# To Spay/Neuter Working Dog



## Bianca Soler

I have seen several different opinions on to spay or not to spay working dogs. Well I would like your thoughts. Medically, there are several benefits of spaying/neutering a dog, however, in a working dog, what are the effects drive/work wise.? Is there a difference in drive? When is the right time to spay/neuter a working dog? Currently I have a male and female, both 14 weeks old.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Bianca, let's start this off by you explaining the medical benefits.


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Bianca Soler said:


> I have seen several different opinions on to spay or not to spay working dogs. Well I would like your thoughts. Medically, there are several benefits of spaying/neutering a dog, however, in a working dog, what are the effects drive/work wise.? Is there a difference in drive? When is the right time to spay/neuter a working dog? Currently I have a male and female, both 14 weeks old.


Wait till there both mature if you must


----------



## Bob Scott

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


----------



## Beverly Tyler

Bob Scott
I was given this same paper when purchasing a dog to train for service work, and advised to not neuter until 18 months, he is 13 weeks now. I will be waiting.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Medically, there are several benefits of spaying/neutering a dog, 

This is crap. Just so you know, it is CRAP. LOL

They talk about a greater risk of cancer, however they do not tell you it is a hundreds of a percent. I think I remember .03 or .003. Think about that. They are not lying, but spay and neuter is big money for a vets office. Kinda like shots.


----------



## Jonathon Howard

There was a paper on spaying MWD GSDs. They found an increase in aggression and reactivity after speying of females. 

Whether it would make them better for sport/service you would have to make your own decision.

Title: Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs. 
Author(s): Kim, Hyeon H, Yeon, Seong C, Houpt, Katherine A, et al.
Source: *Vet J* Volume: *172* Issue: *1* Pages: *154-9* Published: *2006 *


----------



## Matt Grosch

last vet, I stopped going to, put such a hard sell on me to spay my female AB that she would have made a used car salesman proud

told me "she is more likely to get cancer", when I asked how much more likely, she told me more likely than not (so that means I would lead her to have a 51%+ chance of getting cancer)

little staffy bull I had when I lived at home and went to school (dad still has him, he is 14 and going strong) was never neutered


remember, these are the same idiots that try to get you to feed science diet (and even human doctors dont know about nutrition, hormones, etc)


----------



## Ashley Campbell

IMHO, neutering a dog for no other reason than "the vet said to" is...crap. Unless he is monorchid or cryptorchid(sp? I'm lazy), I wouldn't stress about it for any dog. I think in the case that the dogs nuts don't drop there is a larger increase in cancer, but don't quote me on that.

Spaying a bitch? Unless you absolutely cannot deal with them bleeding twice a year or they develop pyometra, I'd leave them alone too. 

Early spay/neuter before maturity is just a bad idea as far as I'm concerned and the health problems associated with doing it early are greater than the risk of a 10 year old dog developing cancer. But that's all my opinion.


----------



## Bianca Soler

Thank you all for your comments. However, I must say, all Vets are not full of crap. There are several that do push unnecessary things for the wrong reasons. But my husband has been in Veterinary Medicine for several years. We learned firsthand. My husband only makes suggestions, but he never pushes an owner to do something they don’t want. He can only suggest, then it’s up to the owner to make that decision. We have seen owners say the same things about spay/neuter and unfortunately have to come back and spend several hundred dollars treating their dogs or end up losing their dogs to pyrometra or prostate infection. Example: My sister had a lab and at the age of 4, she rushed her to my husband’s office and had to do emergency surgery. My sister said there were no signs, until that morning, where she had pus leaking out. (Pyo) Example #2 Our very own dog, we wanted to wait and neuter him in case we bred him, at age 5, literally from one day to another, he was very lethargic and not himself, we did x-rays, and his prostate was about to burst from the infection. So yes things can happen if you do not spay or neuter. Again, I don’t know what vets you are going to but I know not all vets practice/beliefs are the same. Just like human doctors. Everyone has different beliefs etc. But to judge and say all vets are full of crap is a little much. Cause god forbid something happens to your dog, it’s a vet that will try and cure and save them. Hopefully, you may be one of the lucky ones that experience no medical issues, but there is always that risk. There is no doubt, I will spay and neuter them, My questions was leaning more towards when is the right time to do it in a work dog. ;-) Happy Holidays!:grin:


----------



## Jennifer Michelson

I have 2 males (havent had a female yet) and neutered the 1st at 2 years. Havent noticed any difference. Drive still high, still lifts his leg etc. He was no problem intact, but has a few faults (SIBO being the main issue), so wanted him off the genetics list. 

Puppy will probably be neutered at 2, we'll see. I would spay a female at maturity. I know I dont want to deal with heat. Doing SAR, I am not allowed to deploy a female in heat. I have also seen some girls a little 'off' around their heat. 

I just dont want to deal with an intact animal if I dont have to. I know that if I have a lapse on containment/judgement, I wont ever have to worry about puppies or my boy getting in trouble for seeing out a girlfriend. I think it is personal preference and if you are a responsible dog owner, it shouldnt matter. Personally I am a big supporter of pets being fixed--I dont think most people are responsible pet owners.


----------



## Tammy St. Louis

I would say that if you wait till the dog is 2 yrs old or so , i cant think it would affect their drive after this, they will be who they are by that time, all my dogs are fixed except for my pup he will be done at around 2 yrs, they all work really well and very hard, neutering has not changed thier drive, but , i dont do bite work sports so i cannot comment on that, but i do do agility , flyball , dog sledding and such i have not found them to be toned down in any way,


----------



## Sara Waters

My dogs are all high drive working sheep dogs and I have never noticed any problem. I sterilise them all these days between 8 months (females)and 18 months (males).

I nearly lost my young cattle dog at 9 months old following her first heat from pyometra. It was scary how quickly that came on, one minute she was fine, next she was nearly dead. An emergency spay saved her. 

My highest drive working cattle dog was spayed at 6 months and lived till she was 17, still full on right to the end. She worked range cattle - really tough job and she was into it. I have owned enough dogs (35) to come to the conclusion there was no problem with neutering at those ages.

I personally dont want to be bothered managing intact dogs. I think it comes down to personal choice. There are pros and cons in both camps.

I work in rescue and see too many good dogs put down, results of pet owners who couldnt manage intact animals. Afriend of mine is a vet and she euthanaises a lot of these dogs so yeah she encourages the average pet owner to sterilise.

If you can mange it then no problem.


----------



## Bianca Soler

Thank you! I will wait and see but I think it is best to wait till they are both 2 years old and play it by ear if before 2 years. But once they are to their full maturity they will get fixed. I have no need to breed etc. Happy Holidays to everyone!


----------



## Gina Pasieka

For the majority of pet owners, spay and neuter is the way to go. I am less concerned about people with intact males than females, as the potential problems are a lot less immediately dangerous. There is a documented increase risk for mammary cancer in intact females....increases by 8% after the first heat...and goes up about an additional 10% until their third heat, afterwhich there is no difference. The chance of a dog getting mammary cancer if she has been spayed before her first heat is 0.05%. Really I am most concerned about pet people being able to recognize early enough signs of pyometra before their dogs are in a life threatening situation. Males I am less concerned about. There is no difference in prostate cancer between intact and neutered dogs. Testicular cancer is a risk, however most of the time it is a curable problem with neutering, though I have seen cases of metastatic disease. The real big difference is prostatitis in intact males...but that is easily fixed with neutering later in life if you have to. PS my first working dog was a spayed female...she lifted her leg to pee and crap...no hormones needed...lol. As far as the problems of neutering early...there have been studies that have shown an increased risk for cruciate tears in dogs neutered early. Also neutered dogs have growth plates that are open for a longer period of time...I am sure everyone here has seen tall lanky dogs...well these dogs will be taller without the secondary sexual characteristics of increased muscle mass.


----------



## leslie cassian

My Mal was neutered at 7 months. At that point he was supposed to be just a pet. I discovered schutzhund about a year later. Neutering hasn't affected his drive or his ability to work. I do wonder if the early neuter contributed to him being very leggy, or if he is just a tall dog.

My female DS is not spayed yet at 18 months old. My vet mentioned spaying, but when I said that she was going to be a working/competition dog, agreed it was best to wait. I may or may not spay her depending on what it's like to deal with her heat cycles and my two males, who are neutered, but still aware of and interested in a bitch in heat.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Bianca Soler said:


> Thank you all for your comments. However, I must say, all Vets are not full of crap. There are several that do push unnecessary things for the wrong reasons. But my husband has been in Veterinary Medicine for several years. We learned firsthand. My husband only makes suggestions, but he never pushes an owner to do something they don’t want. He can only suggest, then it’s up to the owner to make that decision. We have seen owners say the same things about spay/neuter and unfortunately have to come back and spend several hundred dollars treating their dogs or end up losing their dogs to pyrometra or prostate infection. Example: My sister had a lab and at the age of 4, she rushed her to my husband’s office and had to do emergency surgery. My sister said there were no signs, until that morning, where she had pus leaking out. (Pyo) Example #2 Our very own dog, we wanted to wait and neuter him in case we bred him, at age 5, literally from one day to another, he was very lethargic and not himself, we did x-rays, and his prostate was about to burst from the infection. So yes things can happen if you do not spay or neuter. Again, I don’t know what vets you are going to but I know not all vets practice/beliefs are the same. Just like human doctors. Everyone has different beliefs etc. But to judge and say all vets are full of crap is a little much. Cause god forbid something happens to your dog, it’s a vet that will try and cure and save them. Hopefully, you may be one of the lucky ones that experience no medical issues, but there is always that risk. There is no doubt, I will spay and neuter them, My questions was leaning more towards when is the right time to do it in a work dog. ;-) Happy Holidays!:grin:


Your husband's an internist, right? I'm sure he'll be able to point you in the right direction as far as medical stuff. ;-) As far as drives go, my 11 year old Rottweiler was not spayed until she was 9 when we adopted her and she had two pretty large mammary tumors, which I had removed soon after we adopted her. She has another one in her inguinal area that I need to get checked soon. I'm crossing my fingers that this one will not be malignant (I lucked out with the first ones). Anyways, she's semi-retired from herding (out of my three that do herding, she's got the best natural instinct, really wish I would have gotten her earlier!) and occasionally still does therapy visits. My female Malinois was a rescue and was spayed at ~2 years of age. I handle her in PSA, my husband handles her in herding, and she is a retired therapy dog. Considering I didn't start PSA with her until she was 5 years old, she's been doing well. I am not sure if I'll be allowed to title her ever because she's got a limp caused by a neurological condition, but she's fun to work. My male Malinois was not a rescue and I waited until he was nearly 3 years old to neuter him. I handle him in PSA, herding, and dock diving. No lack of drive there either. Pushy and obnoxious as ever.  

So in general, if you chose to do so, I'd say for performance females, allow them one estrus to become just about skeletally mature and then you can spay afterwards (usually 12-18 months for most females). For performance males, the time is not as exact, but waiting till they're about 2 years old as they take a bit longer to mature than females is fine. In the case of the male, if he ends up being really awesome and you want to breed him later, you can get him collected and then neuter him afterward (which is what I did with my male as a "just in case" sort of thing). As far as I know, it's not practical yet to do embryo transfer with the females unless you want to clone the dog. As far as drives, if they've got it, they've got it. If they don't...


----------



## Brian McQuain

Bianca Soler said:


> Medically, there are several benefits of spaying/neutering a dog


I put down my APBT recently who I had neutered at around 2yo (rescue, had to snip 'em)...he was around 11yo when I put him down, and had prostate cancer. The first thing the vet told me when she found the cancer was “you should’ve neut…” long pause as she stared at my nutless dog. “Oh, he is neutered.” I have a 15 yo intact male BC who still works everyday on the ranch, no health issues and still out performs the younger working dogs. Can’t say I ever had a health issue with intact dogs.


