defined no-kill terms.

What is Adoptable? 1834.4. (a) "No adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Adoptable animals include only those animals eight weeks of age or older that, at or subsequent to the time the animal is impounded or otherwise taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental defect that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future."

Adoptable dogs may be old, deaf, blind, disfigured or disabled.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

The unspoken truth about spaying and neutering our pets






By Christie Keith, Special to SF Gate

Why is it so hard to have a factual conversation about the medical risks
of spaying and neutering pets?

The health implications of sterilizing dogs and cats are complex and
highly individualized. Pet owners, animal advocates and veterinarians
should be able to talk about them openly and honestly.

But we can't. Why not? The societal benefits of mass spay/neuter -- the
prevention of unwanted puppies and kittens, and ending the killing of pets
in shelters -- are seen as so overwhelming that the slightest suggestion
of a medical downside to sterilization is met with an avalanche of
hostility.

The backlash can be so severe, for example, that when I've reported
research about increased health risks in sterilized dogs or cats, I've
been accused of not caring about the lives of shelter pets, or of being
hopelessly naive about people's ability to analyze the risks and benefits
of medical procedures.

Promoting spay/neuter has evidently become so important that it trumps
everything else, including the truth.

Read the advice in dog and cat magazines or the Web sites of animal  wefare organizations, and you'll be assured that not only are there no
adverse effects of spaying and neutering, but opting for the surgery will
make your pets healthier and better behaved.

Conventional wisdom says that altered pets are less likely to soil in the
house, to roam and to fight. They won't get testicular, uterine or ovarian
cancer or infections, and they'll have a greatly reduced chance of getting
mammary cancer. It sounds so great it almost makes you want to rush right
out and get spayed or neutered yourself.

Some of those things are true. You can't get cancer or an infection in an
organ that you no longer possess, so it's accurate to say that your dog or
cat won't get ovarian, uterine or testicular cancer or infections. And
there is an increased incidence of mammary cancer in unspayed female dogs
and a pretty high rate of uterine infection as well.

But there are also notable health risks associated with having your dogs
and cats spayed or neutered.

These include an increased incidence of some cancers, including
osteosarcoma, a painful and usually fatal bone cancer, in neutered male
dogs.

Neutered males also have a greater chance of getting prostate cancer and
transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Spayed females have a greater incidence of urinary incontinence. They may
also have a higher risk of bladder infections.

Meanwhile, spayed female and neutered male dogs have a significantly
greater incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injuries than intact dogs.

Recent research by Purdue University suggests that female dogs (and,
interestingly, female humans) live longer if they keep their ovaries.

And yes, no matter what you've been told, study after study has shown that
spayed and neutered dogs and cats weigh more when fed the same amount of
calories as intact animals. The surgery won't "make" them fat, but by
changing how their metabolism functions, the amount of food they can eat
without gaining weight is reduced.

For most dogs and cats that's actually no big deal -- just feed them a
little less, exercise them a little more, and they'll be fine. But how do
you do that when you're having it beaten into your brain that spaying and
neutering does not, cannot, will not make your dog or cat fat or have any
other adverse effects?

This is where I have a problem. I'm not opposed to spaying and neutering.
Most of my dogs and all of my cats have been sterilized. I believe that
for most pets, the health benefits will outweigh the risks.

Furthermore, most people will choose to sterilize their family pets
because managing intact dogs and cats is often messy and inconvenient, and
our increasingly urbanized and over-scheduled lives only make it more of a
hassle.

Most importantly, the benefit to society of preventing unwanted litters of
puppies and kittens is huge. Dogs and cats who are never born can't die in
a shelter or live homeless on the streets.

But is any of that a valid reason for what I can only call the deliberate
spreading of false and misleading information? Does it justify the anger
and opposition that meets me and anyone else who openly discusses the
medical risks to spaying and neutering?

Yes, I know there are millions of homeless pets in this country. And there
are people out there who will seize on any excuse not to alter their pets.
They're the ones who often let their animals, particularly cats, have
unwanted litters.

I also know that there's someone out there who's going to read this column
and say, "Hell, Martha, spaying and neutering will make our dog get
cancer. I read it on the Internet!"

But those aren't the majority. Most people are trying to do the best they
can for their pets and their families, and they simply need factual
information on which to base their health care decisions.

For their sakes, and those of their pets, we have to stop fearing the
truth and reacting angrily when we hear it.

If we can't have honest conversations about the health consequences of
spaying and neutering, people won't be on the alert for signs their
sterilized pet is gaining weight, because they'll have been told that,
"spaying and neutering won't make your pet fat."

They won't take precautions to protect their spayed or neutered pets from
avoidable risks such as cruciate ligament injuries.

They may not be aware that some risks of spaying and neutering can be
decreased by delaying the surgery until a dog or cat is a little older,
while others are breed-related, which can affect which breed of dog a
person adopts in the first place.

There's one final reason I firmly believe we have to stop shutting down
this conversation: Because it erodes trust. If you lie to people, they'll
stop believing what you tell them.

Veterinarians, shelter workers, dog trainers and pet sitters -- all have a
certain amount of credibility with the pet-owning public. Veterinarians,
in fact, have one of the highest levels of trust of any profession. We
shouldn't squander that in order to manipulate people into doing what we
think they should do -- or because we're afraid some idiot is going to use
it as an excuse not to spay or neuter his pets.

Let's face it, the guy who refuses to remove his dog's equipment because
he thinks it will make his own shrivel up and fall off is not being moved
by facts and a rational decision-making process.

Cheating caring dog and cat owners out of truthful medical information
because we're worried about what that guy is going to do not only doesn't
make any sense, it simply hurts the pets of good owners.

For update for 2011 see:
http://redbirddog.blogspot.com/2011/01/rethinking-spay-neuter-in-2011.html


----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2010 SF Gate