Spaying a female dog.

Graces7 · 07-07-2010 10:23am

There is a lot to be said for "juvenile( pediatric) spaying".

It is practised a lot in the US and Canada by reputable breeders.

One overview..

http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/juvenile-spay-neuter.html

Ask google for others. ( very slow connection and I cannot get sites up)

As for it calming a bitch down! No way! Our wee JRT/Basset cross hardly stopped in her tracks after her op.

It is the breed and the personality of the dog. Even adulthood has not stopped this one; but she sleeps longer now at 5 years,

lrushe · 07-07-2010 10:42am

Graces7 wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for "juvenile( pediatric) spaying".

It is practised a lot in the US and Canada by reputable breeders.

One overview..

http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/juvenile-spay-neuter.html

Ask google for others. ( very slow connection and I cannot get sites up)

As for it calming a bitch down! No way! Our wee JRT/Basset cross hardly stopped in her tracks after her op.

It is the breed and the personality of the dog. Even adulthood has not stopped this one; but she sleeps longer now at 5 years,

Graces7 I accept that early spay / neutering is needed where unwanted litters can't be prevented and therefore the viewpoint taken by humane societies. However what I am not comfortable with is the possible long term health implications associated with early spay / neutering and the fact that it is dished out as an all-in-one solution to so many dog issues without those implications being discussed with pet owners. In my own case I have found those implications unacceptable for my dogs, maybe others might aswell if they had the information.
Just to add 2 of my 3 dogs are spayed and neutered and the third will be when she's fully grown (if she's not shown) so I am not against spaying and neutering at all, just not before a dog is mature.

Graces7 · 07-07-2010 4:33pm

lrushe wrote: »

Graces7 I accept that early spay / neutering is needed where unwanted litters can't be prevented and therefore the viewpoint taken by humane societies. However what I am not comfortable with is the possible long term health implications associated with early spay / neutering and the fact that it is dished out as an all-in-one solution to so many dog issues without those implications being discussed with pet owners. In my own case I have found those implications unacceptable for my dogs, maybe others might aswell if they had the information.
Just to add 2 of my 3 dogs are spayed and neutered and the third will be when she's fully grown (if she's not shown) so I am not against spaying and neutering at all, just not before a dog is mature.

I hear you; but have you read that link and others? There are many misconceptions flying around that have no basis in fact.

For dogs I mean; maybe we think too much in human terms. Like the folk who think a cat has to have a litter etc etc etc.

Check more on google? I cannot get sites up on this internet connection; it is not just the humane societies by any means; sorry that that seemed so.

Family in Canada are breeders of champion whippets and after much research they advocate juvenile spaying. Better for the dogs all round. I trust them on this one.

ISDW · 07-07-2010 6:02pm

Graces7 wrote: »

I hear you; but have you read that link and others? There are many misconceptions flying around that have no basis in fact.

For dogs I mean; maybe we think too much in human terms. Like the folk who think a cat has to have a litter etc etc etc.

Check more on google? I cannot get sites up on this internet connection; it is not just the humane societies by any means; sorry that that seemed so.

Family in Canada are breeders of champion whippets and after much research they advocate juvenile spaying. Better for the dogs all round. I trust them on this one.

Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true.

At my local vet practice, opinion varies between the vets, 2 say wait until they are mature, one says spay before 1st heat, so it is no wonder that us mere dog owners are confused.

I get the rescue dogs spayed/neutered as soon as I can when they come in, unless they come in in season, then I wait until they are halfway to the next season. However, I have a dog of my own that I raised from a pup, hand-rearing and I have let him mature before having him neutered. He is now 18 months old and is booked in for the snip on Tuesday.

shinikins · 08-07-2010 1:19am

lrushe wrote: »

My opinion is that mammary cancer is easier to detect and much easier to treat than the likes of bone cancer which is nearly always a death sentence. I am not advocating never neutering or spaying a dog but rather waiting until it is fully matured ie 18 - 24 months old when there is only a marginally increased risk of mammary cancer over a dog who was spayed at a young age. I am not comfortable with the blanket statement given to most pet owners that spaying and neutering at 6 months is the best the answer and until there is more research gone into the long term effects of early spaying and neutering it is not a course of action I would choose for my dog. However, as I have said before if you cannot contain your intact dog then early neutering or spaying is the lesser of 2 evils.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