----------



## Brian McQuain

And this is Rena, (at 10yo) intact female...11 now, not slowing down and no health issues


----------



## Larry Krohn

Bianca Soler said:


> I have seen several different opinions on to spay or not to spay working dogs. Well I would like your thoughts. Medically, there are several benefits of spaying/neutering a dog, however, in a working dog, what are the effects drive/work wise.? Is there a difference in drive? When is the right time to spay/neuter a working dog? Currently I have a male and female, both 14 weeks old.


If you do spay or neuter, I highly reccomend that you wait until at least one year old. I have done extensive research on this subject after my 6 year old rotty died from bone cancer. i do neuter all my dogs but now i wait at least one year. The health risks of doing it early are terrible, they just don't develope properly and that is a fact, not my opinion.


----------



## Larry Krohn

leslie cassian said:


> My Mal was neutered at 7 months. At that point he was supposed to be just a pet. I discovered schutzhund about a year later. Neutering hasn't affected his drive or his ability to work. I do wonder if the early neuter contributed to him being very leggy, or if he is just a tall dog.
> 
> My female DS is not spayed yet at 18 months old. My vet mentioned spaying, but when I said that she was going to be a working/competition dog, agreed it was best to wait. I may or may not spay her depending on what it's like to deal with her heat cycles and my two males, who are neutered, but still aware of and interested in a bitch in heat.


Early neutering does make them tall and leggy. That is where the risk of bone cancer comes in. The dog never developes the proper muscle do to the lack of testosterone and the bones keep growing longer and longer without the muscle support. many times on the big headed dogs like a rotty the head wont fully develope either. It will not change their drive, but I have seen some get fat afterwards.


----------



## maggie fraser

Why would anyone want to neuter a male dog? Well, I just neutered my thirteen year old jrt on account of him having a very large perianal adenoma on his wee rectum. A few weeks post neutering, the wee guy is as good as new, but at least he had them for most of his days.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Considering I didn't start PSA with her until she was 5 years old, she's been doing well. I am not sure if I'll be allowed to title her ever because she's got a limp caused by a neurological condition, but she's fun to work.


Off topic, but I wouldn't worry about the limp. I've seen dogs compete and title in PSA with a limp, I don't think it's like AKC where you are immediately DQ'd, I think they leave it up to the handler to decide if the dog can do it or not. You can always let the judge know what is going on before you even start the trial, so they aren't concerned.


----------



## Matt Grosch

do any serious competitors, or military/pd k9's, neuter their dogs?


I know of one k9 that got neutered because he was too crazy, but thought this was rare and considered outdated thinking


----------



## Jason Caldwell

Other than the fact that a spay is major surgery, I can see the benefits of not having to put up a female in heat, so I'm going to focus on the subject of neutering a male........don't do it.

1) It's an easy money maker for vets, so it's pushed hard

2) I am not aware of any male mammal other than male dogs that the vet establishment encourages to have neutered.

3) You may want to breed this dog one day....one year down the road....fives years down the road....you don't know.

4) You may have to give this dog up one day... you never know...keeping this dog intact will make it more viable to be placed in a working environment, home or otherwise.


----------



## leslie cassian

Jason Caldwell said:


> Other than the fact that a spay is major surgery, I can see the benefits of not having to put up a female in heat, so I'm going to focus on the subject of neutering a male........don't do it.
> 
> 1) It's an easy money maker for vets, so it's pushed hard
> 
> 2) I am not aware of any male mammal other than male dogs that the vet establishment encourages to have neutered.
> 
> 3) You may want to breed this dog one day....one year down the road....fives years down the road....you don't know.
> 
> 4) You may have to give this dog up one day... you never know...keeping this dog intact will make it more viable to be placed in a working environment, home or otherwise.


Horses are regularly neutered (gelded). It makes them much easier and less dangerous to handle. So are bovines and any other male livestock - sheep or goats come to mind, that people keep as pets. Cats are also regularly neutered. (love my nutless kitty boys) 

I neutered my dog because I knew he wasn't going to be breeding quality. He was last pick of the litter and I had no intention of working him when I neutered him. I figured if I wanted another like him I could just go back to the breeder I got him from. 

Mostly I've dealt with my dogs as pets. I didn't want to deal with the issues of having an intact male dog. It's done, so no point second guessing whether or not it was the right decision.


----------



## Charlotte Hince

Jason Caldwell said:


> Other than the fact that a spay is major surgery, I can see the benefits of not having to put up a female in heat, so I'm going to focus on the subject of neutering a male........don't do it.
> 
> 2) I am not aware of any male mammal other than male dogs that the vet establishment encourages to have neutered..


Cats and horses. Tom cats spray and make a hideous mess. Stallions and late gelds have been hyped to be a pain in the ass to deal with, and a lot of them are. Conversely a lot of the high calibre competition animals are left in tact because of potential stud fees and the increased muscle development. Stallions are also a pain in the ass to find boarding and insurance for so there are longer term financial considerations. 

In any event the current dogs we have were fixed pretty much immediately since none of them have genes worth passing on. If I had a good quality working animal I'd have some more thinking to do.

Edit: I'll just nod along with Leslie.


----------



## Bob Scott

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

Aside from bitches in season I've never really had any "issues" with my intact males and females.
Even when I had multiple males with a bitch it wasn't that big of a deal.


----------



## maggie fraser

Horses are regularly gelded here too, I used to think nothing of it until I ventured from my shores. On the continent, Spain and Portugal particularly, they don't geld and with just a little adjustment of management, intact or stallions are kept very successfully, including boarding within a mixed yard.

I'm against mutilation for the sake of it or because it is a fashion or something worse. There's no problem with an intact male dog, females can be a pain in the ass with male dogs come season, and I have spayed females in the past.

I really don't see the point in castrating a male simple because he is a pet....I don't get it on that arguement, or for 'medical health' reasons.


----------



## Sara Waters

maggie fraser said:


> Why would anyone want to neuter a male dog? Well, I just neutered my thirteen year old jrt on account of him having a very large perianal adenoma on his wee rectum. A few weeks post neutering, the wee guy is as good as new, but at least he had them for most of his days.


Where I used to live a lot of unneutered male dogs used to roam the neighbourhood. My neighbour had an intact female and they managed her well ,but everytime she came on heat it was total chaos, with rampant romeos everywhere! even jumping into my backyard and picking fights with my dogs and trying to molest my young at the time unsterilised bitch. There were a lot of dumped puppies in that neighbourhood.

My friends and I used to go surfing to remote beaches and take our dogs. The un neutered male dogs were always picking fights and having to be stitiched up, we called them sand dune wars. As we all got older I noticed the next generation of boy dogs were neutered! much more peaceful.

I think like anything if you can manage your dogs there is no problem but if you cant then sterilise them.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I really think most of this spay/neuter hype is actually just for the convenience of the owner. The medical reason is just a better sounding excuse for mutilating your pet. Someone can do something far less abusive and get strung up for it.....but society has accepted that it is ok to castrate and spay for convenience. All of a sudden even the health of the animal is ignored. Ignorance is hard to overcome. People still buy females because they think evey male ois going to go through the house hiking his leg. Anyone that keeps males will tell you that is a wives tale. There is a lot of hobby breeder mentality out there thajt needs to be overcome.


----------



## Sara Waters

maggie fraser said:


> I'm against mutilation for the sake of it or because it is a fashion or something worse. There's no problem with an intact male dog, females can be a pain in the ass with male dogs come season, and I have spayed females in the past.
> 
> I really don't see the point in castrating a male simple because he is a pet....I don't get it on that arguement, or for 'medical health' reasons.


Unfortunatey working in rescue and having seen so many good dogs euthanaised because there wernt enough homes, I have a slightly different view. Euthanasia being the ultimate form of mutilation of a good dog. Heartbreaking.


----------



## Sara Waters

Don Turnipseed said:


> . All of a sudden even the health of the animal is ignored. Ignorance is hard to overcome. .


I am not sure what you mean by the health of the animal. My sterilised working dogs have all lived to up to 15-17 years of age with no health issues what so ever. The major health issue was nearly losing an unsterilised bitch to pyometra. I have one dog out of 35 with cruciate problems but she was very straight in the stifle so it was not unexpected. A dog with elbow dysplasia was diagnosed long before she was sterilised. 

Maybe it is a breed specific issue where sterilisation can affect the health of the animal?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sara, my comments were not directed towards you. I also have a yard full of females that have not been steralized and all are in fine health. So what have we proved here? Only that by in large, preventative surguries and medicines work best if the dog isn't likely to get it anyway. One in a hundred dogs, or, even three to five in a hundred, does not warrant everyone running to the vet and having a major surgical procedure done. They can pull stats on how many spay surgeries have complications and/or the dog dies during surgery. Hey, it is to bad if a couple of dogs get it but it is insanity to protect the other 95% from something they won't get anyway. You can get killed every time you get behind the wheel of a car also, but you haven't stopped driving. It is all about what is convenient for most people. Driving is a big conveniece that folks are willing to die for. Spaying is more convenient than dealing with it is what I am seeing.


----------



## Ashley Campbell

My thoughts are the same as Don's. Growing up, I had a female cat. The ONLY cat I've ever liked. She was spayed and died of mammary cancer anyway. It was a hideous and horrible way for the cat to go out, she really suffered toward the end. 
So no, unless 100% medically necessary (testicular cancer, uterine cancer, pyometra, etc) my dogs can stay the way they were made. I made this mistake a few months ago with another dog, and while it gave him a great home because they wanted a neutered male, there were some serious complications after his neuter and it was down right cruel to have to continue to drag him back to the vet to have it repaired - also very ouchy on my pocketbook.


----------



## Sara Waters

Don Turnipseed said:


> Sara, my comments were not directed towards you. I also have a yard full of females that have not been steralized and all are in fine health. So what have we proved here? Only that by in large, preventative surguries and medicines work best if the dog isn't likely to get it anyway. One in a hundred dogs, or, even three to five in a hundred, does not warrant everyone running to the vet and having a major surgical procedure done. They can pull stats on how many spay surgeries have complications and/or the dog dies during surgery. Hey, it is to bad if a couple of dogs get it but it is insanity to protect the other 95% from something they won't get anyway. You can get killed every time you get behind the wheel of a car also, but you haven't stopped driving. It is all about what is convenient for most people. Driving is a big conveniece that folks are willing to die for. Spaying is more convenient than dealing with it is what I am seeing.


My concerns are not medical. I have seen sterilised and unsterilised dogs get a range of conditions. There may be the occaisional spay complication although I fortunately have never heard of one personally, and unsterilised bitches occasionaly die from pyometra - a breeder friend of mine lost one of hers from ongoing complications.

My main concern is the thousands of unwanted dogs that are euthanaised. I have 3 I rescued from euthanaisa. I wish I could take more on but they are in overwhelming numbers.

Just strong view I hold and the thoughts of those wonderul dogs that never had a chance. The first dog a lovely young ACD (my favourite breed) that was euthanaised before we could rescue her from the pound still haunts me. That is when we started a rescue service in my town and saw the full impact of unsterilised dogs owned by the wider public.


----------



## Jennifer Michelson

I have to laugh-Everything we do with our dogs is for the convenience of the owner. We crop, dock, train for all sorts of odd things, put them in danger running game or criminals etc etc etc. 

Keeping animals is purely for the convenience and pleasure of the human. I think it is picking nits to say one thing or the other is more unnatural for the animals.


----------



## Joby Becker

Sara Waters said:


> My concerns are not medical. I have seen sterilised and unsterilised dogs get a range of conditions. There may be the occaisional spay complication although I fortunately have never heard of one personally, and unsterilised bitches occasionaly die from pyometra - a breeder friend of mine lost one of hers from ongoing complications.
> 
> My main concern is the thousands of unwanted dogs that are euthanaised. I have 3 I rescued from euthanaisa. I wish I could take more on but they are in overwhelming numbers.
> 
> Just strong view I hold and the thoughts of those wonderul dogs that never had a chance. The first dog a lovely young ACD (my favourite breed) that was euthanaised before we could rescue her from the pound still haunts me. That is when we started a rescue service in my town and saw the full impact of unsterilised dogs owned by the wider public.


