Spaying a female dog.

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.
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 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.

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 wrote: »

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.

Firstly as mentioned my opinion is not based on just one report (I've mentioned a few, just seems like you're stuck on just the one though) and even though that one does contain some older references (most are within the last 10 - 15 years) they are still more up to date than the link you posted. I'm also curious how you know Sanborns report hasn't been peer reviewed?? Have you read all the veterinary journals??
Secondly as mentioned also there has been so many times scientific fact has been disproved despite opposition.
Thirdly as mention (and I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this stage) my opinion is supported by my vet it's not just an idea I've pulled out of the sky.

Having had nearly 1000 dogs spayed and neutered I feel I have the experience to have an opinion on the matter without having links to scientific research plastered all over my post .

If I remember correctly paediatric spay and neuter stems from the US and was brought in under the impression that if an animal is done that young it would retain puppyish behaviour longer and was less likely to be swapped for a younger model at a later stage.

I am anti paediatric spay and neuter, the animal has no time to develop mentally as well as physically and IMHO there are links between anti social behaviour and early neuter. The amount of dogs with behavioural problems is growing steadily.

I am pro neuter obviously but not at any cost. I neuter according to the breed/type of the dog. Small breeds develop faster and can be done earlier. With large and giant breeds I wait.

Early spay and neuter can enhance growth and can cause serious problems at a later stage, especially in joints.

Yes, in my opinion ten months is a good age for a Westie to be spayed.

lrushe wrote: »

I v.much doubt even a praticing vet has read every veterinary journal written in the last ten years so I don't except that you can say that it is not peer reviewed, the v.fact that the only study you quoted had 50 year old information shows that.
I only quoted one study because I was only asked for one I didn't want my post saturated in studies, I know where I got my opinion from but after further grilling I have mentioned much more than one study which you obviously haven't even look at.
I only mentioned my vet (who I hadn't finally spoke to, I'd spoken to all along) when asked, up until then all yourself and another poster wanted me to do was quote studies.

If you doubt that every practising vet has read recent journals written over the last 10 years, then maybe you should consider studying Veterinary Sciences, your opinion would soon change.
I actually linked 2 studies, not 1, and the one that you are referring to does contain stats that are 50 years old, but at the risk of repeating myself again the study itself was not based on those facts. I never asked you to post any links, you must have me confused with someone else.