I have to disagree slightly with you here, mammary cancer is not easier to treat than bone cancer in dogs, as it tends to be much more insidious than any other cancer. Bone cancers in dogs can be treated, but it is an expensive process which is offputting to owners, but certainly not impossible. In fact, not 6 months after my two were spayed, one had to be put to sleep as she became absolutely riddled with secondary cancer. During their surgeries, all of their reproductive organs were removed including all their mammary glands which technically should have removed that risk.
The link that you have added is medical opinion, rather than medical fact, and there are plenty of conflicting views out there. As ISDW put it "Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true." And in my opinion, just because the author of the study has an M.S, after her name, it doesn't make her an expert...it can after all stand for Master of Science, or Medical Student...

Graces7 · 08-07-2010 6:29am

ISDW wrote: »

Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true.

At my local vet practice, opinion varies between the vets, 2 say wait until they are mature, one says spay before 1st heat, so it is no wonder that us mere dog owners are confused.

I get the rescue dogs spayed/neutered as soon as I can when they come in, unless they come in in season, then I wait until they are halfway to the next season. However, I have a dog of my own that I raised from a pup, hand-rearing and I have let him mature before having him neutered. He is now 18 months old and is booked in for the snip on Tuesday.

Not sure what your first line means?

This is experience, tried and tested.

I asked family; with the males, juvenile spaying prevents " hormone memory"; many do not realise that it takes up to six months after male neutering for the male hormones to leave the body. ie they can still produce.

In male/female, it does no harm at all. Maybe some legginess but nothing more than that and that is our experience over many years.

And yes, it means that we can sell puppies without having to "trust" owners to spay and neuter; the US and Canada have an appalling over-population of dogs and are tackling it well.

Yes it is a "new idea " here, and will take time to sift through.

Cherry Blossom · 08-07-2010 11:18am

lrushe wrote: »

My opinion is that mammary cancer is easier to detect and much easier to treat than the likes of bone cancer which is nearly always a death sentence. I am not advocating never neutering or spaying a dog but rather waiting until it is fully matured ie 18 - 24 months old when there is only a marginally increased risk of mammary cancer over a dog who was spayed at a young age. I am not comfortable with the blanket statement given to most pet owners that spaying and neutering at 6 months is the best the answer and until there is more research gone into the long term effects of early spaying and neutering it is not a course of action I would choose for my dog. However, as I have said before if you cannot contain your intact dog then early neutering or spaying is the lesser of 2 evils.

Was thinking about spaying at around 10 months for my West Highland Terrier, should I wait longer or would she be fully developed at this age (with small dogs maturing faster)

lrushe · 08-07-2010 11:45am

shinikins wrote: »

I have to disagree slightly with you here, mammary cancer is not easier to treat than bone cancer in dogs, as it tends to be much more insidious than any other cancer. Bone cancers in dogs can be treated, but it is an expensive process which is offputting to owners, but certainly not impossible. In fact, not 6 months after my two were spayed, one had to be put to sleep as she became absolutely riddled with secondary cancer. During their surgeries, all of their reproductive organs were removed including all their mammary glands which technically should have removed that risk.
The link that you have added is medical opinion, rather than medical fact, and there are plenty of conflicting views out there. As ISDW put it "Just because its on the internet doesn't make it true." And in my opinion, just because the author of the study has an M.S, after her name, it doesn't make her an expert...it can after all stand for Master of Science, or Medical Student...