I see what you are saying, you want most animals altered, so the idiots that own them wont have accidental litters.

But I also wonder how many litters are bred on purpose that also contribute to the pounds...

At least the shelters/ rescues mostly spay neuter to stop the cycle with those individual dogs...

let me ask a ? 

Hypothetically if there was a 100 % "reset" as far as shelters, rescue systems go.
As in all the dogs just "poof" were gone, how long would it take to refill the system in your opinion. would it have an impact at all?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Jason Caldwell said:


> Other than the fact that a spay is major surgery, I can see the benefits of not having to put up a female in heat, so I'm going to focus on the subject of neutering a male........don't do it.
> 
> 1) It's an easy money maker for vets, so it's pushed hard


Nope. Disclaimer: I live in the Midwest, so most neuters cost something between $60 and $150 in private practice. I don't know a single vet out there who actually makes real money just doing spays and neuters. If it was that profitable, I'd suspect you'd hear about places that only do that. I don't know of a single practice where all they do is spays and neuters except the low/no cost programs, which can afford to be that cheap because they are subsidized by donations, special funds, tax dollars, etc. They could be out there, but I doubt it. 

I helped spay 18 Angus/Gelbvieh cross heifers for a mixed practice vet in *very* rural Missouri in the spring as the producer wanted to sell them as roping calves for rodeos and didn't want them coming into heat. We used the least expensive materials possible, obviously no anesthesia except a line block with local anesthetic, just ran them through the chute, and the vet charged the producer the bare minimum for the surgery just so I could learn the technique. It was still $25 per heifer for time, materials, etc. 



> 2) I am not aware of any male mammal other than male dogs that the vet establishment encourages to have neutered.


Others answered, but just about all the male domesticated animals that aren't used specifically for breeding are typically castrated, whether they are for food (most food animals), work (horses, oxen), or pets (cats, ferrets, many pocket pets). 



> 3) You may want to breed this dog one day....one year down the road....fives years down the road....you don't know.


Which is why you can get him collected and then neutered. 



> 4) You may have to give this dog up one day... you never know...keeping this dog intact will make it more viable to be placed in a working environment, home or otherwise.


Not in a pet home it won't. Most average pet homes don't want to deal with an intact male. If I wasn't interested in breeding a working dog, I wouldn't say no to a neutered male for a performance dog. If he's got it, he's got it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Just for fun, let's all call a vet in our areas tomooow and get a price for spaying a 75lb female. Just to give Maren an idea what the real world is about. Include all the extra's like office visit etc.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

You live in California. That's not the real world. :lol: I have shadowed and externed at nearly 10 vet hospitals/clinics in Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado, in very rural, suburban, and urban settings. No one, including our vet school and a more holistic upscale practice, charges more than $150 for a neuter surgery.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Any vet that suggests that spaying and neutering should be done for health benefits is a piece of crap. They might as well say if you cut their legs off they have less of a chance of breaking their legs in the future or hurting themselves in other ways. I don’t think all the vets that say it are trying to make a buck, I think many of them are just brainwashed and cant think for themselves. 
As far as cutting them up to help relive the shelters I think this is retarded as well. This is just the goody good people feeling like they need something to preach. It’s not politically correct to say and its unfortunate but those shelters just need to get those dogs in the gas chamber faster. 
I don’t know a thing about hormones but I’ll never believe that taking the parts of a dog that produce testosterone don’t change a dog in drive or endurance. How do you people who are saying it hasn’t affected your dogs performance know, its not like you can put them back on for a few days to compare. 

That all being said my wife cut the nuts off my dogs. She insisted, I don’t think she really knows why other than everyone is brainwashed into thinking it’s the right thing to do. I really could care less if people do it to their dogs. Just be real as say the real reason you’re doing it, your lazy and it makes the dog easer to live with. 

My next dog is going to keep his nuts… as long as I have the nuts to stand up for him?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maren Bell Jones said:


> You live in California. That's not the real world. :lol: I have shadowed and externed at nearly 10 vet hospitals/clinics in Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado, in very rural, suburban, and urban settings. No one, including our vet school and a more holistic upscale practice, charges more than $150 for a neuter surgery.


That is why I suggested everyone call....to get a good balance for you So. ets all call and get a price for both spay and neuter of 75lb dogs. I have never had a dog spayed or neutered so I don't have a clue, but from the prices you quote for everything... they just have to be the cut rate vets.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Chris McDonald said:


> My next dog is going to keep his nuts… as long as I have the nuts to stand up for him?




Well Chris, if she wins next time I suggest you keep the ones the dog looses.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Off topic, but I wouldn't worry about the limp. I've seen dogs compete and title in PSA with a limp, I don't think it's like AKC where you are immediately DQ'd, I think they leave it up to the handler to decide if the dog can do it or not. You can always let the judge know what is going on before you even start the trial, so they aren't concerned.


Good to know, because she's been working well with my husband in herding lately. Now that she gets the commands a bit, she's not as grippy. I figured he would not be able to show her in AKC herding for that reason because her limp, though non-painful, is obvious. There are occasional AHBA trials around here though. It'd be cool to get her PSA PDC at some point too. :smile: After I *ahem* get Fawkes's PDC sorted out. ;-)


----------



## Chris McDonald

No nuts allowed in my house on anything! :neutral:


----------



## will fernandez

When I lived in NYC I had a unneutered GSD. Everytime I would go train in a park some person would ask me why my dog wasnt neutered and why I wasnt worried about him impregnating some random female. I would try to explain to them that I lived in a 7 floor walk up 2 bedroom apt. My dog was either with me or locked up like rupanzel. And if he did get loose and ravage some female it wouldnt be my problem.


----------



## Anna Kasho

Chris McDonald said:


> No nuts allowed in my house on anything! :neutral:


Poor eunuch Chris... :lol:


----------



## Joby Becker

I'll call my GF's vet. Of course I would need to bring her in for a mandatory office call before they would even consider it. I bet I'd spend over 50 bucks before I scheduled the surgery...

will do...

What does everyone think about this quote from Foster's and Smith website. 

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f30/spay-neuter-working-dog-18401/www.peteducation.com

"*Mammary cancer*: Estrogen is one of the primary causes of canine *mammary cancer*, the *most common malignant tumor* in dogs. *Animals that are spayed prior to one year of age very rarely develop this malignancy*. Spaying a dog before her first heat is the best way to significantly reduce the chance your dog will develop mammary cancer. The risk of *malignant mammary tumors* in dogs spayed prior to their first heat is 0.05%. It is *8%* for dog spayed after one heat, and *26%* in dogs spayed after their second heat."

I am not a vet, but that is total bullshit, for the vet types, are they actually trying to tell people that if they don't get their dogs spayed by their second heat cycle, that there is a 26% chance their dogs will get *mammary cancer*? THAT IS BS!

I THINK the numbers were similar for a dog getting some sort of tumor in a breast, based on whatever study, and that 45% or so were cancerous...

That still does seem pretty high but I think its total BS that vets would use tricky language to deceive people...by DOUBLING the risks.


----------



## Ashley Campbell

At a regular local vets office, a 55 lb dog (I called about another dog awhile back) was well over $300 to spay. Bloodwork mandatory, etc, etc.

The vet I've gone to recently in Denver, from their website:
Spay & Neuter _*(Laser)*_
Spay (under 30 lbs) with Pain Meds - $100.50
Spay (over 30 lbs) with Pain Meds - $106.50
Spay (over 90 lbs) with Pain Meds - $155.00
Neuter with Pain Meds - $120.00
Neuter (over 90 lbs) with Pain Meds - $145.50

I will add, I drive all the way to Denver to see this vet because they are so reasonably priced - yes, even with a 140 mile round trip drive, I save more than enough to cover the gas and time.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Joby, those are the classic numbers. What that means is of the dogs who do get them, about half of mammary tumors are benign, the other half are malignant. Like my Rottweiler was spayed at age 9 years old and already had two mammary tumors (they were removed and were benign). She's got another one in her inguinal area right now. I'm going to have it looked at as it's likewise about 50% that one could be malignant or 50% chance of being benign. *crossing fingers for benign*


----------



## Joby Becker

Ashley Campbell said:


> At a regular local vets office, a 55 lb dog (I called about another dog awhile back) was well over $300 to spay. Bloodwork mandatory, etc, etc.
> 
> The vet I've gone to recently in Denver, from their website:
> Spay & Neuter _*(Laser)*_
> Spay (under 30 lbs) with Pain Meds - $100.50
> Spay (over 30 lbs) with Pain Meds - $106.50
> Spay (over 90 lbs) with Pain Meds - $155.00
> Neuter with Pain Meds - $120.00
> Neuter (over 90 lbs) with Pain Meds - $145.50
> 
> I will add, I drive all the way to Denver to see this vet because they are so reasonably priced - yes, even with a 140 mile round trip drive, I save more than enough to cover the gas and time.


I did notice that Don said SPAY, and Maren craftily switched it to NEUTER. (the cheaper option).

Since Don specifically said spay, I'll call a few tomorrow for research, about SPAYS.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Joby Becker said:


> I'll call a few tomorrow for research, about SPAYS.


You got to much time on your hands :-\"


----------



## will fernandez

Joby 

Can you ask about vasectomies?


----------



## Sara Waters

Joby Becker said:


> I see what you are saying, you want most animals altered, so the idiots that own them wont have accidental litters.
> 
> But I also wonder how many litters are bred on purpose that also contribute to the pounds...
> 
> At least the shelters/ rescues mostly spay neuter to stop the cycle with those individual dogs...
> 
> let me ask a ?
> 
> Hypothetically if there was a 100 % "reset" as far as shelters, rescue systems go.
> As in all the dogs just "poof" were gone, how long would it take to refill the system in your opinion. would it have an impact at all?


Yes there are plenty of purpose bred dogs in the pound. My best working dog is one of those. He was surplus to the farmers requirements and sold to a suburban home that couldnt handle him. I have friends who have bred quite unsuitable dogs and ended up with nightmare offspring with poor temperaments.

I think the Scandanavian countries don't SN their dogs but they have a much different attitude and I think things are tougher in terms of dog ownership and dog breeding. So it is perfectly possible to have a system that doesnt contribute to dumped animals where animals are not sterilised.

However where I live it is a general free for all, we get pregnant dogs with major complications, dogs with major issues, very nice dogs etc dumped. I think if you had a 100% reset the shelters would refill very fast. The only way is for people to have a complete change in attitude. Either SN their dogs if they cant manage them or manage them properly. As to breeding well that is another whole can of worms.

As to the comment about getting the dogs to the gas chamber faster, well that is not how I see it, I actually think that attitude sucks. I dont consider myself particularly politically correct or a goody goody person. 

And as to performance, well I have seen sterilised and unsterilised dogs competing against each other and there are plenty of top sterilised dogs. I have seen unsterilised dogs that dont have what it takes and I have seen sterilised dogs that have what it takes and more. I think it gets down to a combination of breeding, handling and training


----------



## Joby Becker

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Joby, those are the classic numbers. What that means is of the dogs who do get them, about half of mammary tumors are benign, the other half are malignant. Like my Rottweiler was spayed at age 9 years old and already had two mammary tumors (they were removed and were benign). She's got another one in her inguinal area right now. I'm going to have it looked at as it's likewise about 50% that one could be malignant or 50% chance of being benign. *crossing fingers for benign*


I know what the classic numbers mean...But that is not what the vets are telling people obviously...

How come all these vet sites state the rates for getting CANCER, as in MALIGNANT...
I just read 9-10 of them and none stated that over half the tumors are benign, they all say CANCER period.