Well we will have to agree to disagree then, I've known dogs to have mammary cancer at 5-6 years of age live until 14 after treatment with no reaccurnace, anytime I've known of dogs with bone cancer they've rarely live more than 12 months after being diagnosed. Rubbing or brushing a dog is often when mammary cancer is found by an owner as it is on the surface of the animal so its usually caught early, bone cancer isn't usually detected until the dog starts showing symptoms ie limping which by then it has spread too far as it is such an agressive form of cancer, I have never said it is impossible to treat but just alot harder than most cancers. Not to mention the treatment for bone cancer is so much more invasive than the treatment for mammary cancer. Its not just bone cancer it has been shown to decrease but also spleen, thyroid, urinary tract and heart tumours as well as vaginal dermatitis and joint disorders.
If your dog died 6 months after being spayed there is a v.real chance she already had undected cancer starting to form and that had spread, cancer can form from the v.smallest piece of infected tissue.
The study is not an opinion there are medical statistics in there that cannot be ignored. Nowhere does the study claim to be gospel but it asks for more investigation into the long term effects of early spay / neutering. I can guarantee you Laura J. Sanborn is definately not a medical sudent, I included her study because I was asked to back up my opinion with some medical facts, they only way I could do that was to provide a link to the study as I can't include the hard copy I have to a post, its not just a random link I found off the internet to support my argument.

lrushe · 08-07-2010 11:53am

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Was thinking about spaying at around 10 months for my West Highland Terrier, should I wait longer or would she be fully developed at this age (with small dogs maturing faster)

My personal opinion is that I would wait until she was over a year old if you can keep her away from males, if not spay her when she is 10 months. As her owner you will need to weigh up the pro's and con's as I have done with my dogs and have come to the conclusion that I would be waiting until maturity before sterilising.

shinikins · 08-07-2010 6:07pm

lrushe wrote: »

Well we will have to agree to disagree then, I've known dogs to have mammary cancer at 5-6 years of age live until 14 after treatment with no reaccurnace, anytime I've known of dogs with bone cancer they've rarely live more than 12 months after being diagnosed. Rubbing or brushing a dog is often when mammary cancer is found by an owner as it is on the surface of the animal so its usually caught early, bone cancer isn't usually detected until the dog starts showing symptoms ie limping which by then it has spread too far as it is such an agressive form of cancer, I have never said it is impossible to treat but just alot harder than most cancers. Not to mention the treatment for bone cancer is so much more invasive than the treatment for mammary cancer. Its not just bone cancer it has been shown to decrease but also spleen, thyroid, urinary tract and heart tumours as well as vaginal dermatitis and joint disorders.
If your dog died 6 months after being spayed there is a v.real chance she already had undected cancer starting to form and that had spread, cancer can form from the v.smallest piece of infected tissue.
The study is not an opinion there are medical statistics in there that cannot be ignored. Nowhere does the study claim to be gospel but it asks for more investigation into the long term effects of early spay / neutering. I can guarantee you Laura J. Sanborn is definately not a medical sudent, I included her study because I was asked to back up my opinion with some medical facts, they only way I could do that was to provide a link to the study as I can't include the hard copy I have to a post, its not just a random link I found off the internet to support my argument.

Conversely, I have known dogs who have contracted Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) and survived. My own Cocker is one. After recovering from her mammary cancers, she developed a cancer in her hind left leg, and with succesful chemo has survived without any invasive treatment. In my opinion, neutering a female dog is far more invasive, and there is far greater risk of infection as the entire abdominal cavity is exposed. Even with more agressive bone tumours a full amputation is a far simpler and less invasive procedure.

In my opinion the reason so many dogs die from bone cancers is because their owners don't tend to be vigilant about the health of their pets.

I am curious to know how you can guarantee that Ms Sanborn is not a medical student, all i can find on her is that she is a researcher in Rutger University, and my own vet(who is a friend) has never come across her in the course of his own studies. He also stated that a 4 year old study based on 200 previous papers is hardly reliable.

At the end of the day, i trust my vet, he studied intensively for 5 years and has completed a post graduate degree. He is my expert!

lrushe · 08-07-2010 7:07pm

shinikins wrote: »

Conversely, I have known dogs who have contracted Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) and survived. My own Cocker is one. After recovering from her mammary cancers, she developed a cancer in her hind left leg, and with succesful chemo has survived without any invasive treatment. In my opinion, neutering a female dog is far more invasive, and there is far greater risk of infection as the entire abdominal cavity is exposed. Even with more agressive bone tumours a full amputation is a far simpler and less invasive procedure.

In my opinion the reason so many dogs die from bone cancers is because their owners don't tend to be vigilant about the health of their pets.

I am curious to know how you can guarantee that Ms Sanborn is not a medical student, all i can find on her is that she is a researcher in Rutger University, and my own vet(who is a friend) has never come across her in the course of his own studies. He also stated that a 4 year old study based on 200 previous papers is hardly reliable.

At the end of the day, i trust my vet, he studied intensively for 5 years and has completed a post graduate degree. He is my expert!

Like I said we will have to agree to disagree and its for each owner to make up their own mind and it just doesn't sit right with me to spay or neuter early, it is my opinion and when asked it is the one I give.
As for Laura J.Sanborn the M.S. after her name does stand for Master of Science, nowhere in the world do medical students sign there name M.S. But if Ms. Sanborn doesn't have enough letters after her name for you you might try Pam Davol PHD or Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP both have written on the subject of early spay / neutering with findings similar to Ms. Sanborns.

shinikins · 09-07-2010 12:14am

lrushe wrote: »

Like I said we will have to agree to disagree and its for each owner to make up their own mind and it just doesn't sit right with me to spay or neuter early, it is my opinion and when asked it is the one I give.
As for Laura J.Sanborn the M.S. after her name does stand for Master of Science, nowhere in the world do medical students sign there name M.S. But if Ms. Sanborn doesn't have enough letters after her name for you you might try Pam Davol PHD or Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP both have written on the subject of early spay / neutering with findings similar to Ms. Sanborns.

In the US students do indeed sign M.S. after their names, and i know this from personal experience. My question was how can you guarantee that Sanborn is not a student, not how many letters she or anyone else has after it? The main problem i have with her report is that it is very sweeping and general, giving overall statistics. For example there are 6 different types of bone cancer that can affect dogs, but her statistics just give total rates. Also, larger breeds such as Rottweilers, Labradors and Wolfhounds are far more likely to develop bone cancer than small breeds. Here are a few links that show no relation of early neutering to increased risk of bone cancer.
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&S=0&C=0&A=575
http://www.dalmatians.us/cancer.htm
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&S=0&C=0&A=575

All written by vets(with the accompanying letters after their names

) but they are in the end, like your link, reports published on the internet.

Beekay · 09-07-2010 12:37am

I know this is OT but How long will the dog be at the vets when getting them spayed?

shinikins · 09-07-2010 1:20am

Beekay wrote: »

I know this is OT but How long will the dog be at the vets when getting them spayed?

Depends on the vets facilities and workload, if they have space they may take your dog in overnight, or if you drop your dog in early, it my be collected that evening. Your vet should be able to give you an idea if you call and ask.

lrushe · 09-07-2010 2:10pm

shinikins wrote: »

In the US students do indeed sign M.S. after their names, and i know this from personal experience. My question was how can you guarantee that Sanborn is not a student, not how many letters she or anyone else has after it? The main problem i have with her report is that it is very sweeping and general, giving overall statistics. For example there are 6 different types of bone cancer that can affect dogs, but her statistics just give total rates. Also, larger breeds such as Rottweilers, Labradors and Wolfhounds are far more likely to develop bone cancer than small breeds. Here are a few links that show no relation of early neutering to increased risk of bone cancer.
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&S=0&C=0&A=575
http://www.dalmatians.us/cancer.htm
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&S=0&C=0&A=575

All written by vets(with the accompanying letters after their names ) but they are in the end, like your link, reports published on the internet.