VET INFO.COM
When an ovariohysterectomy (OHE) is performed prior to the first heat period in a female dog, the risk of *mammary cancer* later in life is less than 1%. When OHE is performed between the first and second heat periods the risk is about 8% of *mammary cancer* later in life. Anytime after the second heat period the risk of *mammary cancer* in female dogs is about 25%

IS THAT HONEST?

When I call all the vets tomorrow to get prices on spays, I will tell them that the dog is 3 yrs old and ask about risks of mammary cancer and see what they tell me....see if they mention the rates are less than half of the "classic" numbers..


----------



## Chris McDonald

Joby can you finish my Christmas shopping?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Joby, nope, I was talking first about neutering instead of spaying as a supposed cash cow because of Jason's statement below, not because of what Don was talking about later:



Jason Caldwell said:


> Other than the fact that a spay is major surgery, I can see the benefits of not having to put up a female in heat, *so I'm going to focus on the subject of neutering a male*........don't do it.
> 
> 1) *It's an easy money maker for vets,* so it's pushed hard\


----------



## Ashley Campbell

Joby Becker said:


> I did notice that Don said SPAY, and Maren craftily switched it to NEUTER. (the cheaper option).
> 
> Since Don specifically said spay, I'll call a few tomorrow for research, about SPAYS.


Haha, let's see, the last dog I had neutered cost $140 to neuter, then another $70 or so in return visits because something wasn't right, he was pouring blood out of the incision. Re-stitched and what not...

Then it got majorly infected. Took an entire month to heal up, stitches came out several times and ended up being glued. I said I'd never do that to another dog because it was absolutely cruel as I mentioned before, to drag him back to the vet to have their screw up repaired at my expense.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Joby Becker said:


> I know what the classic numbers mean...But that is not what the vets are telling people obviously...
> 
> How come all these vet sites state the rates for getting CANCER, as in MALIGNANT...
> I just read 9-10 of them and none stated that over half the tumors are benign, they all say CANCER period.
> 
> VET INFO.COM
> When an ovariohysterectomy (OHE) is performed prior to the first heat period in a female dog, the risk of *mammary cancer* later in life is less than 1%. When OHE is performed between the first and second heat periods the risk is about 8% of *mammary cancer* later in life. Anytime after the second heat period the risk of *mammary cancer* in female dogs is about 25%
> 
> IS THAT HONEST?
> 
> When I call all the vets tomorrow to get prices on spays, I will tell them that the dog is 3 yrs old and ask about risks of mammary cancer and see what they tell me....see if they mention the rates are less than half of the "classic" numbers..


Not sure what you're asking, but if it's "is a benign tumor 'cancer?'" The answer is yes. Is a malignant tumor cancer? The answer is also yes. I suppose the "best" way to phrase that whole bit is that unspayed bitches have an approximately 26% chance of getting mammary cancer and of those that do get mammary cancer, approximately half are malignant and half are benign. Make sense?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

I only had one dog neutered, he had only one nut drop and the vet said it was likely he'd get cancer and die if he wasn't fixed.

They couldn't get the nut completely out and he died the day after the surgery.


----------



## Guest

Gerry Grimwood said:


> I only had one dog neutered, he had only one nut drop and the vet said it was likely he'd get cancer and die if he wasn't fixed.
> 
> They couldn't get the nut completely out and he died the day after the surgery.


 
Serious? We have a 7 year old with one testicle and never had the surgery.....or cancer!


----------



## Matt Grosch

in the land of eunuchs, the man with one ball is king


----------



## Sara Waters

Joby Becker said:


> I'll call my GF's vet. Of course I would need to bring her in for a mandatory office call before they would even consider it. I bet I'd spend over 50 bucks before I scheduled the surgery...
> 
> "*Mammary cancer*: Estrogen is one of the primary causes of canine *mammary cancer*, the *most common malignant tumor* in dogs. *Animals that are spayed prior to one year of age very rarely develop this malignancy*. Spaying a dog before her first heat is the best way to significantly reduce the chance your dog will develop mammary cancer. The risk of *malignant mammary tumors* in dogs spayed prior to their first heat is 0.05%. It is *8%* for dog spayed after one heat, and *26%* in dogs spayed after their second heat."
> 
> I am not a vet, but that is total bullshit, for the vet types, are they actually trying to tell people that if they don't get their dogs spayed by their second heat cycle, that there is a 26% chance their dogs will get *mammary cancer*? THAT IS BS!
> 
> I THINK the numbers were similar for a dog getting some sort of tumor in a breast, based on whatever study, and that 45% or so were cancerous...
> 
> That still does seem pretty high but I think its total BS that vets would use tricky language to deceive people...by DOUBLING the risks.


I am not a vet but the observations that a friend of mine made who has been working in rescue a long time told me that she had seen quite a number of malignant breast tumours in unspayed older dogs. So I think the risks are increased and you can manage for that. My mother has an ex breeding bitch and she regualrly checks her. She has had 3 mammary tunours investigated, all benign so far. But again the key word is mangement ! Something many people dont seem to be particularly good at with dogs.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Dead serious, took him in in the morning and picked him up after work, he looked like someone had been kicking him in the guts all day.

The next day around noon he was dead in my porch and I still had to pay for it, that's why I hate vets :lol:


----------



## Guest

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Dead serious, took him in in the morning and picked him up after work, he looked like someone had been kicking him in the guts all day.
> 
> The next day around noon he was dead in my porch and I still had to pay for it, that's why I hate vets :lol:


 
unecessary surgeries and putting dogs under kills more than procedures themselves. What really chaps my ass, is percentages they use, don't show me percentages, because one out of two is 50% and that doesn't tell me anything, show me the raw numbers...


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Jody Butler said:


> unecessary surgeries and putting dogs under kills more than procedures themselves. What really chaps my ass, is percentages they use, don't show me percentages, because one out of two is 50% and that doesn't tell me anything, show me the raw numbers...


In the classic study, I think it was something like over 1000 female dogs, so it was statistically pretty strong. Much stronger statistically than the n=1 of "I have one cryptorchid dog and well, that MUST not be true because HE didn't get cancer." ;-)


----------



## Joby Becker

Sara Waters said:


> Yes there are plenty of purpose bred dogs in the pound. My best working dog is one of those. He was surplus to the farmers requirements and sold to a suburban home that couldnt handle him. I have friends who have bred quite unsuitable dogs and ended up with nightmare offspring with poor temperaments.
> 
> I think the Scandanavian countries don't SN their dogs but they have a much different attitude and I think things are tougher in terms of dog ownership and dog breeding. So it is perfectly possible to have a system that doesnt contribute to dumped animals where animals are not sterilised.
> 
> However where I live it is a general free for all, we get pregnant dogs with major complications, dogs with major issues, very nice dogs etc dumped. I think if you had a 100% reset the shelters would refill very fast. The only way is for people to have a complete change in attitude. Either SN their dogs if they cant manage them or manage them properly. As to breeding well that is another whole can of worms.
> 
> As to the comment about getting the dogs to the gas chamber faster, well that is not how I see it, I actually think that attitude sucks. I dont consider myself particularly politically correct or a goody goody person.
> 
> And as to performance, well I have seen sterilised and unsterilised dogs competing against each other and there are plenty of top sterilised dogs. I have seen unsterilised dogs that dont have what it takes and I have seen sterilised dogs that have what it takes and more. I think it gets down to a combination of breeding, handling and training


Thanks for answering..I never commented about getting to the gas chamber fast...

But here is a little story, good or bad..
I had a dog that I was gonna put down due to HD. The dog showed moderate HD on xray but moved well, it was around 18 months I think. But I was not gonna keep him, I had kept dogs with HD before and it was terrible. So I made the decision to put him down...The vet people were very distraught,and one of the techs or whatever told me she would take the dog. I tried to tell her that the dog was very powerful, dog aggressive, and had a good deal of bitework in him, she countered by saying that her family raised SCH dogs and she knew how to handle dogs..I made her sign a contract stating I was not responsible for anything concerning the dog..fast forward 2 yrs....I get a call from a lady
stating that I should help her pay for hip replacement on the dog, I asked
her what dog it was..she told me that the dog came from me, I retraced the dog, because the name was changed. It was the same dog that I wanted to put down, it was basically crippled at that point, whether from injury or the hd itself I do not know...Turns out the lady that took it tried to keep it in her apartment, it chewed through a wall in her building to try to get to a bitch in heat, and unfortunately killed another dog in her apartment that she was trying to save within 8 months of her taking it. So she in turn gave the dog to one of her other friends, because she was horrified and scared of the dog..The friend kept the dog, which in turn killed her neighbors dog within a few months, dragged him under the chainlink fence. She was horrified, so she SOLD the dog to another lady for $1000.00, it was a great looking Presa. Somehow my information, followed the dog, the snaky vet lady forwarded it..so I get a call over 2 yrs later from the 3rd owner, complaining about the hips,saying I should pay for the surgery! I told her that I would be glad to take the dog and put it down for her, which enraged her..a fw months after that she had the dog put down because she could not afford the surgery, which I would also not pay for....so she went on a campaign to try to smear my name, and my "kennel" on a bunch of websites, and I did not even breed the dog!! I bought it from someone else as a young pup...
That really pissed me off...So much that I went back to that vet and had a long talk with them, and demanded that the girl get fired for passing MY information along with the dog, her boss was stunned to hear the history of what the dog went through, and how it was given away and then sold, and the fact that they had my information, and she was fired...
I will never let anyone talk me out of putting a dog down again...it is my choice...


----------



## Guest

Maren Bell Jones said:


> In the classic study, I think it was something like over 1000 female dogs, so it was statistically pretty strong. Much stronger statistically than the n=1 of "I have one cryptorchid dog and well, that MUST not be true because HE didn't get cancer." ;-)


 
typical vet LOL

Well actually it is 11 dogs that are crypochid and all above age of 4, was just mentioning the oldest.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

You've had 11 dogs that were cryptorchid?!  

Typical vet? What, that I don't rely on anecdotal evidence? :lol: I was trained as a biologist before I was trained as a vet. Peer reviewed evidence based medicine for me please. :grin:


----------



## Guest

Maren Bell Jones said:


> You've had 11 dogs that were cryptorchid?!
> 
> Typical vet? What, that I don't rely on anecdotal evidence? :lol: I was trained as a biologist before I was trained as a vet. Peer reviewed evidence based medicine for me please. :grin:


yup out of quite a few, but no issues ??


----------



## Sara Waters

Gerry Grimwood said:


> The next day around noon he was dead in my porch and I still had to pay for it, that's why I hate vets :lol:


Choose your vets carefully, like doctors there are some shockers but there are also some very good ones. 

I guess I have been lucky, my sister is a surgical specialist and she is fanatical about avoiding infection, I notice when she has operates on my dogs she takes it to a whole new level. Everything is spotless, sterilised and super efficient and never once have we ever had even a sign of infection in any of the families many dogs, whether it be surgery for cruciates (TPLO), elbow dysplasia, pyometra, sterilisation or stitching cuts and a cryptorchid. 

She uses also uses 2 needles for injections- one to pierce the rubber seal and then uses a different needle to inject the dog as she says the first piercing slightly blunts the needle.


----------



## Joby Becker

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Not sure what you're asking, but if it's "is a benign tumor 'cancer?'" The answer is yes. Is a malignant tumor cancer? The answer is also yes. I suppose the "best" way to phrase that whole bit is that unspayed bitches have an approximately 26% chance of getting mammary cancer and of those that do get mammary cancer, approximately half are malignant and half are benign. Make sense?


No it does not...
So all tumors are cancer now? WTF??? where did you come up with that one, is that a vet only way of looking at it...

The term "tumor" literally means "swelling", and the broadest definition of "*benign tumor*" encompasses all abnormal tissue masses which are *not* cancers.

"What is breast cancer?
*Breast cancer is a malignant (cancer) tumor* that starts from cells of the breast....