Well if (and I'm only suggesting this to humour you) M.S. does in fact stand for medical student I'll hold my hands up but I am confident that it does not. Either way Laura's findings are supported by many in the veterinary profession.
I have already listed other cancers, skin and joint disorders as well as just bone cancer which increased with early spay / neutering and whether it is an overview or not all bone cancers are serious, life threatening illnesses and any increase in their frequency should be investigated.
Your first and third link are the same and basically just give an overview of Lymphonia so I don't know what that is supposed to prove? Your second study bases its stats on 50 year old information and actively admits that there is newer information out there and when talking about bone tumours admits that there are hormonal factors associated with this disease so surely leaving your dog to mature before spaying or neutering them would help with this?
At the end of the day you can go to and fro with this study and that, most of which I have already read but when it comes down to it, imo removing vital hormones needed for correct growth and development early in a dogs development stage cannot result in anything good and for what?the sake of leaving a dog intact for an extra 12-14 months, it just makes sense to me.

lrushe · 09-07-2010 2:11pm

Beekay wrote: »

I know this is OT but How long will the dog be at the vets when getting them spayed?

Usually practice is to drop the dog down in the morning and pick up in the evening.

Graces7 · 09-07-2010 2:53pm

lrushe wrote: »

Well if (and I'm only suggesting this to humour you) M.S. does in fact stand for medical student I'll hold my hands up but I am confident that it does not. Either way Laura's findings are supported by many in the veterinary profession.
I have already listed other cancers, skin and joint disorders as well as just bone cancer which increased with early spay / neutering and whether it is an overview or not all bone cancers are serious, life threatening illnesses and any increase in their frequency should be investigated.
Your first and third link are the same and basically just give an overview of Lymphonia so I don't know what that is supposed to prove? Your second study bases its stats on 50 year old information and actively admits that there is newer information out there and when talking about bone tumours admits that there are hormonal factors associated with this disease so surely leaving your dog to mature before spaying or neutering them would help with this?
At the end of the day you can go to and fro with this study and that, most of which I have already read but when it comes down to it, imo removing vital hormones needed for correct growth and development early in a dogs development stage cannot result in anything good and for what?the sake of leaving a dog intact for an extra 12-14 months, it just makes sense to me.

This is the crux, is it not? All your posts speak of "my opinion" and " to me"
Rather than trusting the experience of good breeders over decades of breeding, caring people who love their dogs and have the finest reputation. eg our family.

Reproductive hormones in dogs are not essential for what you call "correct development". I think you are confusing this with eg growth hormones which are produced eg in the brain. All reproductive hormones do is stimulate reproduction; period.

Cannot use the words family used when I read your posts to them!

But to spay and neuter later, and as late as you do is unwise and even unkind.

For males, as soon as the testicles descend is the optimum time. NB it occurred to me that that is also the time good farmers use for lambs and other animal not to be used for breeding; they can be dealt with faster and with much less stress to the animal. And with better physical results as per body weight etc.

Miss Lockhart · 09-07-2010 5:56pm

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Was thinking about spaying at around 10 months for my West Highland Terrier, should I wait longer or would she be fully developed at this age (with small dogs maturing faster)

Please ask a vet you trust for advice - not random people on the internet.

lrushe wrote: »

Well if (and I'm only suggesting this to humour you) M.S. does in fact stand for medical student I'll hold my hands up but I am confident that it does not. Either way Laura's findings are supported by many in the veterinary profession.
I have already listed other cancers, skin and joint disorders as well as just bone cancer which increased with early spay / neutering and whether it is an overview or not all bone cancers are serious, life threatening illnesses and any increase in their frequency should be investigated.
Your first and third link are the same and basically just give an overview of Lymphonia so I don't know what that is supposed to prove? Your second study bases its stats on 50 year old information and actively admits that there is newer information out there and when talking about bone tumours admits that there are hormonal factors associated with this disease so surely leaving your dog to mature before spaying or neutering them would help with this?
At the end of the day you can go to and fro with this study and that, most of which I have already read but when it comes down to it, imo removing vital hormones needed for correct growth and development early in a dogs development stage cannot result in anything good and for what?the sake of leaving a dog intact for an extra 12-14 months, it just makes sense to me.

I can find absolutely no evidence at all of that.

Where is that article you linked to originally published - you said you have a hard copy? I have access to all reputable vet journals and the vast majority of biomedical science journals and I cannot find it published or even cited anywhere. Nor can I find any other articles published by Laura J Sanborn MS.

Now, my research skills may not be the best - and I'm genuinely interested to read this information if it is peer reviewed.

lrushe · 09-07-2010 8:37pm

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

This is the crux, is it not? All your posts speak of "my opinion" and " to me"
Rather than trusting the experience of good breeders over decades of breeding, caring people who love their dogs and have the finest reputation. eg our family.

Reproductive hormones in dogs are not essential for what you call "correct development". I think you are confusing this with eg growth hormones which are produced eg in the brain. All reproductive hormones do is stimulate reproduction; period.

Cannot use the words family used when I read your posts to them!

But to spay and neuter later, and as late as you do is unwise and even unkind.

For males, as soon as the testicles descend is the optimum time. NB it occurred to me that that is also the time good farmers use for lambs and other animal not to be used for breeding; they can be dealt with faster and with much less stress to the animal. And with better physical results as per body weight etc.

After reading research it is my opinion.
Hormones released while a dog is maturing absolutely effect the way it grows, you yourself have said the dogs your family breed become leggy, that is just one symptom, how do you know what's going on on the inside, you don't.
What makes you think your family's opinion holds anymore weight than mine, I've had dogs for over 25 years, my Dad has bred them for many more, your family are in no better a position than me, at least I've an open enough mind to look at both sides to come to my conclusion and yes I too have listened to breeders who are coming around to this way of thinking.
As for farm animals they are a totally different story, they are not expected to live as long a life as a dog so any long term effects on their health ie 8 years or older is not seen as important as a companion animal.

lrushe · 09-07-2010 8:41pm

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Now, my research skills may not be the best - and I'm genuinely interested to read this information if it is peer reviewed.

Re-read my earlier posts I've already mentioned 2.

Miss Lockhart · 09-07-2010 9:11pm

lrushe wrote: »

Re-read my earlier posts I've already mentioned 2.

Neither of them have any published articles about neutering in any of the journals I have access to, that I can find.

I specifically asked about the article by Laura J. Sanborn.

lrushe · 09-07-2010 9:20pm

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Neither of them have any published articles about neutering in any of the journals I have access to, that I can find.

I specifically asked about the article by Laura J. Sanborn.

Just because someone hasn't published something in one of your journals doesn't mean they are talking out of their hat, they are v.real people, with v.real qualifications.

Miss Lockhart · 09-07-2010 9:31pm

lrushe wrote: »

Just because someone hasn't published something in one of your journals doesn't mean they are talking out of their hat, they are v.real people, with v.real qualifications.

I didn't say it meant they were talking out their hat. They are not "my" journals, they are the world-wide accepted science and veterinary journals. The ones where theories of merit are discussed.

The accepted method in science is to put forward your theory, backed up by research and statistics, for publication in a reputable journal. It is then peer-reviewed and published. Other scientists can then examine the research and the science behind what you say and can agree/disagree, offer other points of view, suggest further research etc.

These people can have all the qualifications they like, but until their theories are properly researched and reviewed, then that's all they are - theories.

Two of the people are not vets, so I would not trust their ability to properly understand the clinical implications of the diseases they are talking about in the first place. One is a vet so is more qualified to discuss her ideas, but as far as I can see she has not come up with any scientifically sound research.

Cherry Blossom · 09-07-2010 9:33pm

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Please ask a vet you trust for advice - not random people on the internet.

I'm not asking advice from random people on the internet, I'm collecting opinions to help me come to my own conclusion:p I've already heard differing views from 2 vets that I trust
I have a masters degree so I think I'm perfectly capable of sifting through information to enable me to form my own decision. This is not an area I'm familiar with and neither science nor medicine are my field, so I'm familiarising myself with it now.

lrushe · 10-07-2010 12:44am

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I didn't say it meant they were talking out their hat. They are not "my" journals, they are the world-wide accepted science and veterinary journals. The ones where theories of merit are discussed.

The accepted method in science is to put forward your theory, backed up by research and statistics, for publication in a reputable journal. It is then peer-reviewed and published. Other scientists can then examine the research and the science behind what you say and can agree/disagree, offer other points of view, suggest further research etc.