*Breast lumps that are not cancer*
*Most breast lumps are benign. This means they are not cancer. Benign breast tumors are abnormal growths*, but they do not spread outside of the breast and they are not life threatening. But some benign breast lumps can increase the risk of getting breast cancer.

seriously???


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Jody Butler said:


> yup out of quite a few, but no issues ??


Were they from similar lines? I can't remember in dogs for sure, but they do know that in horses, it is heritable.


----------



## Guest

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Were they from similar lines? I can't remember in dogs for sure, but they do know that in horses, it is heritable.


 
Oh no, all different, not even close


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Joby Becker said:


> No it does not...
> So all tumors are cancer now? WTF??? where did you come up with that one, is that a vet only way of looking at it...
> 
> The term "tumor" literally means "swelling", and the broadest definition of "*benign tumor*" encompasses all abnormal tissue masses which are *not* cancers.
> 
> "What is breast cancer?
> *Breast cancer is a malignant (cancer) tumor* that starts from cells of the breast....
> 
> *Breast lumps that are not cancer*
> *Most breast lumps are benign. This means they are not cancer. Benign breast tumors are abnormal growths*, but they do not spread outside of the breast and they are not life threatening. But some benign breast lumps can increase the risk of getting breast cancer.
> 
> seriously???


The word "tumor" originally meant "swelling" (I think that came from the Greeks or Romans?), but yes, nowadays technically if you mean tumor, you do mean cancer or other neoplastic process. I think you're confusing that with metastasize (i.e.-spreading to distant sites). Some kinds of cancers don't do a very good job of metastasizing, but they are still qualified as being neoplastic. Other abnormal tissue masses or swellings are usually classified otherwise, such as abscesses, cysts, lymphadenopathies, or even just a hematoma/contusion (bruise) and so on. As far as I've ever been taught, to an oncologist, tumor=cancer. Doesn't necessarily have to be malignant. Also, some malignant tumors are really slow to metastasize (like, it can take years), but they are still classified by oncologists as malignant. I don't make up the definitions, sorry. ;-) If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to check around an oncology text or two to see what they have to say.


----------



## Sara Waters

Joby Becker said:


> Thanks for answering..I never commented about getting to the gas chamber fast...
> 
> I will never let anyone talk me out of putting a dog down again...it is my choice...


No I wasnt referring to you about the gas chamber that was someone else.

I would not have argued with you for making the decision to put your HD dog down. You know if a dog is suitable for rehoming or not and that dog most likely wasnt. Your most sensible option would be to have carried out your original plan. It is most likely what I would have done if I couldnt have kept the dog.

I have a dog with ED, she is extremely high drive and fortunately her dysplasia is mild and after surgery is not an issue in obedience, where she excells. I am more likely to keep a dysplastic dog as a pet, but my preference with my own dogs if there is an issue is to deal with it myself in whatever way I choose and not pass the dog on. 

I actually have no problem with an owner making the decision to euthanaise a dog if there is a very good reason, which you obviously had, better that than what subsequently happened which was crazy. Some crazy people out there.


----------



## Joby Becker

Maren Bell Jones said:


> The word "tumor" originally meant "swelling" (I think that came from the Greeks or Romans?), but yes, nowadays technically if you mean tumor, you do mean cancer or other neoplastic process. I think you're confusing that with metastasize (i.e.-spreading to distant sites). Some kinds of cancers don't do a very good job of metastasizing, but they are still qualified as being neoplastic. Other abnormal tissue masses or swellings are usually classified otherwise, such as abscesses, cysts, lymphadenopathies, or even just a hematoma/contusion (bruise) and so on. As far as I've ever been taught, to an oncologist, tumor=cancer. Doesn't necessarily have to be malignant. Also, some malignant tumors are really slow to metastasize (like, it can take years), but they are still classified by oncologists as malignant. I don't make up the definitions, sorry. ;-) If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to check around an oncology text
> or two to see what they have to say.


So you think doctors and vets should tell people that all tumors or growths are cancer?


Accepted definition is benign ,means NON cancerous, Cancerous is malignant...

I just looked up at least 10 definitions of cancer. From Medical dictionaries to Merriam-Webster. ALL stated Malignancy that spreads.
I am sure you can find one that says any tumor is cancer, but that is BS...

american heritage medical dictionary
*can·ce*r (kănˈsər)
noun
Abbr. CA Any of various *malignant *neoplasms characterized by the proliferation of anaplastic cells that tend to invade surrounding tissue and metastasize to new body sites.

I don't care what you look up, I call bullshit on that one for sure...


----------



## Matt Grosch

you should all check out my 'dog fort' thread, its good stuff


----------



## Martine Loots

Would never neuter or spay a dog except if it would be necessary because of medical reasons.
Does it affect the character and working ability? I'm sure it does.
It's like with horses. I never saw a gelding as good as a good stallion, but yes they are more difficult to handle.

On top of that, in Belgian Ring FCI you aren't even allowed to compete if your male is neutered or only has 1 testicle.


----------



## Niomi Smith

Maren Bell Jones said:


> You live in California. That's not the real world. :lol: I have shadowed and externed at nearly 10 vet hospitals/clinics in Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado, in very rural, suburban, and urban settings. No one, including our vet school and a more holistic upscale practice, charges more than $150 for a neuter surgery.


 
Where I live, I was quote the following for my "procedures":

Spay (105lb dog) with pre-op blood work: $465 + tax
Hip x-rays: $200 + tax (not sedated)
$265 + up sedated
Had a "growth" removed from my dogs elbow: $300 (It was the size of a small grape
Cat neuter: $140

Sorry, but I think that using "just your area" as a test group of vet prices is not going to give you any true accuracies of what vets are actually charging.

It is cheaper for me to travel 14 hours to Alaska to get my hip x-rays or spay/neuters done than it is for me to do them here - there is something wrong with that.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

OK. a neuter is $180 and a spay is $200 approx. I am surprised it is that low. When I asked mark about it he said it should be liike $350 just as most invasive surgical procedues because just as much can and does go wrong. He said it is less than most major surguries because vets consider it their bread and butter operation. Kind of like the difference between hand made and right off the assembly line. I just called the one vet and another thing which I have mentioned, never in my life have I gotten out the door without them trying to give me a bill for about twice as much as the quote.


----------



## Joby Becker

Just called.
Vet quoted me $235.00 for spay, said I need to come in for exam first, for around 50.00, said it could be more than quoted price and did tell me that my dog has a 25% chance of getting breast cancer. I asked the girl if it was 25% chance of a tumor in general or a cancerous one, they re-iterated cancer.

the same vet told me I would need to get $45.00 exam done first to get an xray done. Then they charge an office call on top of xray fee. 

I have to believe that most vets are telling everyone that brings puppies in, that their dog has 25% of getting CANCER.

I am not against spaying and neutering at all, but that is just wrong...


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Joby Becker said:


> Just called.
> Vet quoted me $235.00 for spay, said I need to come in for exam first, for around 50.00, said it could be more than quoted price and did tell me that my dog has a 25% chance of getting breast cancer. I asked the girl if it was 25% chance of a tumor in general or a cancerous one, they re-iterated cancer.
> 
> the same vet told me I would need to get $45.00 exam done first to get an xray done. Then they charge an office call on top of xray fee.
> 
> I have to believe that most vets are telling everyone that brings puppies in, that their dog has 25% of getting CANCER.
> 
> I am not against spaying and neutering at all, but that is just wrong...


It's like I have always said Joby, it isn't the price so much as it is the blatant deception. If I don't like a price I can shop around. Where vets and myself don't see eye to eye is quoting a rough price and giving me a bill for twice the quote. Like the time I had Titan's hips done and was quoted something like $265 and they had brought the dog out when they handed me the bill for well over twices the quote. I got a bit loud when they told me I could have the dog when I paid the bill in full. Titan knew I was pissed and suddenly he started getting unruly right along with me and the only thing they could do was hand me the leash and get out of the way.


----------



## Ashley Campbell

Martine Loots said:


> Would never neuter or spay a dog except if it would be necessary because of medical reasons.
> Does it affect the character and working ability? I'm sure it does.
> It's like with horses. I never saw a gelding as good as a good stallion, but yes they are more difficult to handle.
> 
> On top of that, in Belgian Ring FCI you aren't even allowed to compete if your male is neutered or only has 1 testicle.


Agreed, the looks in particular.

Example:

My horse, gelded around 2 years old or so - he's about 12 years old in this picture









His full brother, never gelded and around 12-15 in the picture.









Temperament differences weren't much. The one kept as a stud was very mellow and gentle, as much as his gelded brother, their father was the same way though and was my grandmothers riding horse until he died.
But the difference in looks is quite a bit, the stud is more substantial, has a better neck and over-all different appearance than the gelding.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Martine Loots said:


> Would never neuter or spay a dog except if it would be necessary because of medical reasons.
> Does it affect the character and working ability? I'm sure it does.
> It's like with horses. I never saw a gelding as good as a good stallion, but yes they are more difficult to handle.
> 
> On top of that, in Belgian Ring FCI you aren't even allowed to compete if your male is neutered or only has 1 testicle.


Something I have done a fair bit of thinking about of late. I am not talking aggression profiles or sport here because I don't have any experience there...

Anactotally, I have seen a fair number of avalanche dogs throught western Canada and a good number of them are spayed/neutered. It does not look to me that the dogs that have nuts are better searchers than those that don't. Of course we are comparing different individuals, breeds and so on. Maybe that nutted lab would have been a better searcher if he had kept them..I donno but you would think you would see a trend if fixed dogs retained better working qualities in my field.

And unlike sport work, I can't think of a SAR venue that would allow a bitch in heat to work, come to work, or even come to a course (I think the latter is silly). So, I will probably end up getting my bitch spayed.:-(

I would like to think that if a dog has it they have it...drive wise. 

I have a related question for malinois folks...would you mind telling me what you have seen for coat changes after spay/neuter? It is my understanding that undercoat growth increases. Have you found this to be true? Did the undercoat fluff out beyond guard hairs anywhere on your dog? Especially concerned about feet.


----------



## maggie fraser

Ashley Campbell said:


> Agreed, the looks in particular.
> 
> Example:
> 
> My horse, gelded around 2 years old or so - he's about 12 years old in this picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His full brother, never gelded and around 12-15 in the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temperament differences weren't much. The one kept as a stud was very mellow and gentle, as much as his gelded brother, their father was the same way though and was my grandmothers riding horse until he died.
> But the difference in looks is quite a bit, the stud is more substantial, has a better neck and over-all different appearance than the gelding.


Lovely looking beasts Ashley.

Horses I don't think are so different to dogs, there are all different temps and characters. I've worked quite a lot of colts and stallions all outwith stud, well mostly. I've known some really sweet and gentle guys, I've also known some really spoilt dangerous bastards, just like with dogs, a lot depends on bloodlines, training and handling.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Something I have done a fair bit of thinking about of late. I am not talking aggression profiles or sport here because I don't have any experience there...
> 
> And unlike sport work, I can't think of a SAR venue that would allow a bitch in heat to work, come to work, or even come to a course (I think the latter is silly). So, I will probably end up getting my bitch spayed.:-(
> .


I have had to work my dog around females in heat while they have worked. For a cert test, it is fair for the bitches to go last if there are multiple people working the same problem but it is "real life"


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Ashley Campbell said:


> Agreed, the looks in particular.
> 
> Example:
> 
> My horse, gelded around 2 years old or so - he's about 12 years old in this picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His full brother, never gelded and around 12-15 in the picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temperament differences weren't much. The one kept as a stud was very mellow and gentle, as much as his gelded brother, their father was the same way though and was my grandmothers riding horse until he died.
> But the difference in looks is quite a bit, the stud is more substantial, has a better neck and over-all different appearance than the gelding.