These people can have all the qualifications they like, but until their theories are properly researched and reviewed, then that's all they are - theories.

Two of the people are not vets, so I would not trust their ability to properly understand the clinical implications of the diseases they are talking about in the first place. One is a vet so is more qualified to discuss her ideas, but as far as I can see she has not come up with any scientifically sound research.

You could try David J. Waters, DVM, PhD and his study on Ovaries & Longevity.

Dr. John Verstegen, Dr. Deborah Duffy, Dr. Karine Verstegen-

Onclin, Dr. Iris Reichler and Dr. Vic Spain study on non-reproductive effects of spaying and neutering, plenty of scientifically sound research there.
How do you know none of the studies have been published, have you check through them all aswell as all their references?
There was a time when world-wide accepted science thought the world was flat and people were damned for thinking otherwise, up until recently world-wide accepted science thought atoms were the smallest particles in the universe until they were split. Science is not static, ideas are contantly evolving.

lrushe · 10-07-2010 12:59am

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Please ask a vet you trust for advice - not random people on the internet.

I'm not asking advice from random people on the internet, I'm collecting opinions to help me come to my own conclusion:p I've already heard differing views from 2 vets that I trust

Thank You, this is my entire point, you can't just take one opinion on this topic. Early spaying and neutering is rammed down people's throat so much I will always try to be the voice of the other side of the fence, if people have both sides they can make their own informed descision

shinikins · 10-07-2010 2:04am

lrushe wrote: »

I have already listed other cancers, skin and joint disorders as well as just bone cancer which increased with early spay / neutering and whether it is an overview or not all bone cancers are serious, life threatening illnesses and any increase in their frequency should be investigated.
Your first and third link are the same and basically just give an overview of Lymphonia so I don't know what that is supposed to prove? Your second study bases its stats on 50 year old information and actively admits that there is newer information out there and when talking about bone tumours admits that there are hormonal factors associated with this disease so surely leaving your dog to mature before spaying or neutering them would help with this?

Nowhere in your previous posts have you listed any of the above increasing unless you mean your post #39, wherein you state " Its not just bone cancer it has been shown to decrease but also spleen, thyroid, urinary tract and heart tumours as well as vaginal dermatitis and joint disorders." Maybe that was a typo on your part.
As for my links, yes i posted the same one twice, oops!! It does very clearly state in the second paragraph "We do not know how dogs (or people for that matter) get cancer most of the time" And the second link does state that the stats are over 50 years old-my point is that the author is very clear and upfront about the age of the information included, unlike Sanborns study, which is entirely based on stats of unknown origin or age.

Graces7 wrote: »

Reproductive hormones in dogs are not essential for what you call "correct development". I think you are confusing this with eg growth hormones which are produced eg in the brain. All reproductive hormones do is stimulate reproduction; period.

Graces7 said it all really, and what you've stated (below) is a fallacy-if you'd like links, i can find them.

lrushe wrote: »

After reading research it is my opinion.
Hormones released while a dog is maturing absolutely effect the way it grows, you yourself have said the dogs your family breed become leggy, that is just one symptom, how do you know what's going on on the inside, you don't.

What makes you think your family's opinion holds anymore weight than mine, I've had dogs for over 25 years, my Dad has bred them for many more, your family are in no better a position than me, at least I've an open enough mind to look at both sides to come to my conclusion and yes I too have listened to breeders who are coming around to this way of thinking.

I've had dogs for over 32 years, my father for far longer than that and my grandmother was a very reputable and well known breeder. Whats that got to do with the price of cheese?!!:D

I don't think you do have an open mind, from my perspective you seem to have taken Sanborn study as gospel, and you're now running with it. My fear is that your defending the study so emphatically, that you may be disregarding a lot more.
In your last post you state "if people have both sides they can make their own informed descision-an informed decision can only be formed from careful evaluation of all the facts" If you speak to your vet about the subject he/she will be able to give you much more up to date information regarding Neutering/Spaying than is available on the internet, and you will indeed have all the facts.