Better neck because of balls? more muscular yes. But having testicles do not in anyway effect the confo of a horse or dog. The muscling yes , but not the actual skeletal structure.
They do look like nicely bred FQH though , the stud looks familer , mind if I ask where he resides?

If you just go based on this discussion alone , the only answer you get is it's personal preference.
I personally do not see it as a lazy option to alter animals. Between my family and I we have 7 dogs. Three females and four males , since we prefer to keep everyone together , it would be damn near impossible to keep them from breeding.
Accidents happen , doors get left open etc... In my opinion it doesnt seem like theres any factual evidence for keeping every dog intact. 
Drive is drive , if you can see it in a pup before it's reached sexual maturity then altering it shouldnt mess with it.
As for the what if you want to breed arguement?
Theres always a better bred dog out there that you could buy and hopefully have a better chance of getting exactly what you want.
Just my thoughts on the topic.


----------



## maggie fraser

Andrew Hyle said:


> Better neck because of balls? more muscular yes. But having testicles do not in anyway effect the confo of a horse or dog. The muscling yes , but not the actual skeletal structure.
> They do look like nicely bred FQH though , the stud looks familer , mind if I ask where he resides?
> 
> If you just go based on this discussion alone , the only answer you get is it's personal preference.
> I personally do not see it as a lazy option to alter animals. Between my family and I we have 7 dogs. Three females and four males , since we prefer to keep everyone together , it would be damn near impossible to keep them from breeding.
> Accidents happen , doors get left open etc... In my opinion it doesnt seem like theres any factual evidence for keeping every dog intact.
> Drive is drive , if you can see it in a pup before it's reached sexual maturity then altering it shouldnt mess with it.
> As for the what if you want to breed arguement?
> Theres always a better bred dog out there that you could buy and hopefully have a better chance of getting exactly what you want.
> Just my thoughts on the topic.


What a lot of shite! :-D

Why should altering a dog not affect it ? You are altering it, changing it, after all. Where does drive come from incidentally? Anyone know?


----------



## Ashley Campbell

The stud died of colic in 1997, he's out of my families breeding and that picture is taken on my family ranch in Arizona, my gelding is at my mom's house in AZ and is 23.

Yes that's what I meant, the stud is much more muscular and masculine looking than his little brother. His brother also is much more feminine sounding than say, a horse that was gelded at an older age.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Maggie - dispute what I said , don't just call it crap.
It's easy to say that something is wrong and just walk away.
What is wrong about what i've said?


----------



## maggie fraser

Andrew Hyle said:


> Maggie - dispute what I said , don't just call it crap.
> It's easy to say that something is wrong and just walk away.
> What is wrong about what i've said?


The clue was in the altering bit. Just an opinion...don't take it to heart!


----------



## Nick Jenkins

In my opinion it isn't that the individual getting altered that vets aim for. There are some clear pros and cons and we have the option to choose. Vets know this but they also are looking at it in as an individual in a population. There are far more irresponsible or just plain ignorant and stupid people in this world and they end up with dogs. The people on this board would most likely not fall into that category, but trying to get lulu the evil chihuahua spayed r neutered so the dipshot owner doesn't try to breed it is a good thing. I would love to have kept my dog intact until maturity but I never got that option, she was spayed at 7 weeks at the humane society which is basing all their decisions on populations not individuals. Vets are trying to look out for what is best for your animal as well as for the dog population in general. My two cents


----------



## maggie fraser

"Vets are trying to look out for what is best for your animal as well as for the dog population in general. My two cents"

What a beauty


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Andrew Hyle said:


> Better neck because of balls? more muscular yes. But having testicles do not in anyway effect the confo of a horse or dog. The muscling yes , but not the actual skeletal structure.


Uh, yeah it does. It changes the timing of when the growth plates close and males neutered early DO tend to be leggier and narrower in the chest with lighter bone. That is skeletal.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

I feel like some of you know some really shoddy vets.
Mine (I have four!) have never pressured me or any other clients into doing any procedure , in my own case we've never had ANY issues with dogs/cats/parrots/goats/donkeys/horses etc.. coming back from a surgery worse then they went in etc..
Every dog of ours except one were left until maturity before speutering , one is still intact because of youth and the vet hasnt said anything about it.
With that said , maybe its because our vets know myself and my family better then most?
Our equine vet has known me since I was 7 and has been our vet for longer then that. The small animal vets are treated like friends to.

I believe most vets push speutering because as a whole it IS beneficial to the dog over population.

Maggie - I take nothing personal , im far to easy going. =) , I just like a good debate!


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Uh, yeah it does. It changes the timing of when the growth plates close and males neutered early DO tend to be leggier and narrower in the chest with lighter bone. That is skeletal.


 
Prove it please. I even did a quick google on the topic and only found anecdotal evidence about that being true.
It will indeed effect muscle growth the most , but theres little concrete evidence to suggest its fact.


Also , the growth plates closing at a different time frame would not change the conformation of the animal it would still be what it is.
If it's born toed in it will stay that way regardless of being altered etc.. The set of the neck or slope of a shoulder will not change due to altering etc..


----------



## maggie fraser

Andrew Hyle said:


> I feel like some of you know some really shoddy vets.
> Mine (I have four!) have never pressured me or any other clients into doing any procedure , in my own case we've never had ANY issues with dogs/cats/parrots/goats/donkeys/horses etc.. coming back from a surgery worse then they went in etc..
> Every dog of ours except one were left until maturity before speutering , one is still intact because of youth and the vet hasnt said anything about it.
> With that said , maybe its because our vets know myself and my family better then most?
> Our equine vet has known me since I was 7 and has been our vet for longer then that. The small animal vets are treated like friends to.
> 
> I believe most vets push speutering because as a whole it IS beneficial to the dog over population.
> 
> Maggie - I take nothing personal , im far to easy going. =) , I just like a good debate!


----------



## maggie fraser

Andrew Hyle said:


> Prove it please. I even did a quick google on the topic and only found anecdotal evidence about that being true.
> It will indeed effect muscle growth the most , but theres little concrete evidence to suggest its fact.
> 
> 
> Also , the growth plates closing at a different time frame would not change the conformation of the animal it would still be what it is.
> If it's born toed in it will stay that way regardless of being altered etc.. The set of the neck or slope of a shoulder will not change due to altering etc..


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Best ya got is a laughing emoticon
? must mean im right then. =)


----------



## Brian McQuain

Andrew Hyle said:


> Prove it please. I even did a quick google on the topic and only found anecdotal evidence about that being true.
> It will indeed effect muscle growth the most , but theres little concrete evidence to suggest its fact.
> 
> 
> Also , the growth plates closing at a different time frame would not change the conformation of the animal it would still be what it is.
> If it's born toed in it will stay that way regardless of being altered etc.. The set of the neck or slope of a shoulder will not change due to altering etc..


 
I just did a quick search as well...try again.


----------



## maggie fraser

Andrew Hyle said:


> Best ya got is a laughing emoticon
> ? must mean im right then. =)


 







:wink:


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Brian - what keywords are you using in your search? Im still getting nothing but assumptions.
Funny thing is , I mostly agree with them , but a lighterpossibly longer bone doesnt change the conformation.

Maggie - we just met , easy on the flirting. hah!


----------



## maggie fraser

Andrew Hyle said:


> Brian - what keywords are you using in your search? Im still getting nothing but assumptions.
> Funny thing is , I mostly agree with them , but a lighterpossibly longer bone doesnt change the conformation.
> 
> Maggie - we just met , easy on the flirting. hah!


Ok Andy, I'll go easy with the flirting, I can tell you're a sensitive sort :wink:.

Do you know anything about beavers? Thanks


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Andrew Hyle said:


> Brian - what keywords are you using in your search? Im still getting nothing but assumptions.
> Funny thing is , I mostly agree with them , but a lighterpossibly longer bone doesnt change the conformation.
> 
> Maggie - we just met , easy on the flirting. hah!


You should quit while your ahead Andrew. That last statement tells it all. "but a lighterpossibly longer bone doesnt change the conformation." My dogs are 5" to 6 1/2" above the standard and it does indeed change the conformation. If that statement is indicative of your understanding....go ahead and cry uncle.


----------



## Brian McQuain

Nice ass Maggie...Andrew, gimme a minute to post the links, and how does a longer, lighter bone structure not change the conformation? Isn't conformation an animal’s structure and appearance?


----------



## Brian McQuain

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

First site that popped up on my search


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Here is another but might be tougher to follow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

Pay particular attention to this part.

"Male musculature and body shape
By the end of puberty, adult men have heavier bones and nearly twice as much skeletal muscle. Some of the bone growth (e.g. shoulder width and jaw) is disproportionately greater, resulting in noticeably different male and female skeletal shapes. The average adult male has about 150% of the lean body mass of an average female, and about 50% of the body fat.

This muscle develops mainly during the later stages of puberty, and muscle growth can continue even after boys are biologically adult. The peak of the so-called "strength spurt", the rate of muscle growth, is attained about one year after a male experiences his peak growth rate.>

First paragragh....the extremes in the jaw and shoulder. The should can't reach the extremes without the chest increasing also from an adolescent chicken chest. The jaw can't grow disproportionately to the rest of the head.


----------



## Brian McQuain

Hey Andrew, what size shoe you wear?


----------



## Andrew Hyle

A lighter/longer bone doesnt change the angle/slope of the shoulder , it will not make the neck set any different etc..
It may change subtle things and add some length to pasterns etc.. But it won't make a correct dog any less correct. Or an incorrect dog anymore correct.
Muscle is muscle , strip it away and then you have conformation.

As for my shoe size , well im gonna let save that answer for Maggie. ;-) 

Both links were a good read.
The first was pretty anectdotal though , studies werent done on a wide range of dogs , and it's pretty easy to skew a study if your goal is to prove something. It didnt say anything to a dogs conditioning which can effect bone density etc..

The wikilink was humans and the part posted was regarding muscle devolpment. Theres no denying that an altered animal will not be as thick as one that's intact.

But what im suggesting is that the conformation that a dog is born with isnt going to change just because it was altered. Its musculature structure , absolutely!

In my opinion Feeding programs have more to do with it then speutering.

I love and hate these discussions. Ten pages from now we will still be at the same place! haha


----------



## Sara Waters

In the stuff I read there was only fractions of millimetres difference in bone growth. We have rescue ACDS spayed very late and some youngsters spayed around 9 months and you just cant tell the difference - there is no noticeable differece in height at all. One of my spayed youngsters has a very blocky head and is incredibly muscular and athletic, an older very late spay bitch has a narrower head, same as another earlier spay bitch.

I see plenty of sterilised and unsterilised Border collies at agility and their heights are all over the place, some very tall unsterilised dogs and some short neutered dogs and visa versa. It certainly doesnt appear to alter their drive and ability in anyway. The top sport breeder has all her dogs on an SN contract and they consistently win the top events, with incredible drive and speed.

Sterilising never affected the drive of any of my sheep dogs, if they were full on as pups, they were usually full on as adults. With a large number of sheepdogs of mixed sexes, sterilising was a better option. With the males I do leave them till they are skeletaly mature.

My neighbours dont sterilise their dogs, they just shoot or drown the unwanted pups. At least their males dont come calling over here.

If I want another pup, I just look to where the genetics are proven from great lines and go there.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Cannot compete at the Championships with a chopped dog.


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Cannot compete at the Championships with a chopped dog.


Personally I see nothing wrong with leaving a dog intact and being responsible for it, I just resent the assumption that those of us who choose to sterilise our dogs are somehow mutilating them.

I see much worse forms of mutilation due to people not managing unsterilised dogs - drowned and shot puppies and terrible birthing complications in young immature females bought in that have mated to who knows what roaming male.

I dont want that level of management, I enjoy my large pack of dogs to be able to work and mix together freely without having to manage bitches on heat and warding of the neighbours roaming males etc. .