ISDW · 10-07-2010 12:14pm

shinikins wrote: »

I've had dogs for over 32 years, my father for far longer than that and my grandmother was a very reputable and well known breeder. Whats that got to do with the price of cheese?!!:D

If you speak to your vet about the subject he/she will be able to give you much more up to date information regarding Neutering/Spaying than is available on the internet, and you will indeed have all the facts.

I know that lrushe is more than capable of defending themselves, but the information about their family history with dogs was in answer to Graces7 point that she knows a lot of this stuff because of her family's history with dogs and thats where she gets her information from.

The problem with speaking with vets, as I posted previously, is that they don't all say the same thing. I use a practice with 3 vets, I have spoken to 2 of them about the best time to spay/neuter, 1 of them said before the first season, the other said to wait until the dog is mature. Which of them should I listen to? Both of them have read studies and could quote me research to argue their own case.

lrushe · 10-07-2010 12:49pm

shinikins wrote: »

I don't think you do have an open mind, from my perspective you seem to have taken Sanborn study as gospel, and you're now running with it. My fear is that your defending the study so emphatically, that you may be disregarding a lot more.
In your last post you state "if people have both sides they can make their own informed descision-an informed decision can only be formed from careful evaluation of all the facts" If you speak to your vet about the subject he/she will be able to give you much more up to date information regarding Neutering/Spaying than is available on the internet, and you will indeed have all the facts.

I have named at least 4 other people and named 2 other studies in previous posts besides Sanborn's (by the way she has 2 pages of references so her stat origins are hardly unknown) so I don't know why you are so hung up on just her study. I could flip you're comment on it's head and say you are so busy defending old theories that you can't open you're mind to new findings. As I've said in a previous post science, medicine etc. is constantly evolving, almost everyday new things are being discovered so I don't know how you could be so closed minded to that. How many times in scientific history have new ways of thinking been ridiculed by the minds of their time only to be eventually proven to be true.
I have spoken to a vet regarding these studies which is what gave me the confidence to wait until my youngest dog is mature before spaying her, do you honestly think I would jeopardise my dogs health on the basis of one thing I read off the internet, please. Some of what I've posted here has been suggested by that vet as well as a few breeders, some of whom are now writing into their sales contract that their pups (who are not going to show homes) not be sterilised until 12-14 months, though they are now thinking of increasing that to 18 months.

shinikins · 10-07-2010 4:11pm

lrushe wrote: »

I have named at least 4 other people and named 2 other studies in previous posts besides Sanborn's (by the way she has 2 pages of references so her stat origins are hardly unknown) so I don't know why you are so hung up on just her study. I could flip you're comment on it's head and say you are so busy defending old theories that you can't open you're mind to new findings. As I've said in a previous post science, medicine etc. is constantly evolving, almost everyday new things are being discovered so I don't know how you could be so closed minded to that. How many times in scientific history have new ways of thinking been ridiculed by the minds of their time only to be eventually proven to be true.
I have spoken to a vet regarding these studies which is what gave me the confidence to wait until my youngest dog is mature before spaying her, do you honestly think I would jeopardise my dogs health on the basis of one thing I read off the internet, please. Some of what I've posted here has been suggested by that vet as well as a few breeders, some of whom are now writing into their sales contract that their pups (who are not going to show homes) not be sterilised until 12-14 months, though they are now thinking of increasing that to 18 months.

I've never given my personal opinion on early neutering, so without knowing my opinion on the matter i can hardly be called closed minded. I was try to point out to you how flawed it was to base your opinion on a report of dubious origin(by the way, Sanborn does indeed list references, some of which date to 1968-hardly current). "Science is not static, ideas are contantly evolving" Your words. You'll find that any scientific fact(whether it changes in the future or not)has been published in medical journals, and peer reviewed to become fact. Sanborns hasn't. I've stated quite clearly from the start that your vet is the expert, as they have studied for their masters degree, and keep honing their skills, and reading newly published medical journals, so they are the people most qualified to make a medical opinion. I don't think that makes me closed minded to progress.

Spaying a female dog.

Comments