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Andrew Hyle said:


> A lighter/longer bone doesnt change the angle/slope of the shoulder , it will not make the neck set any different etc..
> It may change subtle things and add some length to pasterns etc.. But it won't make a correct dog any less correct. Or an incorrect dog anymore correct.
> Muscle is muscle , strip it away and then you have conformation.
> 
> As for my shoe size , well im gonna let save that answer for Maggie. ;-)
> 
> Both links were a good read.
> The first was pretty anectdotal though , studies werent done on a wide range of dogs , and it's pretty easy to skew a study if your goal is to prove something. It didnt say anything to a dogs conditioning which can effect bone density etc..
> 
> The wikilink was humans and the part posted was regarding muscle devolpment. Theres no denying that an altered animal will not be as thick as one that's intact.
> 
> But what im suggesting is that the conformation that a dog is born with isnt going to change just because it was altered. Its musculature structure , absolutely!
> 
> In my opinion Feeding programs have more to do with it then speutering.
> 
> I love and hate these discussions. Ten pages from now we will still be at the same place! haha


You should take your time and understand what you are reading Andrew. Yes, the heading is musclature development and body shape. But, you seem to have glossed over the first line "By the end of puberty, adult men have *heavier bones* and nearly twice as much skeletal muscle. *Some of the bone growth (e.g. shoulder width and jaw) is disproportionately greater, resulting in noticeably different male and female skeletal shapes.* Maybe that will give a better understanding. The main differences in dogs is the smaller, longer bone growth, the narrower head(lack of jaw growth) and the ribs not blowing out ( no dispropotionate skeletal growth in the shoulders to to support all the muscle that would come with the skeletal growth normaly. I knew when I posted it I would have to draw you a picture.....but I love the convenient way you overlooked the words like bone growth. Just can't hang a man's(or dogs) muscle mass on a female frame....that is why the bones are heavier on males...be it dogs or men.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Sara Waters said:


> I see much worse forms of mutilation due to people not managing unsterilised dogs - drowned and shot puppies and terrible birthing complications in young immature females bought in that have mated to who knows what roaming male.


Why not just spay all the non breeding females then ??


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sara Waters said:


> Personally I see nothing wrong with leaving a dog intact and being responsible for it, I just resent the assumption that those of us who choose to sterilise our dogs are somehow mutilating them.
> 
> I see much worse forms of mutilation due to people not managing unsterilised dogs - drowned and shot puppies and terrible birthing complications in young immature females bought in that have mated to who knows what roaming male.
> 
> I dont want that level of management, I enjoy my large pack of dogs to be able to work and mix together freely without having to manage bitches on heat and warding of the neighbours roaming males etc. .


What kind of dogs do you have Sara?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I just resent the assumption that those of us who choose to sterilise our dogs are somehow mutilating them.

I could give a shit. I have spayed neutered a couple thousand rescue dogs over the years. It doesn't bother me. However, there is nothing worse than some retard with a truely nice dog who has to neuter the damn thing because they are lazy.

It shows a lack of commitment to the sport, as I do not see all these neutered dogs doing anything in sports, and imagine how pissed the breeder is that retardo has decided to neuter the best in the litter as they cannot deal somehow. 

I think that maybe these neuter babies need to go to the shelter and rescue a nice dog instead.

They call them "sports" but they are all breed tests. You know, to see if the dog is worth being bred to or not.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

You didnt have to draw any picture for me.
The wikilink was about people not dogs. To many differences to draw a correct parrallel.

Bone density still has little to do with the conformation of a dog , a less dense bone isnt going to change it's gait or how it carries itself , whether it toes in or out , slope of the shoulder , haunches etc..


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Why not just spay all the non breeding females then ??


Why not neuter all non breeding males? It's a MUCH easier procedure , not nearly as invasive.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I could give a shit. I have spayed neutered a couple thousand rescue dogs over the years. It doesn't bother me. However, there is nothing worse than some retard with a truely nice dog who has to neuter the damn thing because they are lazy.
> 
> It shows a lack of commitment to the sport, as I do not see all these neutered dogs doing anything in sports, and imagine how pissed the breeder is that retardo has decided to neuter the best in the litter as they cannot deal somehow.
> 
> I think that maybe these neuter babies need to go to the shelter and rescue a nice dog instead.
> 
> They call them "sports" but they are all breed tests. You know, to see if the dog is worth being bred to or not.


There will always be another better bred pup.
It's just not something worth being that worked up over.

Although I do agree with you for the most part. It's not very hard to keep breeding stock away from each other.
In the past we have had unfixed males and females together and so far no puppies.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

"However, there is nothing worse than some retard with a truely nice dog who has to neuter the damn thing because they are lazy."

It is people like this that think mandatory spay and neuter laws should be passed for everyone. They spay their dogs so everyone should have to. If they want to s/n their own dogs that is fine...but it seldom stops with that....they want everyone else to do it. There is the problem in a nut shell.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Andrew Hyle said:


> Why not neuter all non breeding males? It's a MUCH easier procedure , not nearly as invasive.


Are you intact Andrew ??


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Andrew Hyle said:


> You didnt have to draw any picture for me.
> The wikilink was about people not dogs. To many differences to draw a correct parrallel.
> 
> Bone density still has little to do with the conformation of a dog , a less dense bone isnt going to change it's gait or how it carries itself , whether it toes in or out , slope of the shoulder , haunches etc..


Yes I did Andrew but you still don't want to see it. Doesn't make any difference if it is a man or a dog. It is still the basics of what testosterone does through puberty. There has been more studies on people than dogs so you can get better info from people that don't have an agenda to prove.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: There will always be another better bred pup.

You have got to be retarded, or 20. Flat out not true. Find me a Lucas Du Pottois. There are always better bred pups out there right ? Find me a Judex, G'Bibber, G'Vitou, Nelton, Elgos. Hell go find me a Buko. Find me a Barry vom Shweiger Wappen, The list goes on. Who is to say that the dog you are out there neutering is not going to produce the next big thing ? 

Still got hay in your cuffs looks like.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

How about the higher instances of HD in neutered dogs ? I guess the vet forgot that one. 

Ever neuter an older dog and watch him go down the shitter ? LOL I guess that is something that people don't talk about. Ooooops.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Are you intact Andrew ??


LOL I almost asked the same question Gerry.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Are you intact Andrew ??


And vasectomys ARE easier to do then hysterctomys.

Jeff - once again , lets see proof of higher instances of HD in speutered adults? Hip displaysia is still considered a genetic issue. 
As for breeding , if there ISNT a better bred dog out there then the breeding being done is crap. Each generation should be better then the last , thats breeding 101.
Neutering one individual isnt damning the breeders efforts nor is it ruining the sport/breed. 
If there isnt a better dog coming up then something is wrong...

name calling and petty shots speak volumes about ones arguement. =)


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Andrew said.
"As for breeding , if there ISNT a better bred dog out there then the breeding being done is crap. Each generation should be better then the last , thats breeding 101."

Boy do you have a lot to learn. I think Jeff nailed it at abouit 20 years old. How old are you Andrew? Your above statement....only in utopia.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: As for breeding , if there ISNT a better bred dog out there then the breeding being done is crap. Each generation should be better then the last , thats breeding 101

The fact that you actually believe that is what is crap. There are many many times that breeders have not produced a dog that is as good as the parents were. Why do you think that the dogs I named are legends ? LOL

I have only seen a couple dogs in my lifetime that produced a pup that was the same as they were. You can see this in tightly bred dogs, but look at most litters where only a few go on to do the work. If your theory was not absolutely full of shit, then we would not be struggling to find dogs good enough to do the work.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

While I am young, the basics of breeding remain the same. That doesnt change , regardless of a persons age.
If your breedings result in subpar pups then one would think something isnt quite right.
I have a strong background in the horse industry , and especially with breeding. With horses you don't even get a litter to pick from , you get one shot per female. If the stud/mare combo repeatedly throw babies that arent on the same playing field or higher then you are combining the wrong genetics or your stock isnt what you think it is.

Once again , personal attacks speak volumes about ones arguement.

The next round is on me folks! I kinda miss bartending and im sure at the end of the day everyone can enjoy a good drink together and a laugh.


----------



## Sara Waters

Don Turnipseed said:


> What kind of dogs do you have Sara?


I have ACDS, kelpies, Australian Koolies and Border Collies. I use them primarily to work livestock on my farm, but also dabble in 3 sheep trialing , agility and obedience.

We have some great breeders around here who really know how to prove and breed working dogs so I leave that up to them and get my pups from the working styles I like. I have rescued a few that wernt good enough to make top trialing dogs but are very handy on the farm. I don't consider any of mine breeding prospects as none of them are pick puppies and would rather just sterilise them to avoid oops litters. Their genetics are in the hands of people who know far more about it than I do.

Never had any problems with their working ability, drive or health. They will work all day in testing conditions and still come back for more LOL


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: 
While I am young, the basics of breeding remain the same. That doesnt change , regardless of a persons age.
If your breedings result in subpar pups then one would think something isnt quite right.

Ok, well, you know better than I. I have only bred somewhere around 150 some odd litters, but your theory has me beat. Obviously I know very little about "theoretical" breeding. What was I thinking arguing with a 20 year old ?? LOL


----------



## Andrew Hyle

If you have put that many litters on this earth with results that arent pleasing then im obviously not the one with learning to do.
The numbers speak for themselves on that one.

At this point its an agree to disagree situation in my opinion. Folks are gonna do what they want anyways and rarely is a mind changed on the interwebz.


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> How about the higher instances of HD in neutered dogs ? I guess the vet forgot that one.


Dont agree here, one of the 2 intact dogs I own has HD, he was diagnosed at 8 months old and is now 15 months old. The 2 elbow dysplastic bitches ACD I owned were both daignosed before they were sterilised and I have since discovered there is a lot of ED in their lines from poor breeding practices, I now avoid those lines. A lot of dysplastic dogs are diagnosed before they are sterilised, in fact most of the dysplastic dogs I know. Hips and elbows are most likely to be influenced by environmental, and possibly sterilisation and nutrition in the first 4-6 month period of life when there are major growth spurts and ossification occurring in these areas. If you sterilise a bit later shouldnt be a problem.

Later dysplasia is usually diagnosed when arthritis has set in and this can be influenced by having a fat dog - many people have overweight dogs. Sterilised dogs have to be weight managed more but all mine are super lean so it is totally possible.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Andrew Hyle said:


> And vasectomys ARE easier to do then hysterctomys.


See..it's all about easy with you kids :razz:


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Im cheap to.
haha


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Andrew said,


> If the stud/mare combo [bold]repeatedly throw[/bold] babies that arent on the same playing field or higher then you are combining the wrong genetics or your stock isnt what you think it is.


Hmmm, sounds like horse breeding is a lot like dog breeding. No matter how good the stock, you are clueless until you breed them.

Oh, and I am the one that told you you had some learning to do and I have had probably better than 200 litters. :grin: Gotta love people that have had a couple of litters and think they know it all. :wink: Oh, and you keep talking horses. that has no bearing on dogs. LOL Hope that last comment doesn't go over your head Andrew.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

The finer aspects of genetics are universal.

I stand firm on my thoughts as do you.

Cheers eh?! hah.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Hips and elbows are most likely to be influenced by environmental,

AND the growth differential that occurs when neutering occurs just happens to fit right in there. It is a documented fact, not some guess, and your bad stock has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Non breeders really are not able to argue these things for some reason, probably because it is of no consequence to them.

Quote: If you have put that many litters on this earth with results that arent pleasing then im obviously not the one with learning to do

It is a cute comeback, but not based on anything I said. I did my time and figured out a system that works for me. You are still in the guessing and arguing based on something you read about something else. You and Maren will be great friends as she likes to argue stuff based on something she read about something else.


----------



## Andrew Hyle

My aruguement has ground to stand on.

I can't help that you think your above other thoughts.

Point blank , if your breeding stock isnt meeting your goals then something isnt right. Obviously not every pup will be a star and not every litter , but with that many breedings then one would have to question what your doing besides adding to the over population.
Im only argueing what you've said.
If your proud of your stock and feel the pups you've created are worthy then say it. I won't ever know one way or another.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: My aruguement has ground to stand on.

Sure whatever you say man. Your arguement is based on ................. what again ? Theory ? Horses ? That is why I am calling bullshit.

How many pups out of a litter end up working ? Do you know ? 

If the "theory" worked so well, where are all these dogs at ?

Just curious, because at some point, actual experience shows you that you know absolutely **** all, because it refuses to follow the stupid ****ing theory. 

But what do I know, you have bred how many litters of puppies that were all better than their parents ?? LOL


----------



## Andrew Hyle

If your litters are frequently lacking in excellent individuals then something isnt right about the genetic combo.
Is that right or wrong?

Your the one putting your own hardwork down. Im just expressing my thoughts on the topic.

Experience will always trump theories , but when a person admits that there stock isnt continually getting better through each generation then?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

There is something called the laws of nature. Everything goes back to average. I guess you didn't know about that law. 

Once again, you are just trying to get to the point where you have a higher number of pups that will end up working. 

Show me all these breeders that are regularly producing better than what they began with.

Your confusion shows the lack of experience. I recommend that you get some good dogs and try and make a go of it and come back and tell me how it worked out in ten years.


----------



## Chris McDonald

I been reading this thread and all I keep thinking is why does this guy have a pic of a horse on a dog board for? I don’t get it. When you had to select your image what made you think a horse was a good idea? 
There is some dude on here that has a pic of a small plane, WTF is that all about? Everytime I see it I think what a douchbag. The good thing is when I think what a douchbag it reminds me to go to a funny website I usually never remember to go to. The better thing is now when I see the picture of the hoarse im gona remember to go to the website again. It always makes me laugh 
http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/


----------



## Andrew Hyle

Donkey.
It's a donkey. Not a horse. Although one could say its my chosen avatar because im a bit of an ass. =)
Just the avatar I use for every forum im on.
Real classy response though. 

Jeff - at this point we're just having a pissing match. Your not gonna give a damn what my thoughts are on the topic anymore then im going to reconsider my thoughts.
Agree to disagree eh.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Your not gonna give a damn what my thoughts are on the topic

You just got that ?

You have no actual experience, but want to tell me that every litter improves the breed. 

Riddle me this, if your horse theory was so good, then where is your Kentucky Derby winner ? After all, they just get better and better. LOL


----------



## Joby Becker

Andrew Hyle said:


> Better neck because of balls? more muscular yes. But having testicles do not in anyway effect the confo of a horse or dog. The muscling yes....


Is the muscling not part of the conformation of dogs?



Andrew Hyle said:


> Brian - what keywords are you using in your search? Im still getting nothing but assumptions.
> Funny thing is , I mostly agree with them , but a lighterpossibly longer bone *doesnt change the conformation*.


Is the bone thickness and length not part of the conformation of dogs?


----------



## Bob Scott

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Uh, yeah it does. It changes the timing of when the growth plates close and males neutered early DO tend to be leggier and narrower in the chest with lighter bone. That is skeletal.



100% in agreement with this!
Male dogs in particular,nutted early, wind up looking like long legged coyotes.


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Hips and elbows are most likely to be influenced by environmental,
> 
> AND the growth differential that occurs when neutering occurs just happens to fit right in there. It is a documented fact, not some guess, and your bad stock has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
> 
> Non breeders really are not able to argue these things for some reason, probably because it is of no consequence to them.
> 
> .


My understanding is that HD might be influenced by sterilsation before 6 months old. The greatest growth differentials occur at 4-6 months. My orthovet told me this. 2 of my dogs were picked up prior to sterilisation with first symptoms occurring around 6 months. CT scans were clear but orthovet was suspicious and scans at 9 months with subtle changes proved him right - neither were sterilised at that point.

My HD dog was only picked up when his sister was x-rayed by her owner, a vet ,when she was under anasthesia for being spayed at 8 months old - she was asymptomatic. The x-rays showed bad hips. My intact male is 15 months and currently asymptomatic but unfortunatly like his sister, his hips are not great. Both those dogs may have remained undetected till later by which time both would have been sterilised - how do you account for those scenarios in stats.

I just know too many dogs with bad hips and elbows including rotties and GSDS who are either unsterilised or sterilised after diagnosis to believe that sterilsation after 6 months has such a major influence. 

Quite a few of these dog were picked up at time of sterilsation as they were under SN contracts and hip xrays was also a condition of sale. They were often asymptomatic at time of sterilsation and x-rays at 12-18 months old but their hips were not good.

Dysplasias are of great consequence to me given their past effect on my working program and bank balance.

Never had a problem when I used to sterilise at 6 months years ago. Those dogs were from old station lines and tough as old boots, trained and worked super young, never heard of dysplasia. I reckon genetics has got a lot more to do with it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: My HD dog was only picked up when his sister was x-rayed by her owner, a vet ,when she was under anasthesia for being spayed at 8 months old - she was asymptomatic. The x-rays showed bad hips. My intact male is 15 months and currently asymptomatic but unfortunatly like his sister, his hips are not great. Both those dogs may have remained undetected till later by which time both would have been sterilised - how do you account for those scenarios in stats.


WTF are you talking about ? How much do you know about HD ? So you think I am saying because your dogs have HD it is because of neutering, but not really ?

HD is a nightmare. There are studies that have shown that dogs that were neutered as a pup grew faster and had a higher incidence of HD. WHat does that mean ? I do not know. I would want to go back to the study and see what dogs were being bred that these pups were being neutered, and see if there is a history already of HD.

There are all kinds of things that I could post about HD, some even conflict current thinking. 

What I know now, is that you are doing herding. THere are plenty of border collies that can herd, and what you are doing doesn't effect me, so I am good. Neuter away.

I would have to type for hours to explain this any better, and that is not happening. HD, and discussions about it drive me shit house.


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> WTF are you talking about ? How much do you know about HD ? So you think I am saying because your dogs have HD it is because of neutering, but not really ?
> 
> .


No not at all I am saying that.

Many dogs are picked up on xrays when their owners hip xray while under anasthesia for sterilisation. If the dogs had not been xrayed and HD manifested would they be in the statistics that say they are neutered and have HD, which would skew the results. 

When in fact the HD was present before neutering. 

People bandy all these statistics and studies around and often draw the conclusions they want to.

Certain breeds are way more susceptible to HD compared to other breeds regardless of when the hell they were sterilised. That has to be strongly genetics in in my book.

Anyway I think you are talking some shit and you think I am talking shit so who really cares.

I just now what I see and observe after 30 years of working dogs, not just Border collies.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

ME: I would want to go back to the study and see what dogs were being bred that these pups were being neutered, and see if there is a history already of HD.

YOU: If the dogs had not been xrayed and HD manifested would they be in the statistics that say they are neutered and have HD, which would skew the results. 

This is why reading comprehension is so important. You skimmed what I wrote and missed the whole ****ing point of this sentence.

HD is still a ****er, and I have been dealing with it since my first Rott that I bought. I also see a lot of research based on faulty thought processes.


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> ME: I would want to go back to the study and see what dogs were being bred that these pups were being neutered, and see if there is a history already of HD.
> 
> YOU: If the dogs had not been xrayed and HD manifested would they be in the statistics that say they are neutered and have HD, which would skew the results.
> 
> This is why reading comprehension is so important. You skimmed what I wrote and missed the whole ****ing point of this sentence.
> 
> HD is still a ****er, and I have been dealing with it since my first Rott that I bought. I also see a lot of research based on faulty thought processes.


No I didnt actually I was just getting bored like you of the whole HD thing. 

I noticed what you said and it is a change from your first definite statement along the lines that it is documented fact that sterilisation causes a higher incidence of HD. I thought - Maybe documented but it is it right?

I actually agree with you about going back and looking more closely at the study. I was just objecting and obviously not very eloquently to your first statement- too many years hanging out with dogs and livestock.

I also agree about research based on faulty thought process, I dont dont know the answer. I have been interested in dysplasias since my first elbow dysplastic ACD some years ago. I just see way too much of it in recent years.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I actually agree with you about going back and looking more closely at the study

ALWAYS ! ! ! ! HD is a nightmare. Nothing worse than a pup with bad HD, especially when it came from OFA excellent parents.

WHen I get to old to do this goofy Mondio ring thing, I will get cattle dogs. All horribly savage to keep me entertained.


----------



## Bob Scott

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I actually agree with you about going back and looking more closely at the study
> 
> ALWAYS ! ! ! ! HD is a nightmare. Nothing worse than a pup with bad HD, especially when it came from OFA excellent parents.
> 
> WHen I get to old to do this goofy Mondio ring thing, I will get cattle dogs. All horribly savage to keep me entertained.



:idea: Cattle dog x Jagd terrier :-k :-k :-k ........ahhhhh the possibilities! :twisted evil:


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:
> WHen I get to old to do this goofy Mondio ring thing, I will get cattle dogs. All horribly savage to keep me entertained.


Nothing like a good cattle dog! Quirky, feisty, headstrong, full on, protective, athletic and loyal to the core. Everything I love in a dog. Two of mine saved my life when I was changing a tyre on a lonely country road. They would have died fighting to protect me.


----------



## maggie fraser

Sara Waters said:


> Nothing like a good cattle dog! Quirky, feisty, headstrong, full on, protective, athletic and loyal to the core. Everything I love in a dog. Two of mine saved my life when I was changing a tyre on a lonely country road. They would have died fighting to protect me.


 
Did someone try and jump you? And you chased them off ?


----------



## Sara Waters

maggie fraser said:


> Did someone try and jump you? And you chased them off ?


Yep, untill my two ACDS appeared out of my truck. The sight of me with a tyre spanner in my hand, a pretty fit female from years of working on the land and surfing and 2 ACDS standing in front of me advancing everytime the guy moved towards me, with a look in their eyes and a snarl in their throats like I have never seen or heard before was probably more hassle than it was worth. I think the ACDS were the deal breaker though. We were all going down fighting!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

She was saying you turned down a chance at a roll around.


----------



## Sara Waters

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> She was saying you turned down a chance at a roll around.


See I been in the country too long! We are all monosyllabic and isolated out here LOL, anyway I wasnt that desperate I live in a mans world - plenty of choice if I have the mind.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Sara Waters said:


> standing in front of me advancing everytime the guy moved towards me, with a look in their eyes and a snarl in their throats like I have never seen or heard before.


You could get rich writing this stuff for the PPD people.


----------



## Sara Waters

Gerry Grimwood said:


> You could get rich writing this stuff for the PPD people.


Are you also having a lend of me?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Sara Waters said:


> Are you also having a lend of me?


I don't really know what that means but I'm not making fun of you, I just meant you write descriptively.


----------



## Sara Waters

Gerry Grimwood said:


> I don't really know what that means but I'm not making fun of you, I just meant you write descriptively.


Thanks, I am aware that you guys know much more about protection sports than I do and I thought my discription of my ACDS doing their protection thing from a novice viewpoint may have had some technical error in it!

Having a lend is an Aussie thing maybe, not making fun -a bit more like Maggies comment really.


----------



## Steve Groen

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Medically, there are several benefits of spaying/neutering a dog,
> 
> This is crap. Just so you know, it is CRAP. LOL
> 
> They talk about a greater risk of cancer, however they do not tell you it is a hundreds of a percent. I think I remember .03 or .003. Think about that. They are not lying, but spay and neuter is big money for a vets office. Kinda like shots.


Although I don't know the effects on a working dog's performance, if you're not going to be breeding a male, it's probably best to neuter him in my opinion. My last male, an English Springer Spaniel, I didn't neuter, nor did I breed him. At that time, I was of the philosophy that cutting anything was unnatural. 

However, when nature ran its course in his eighth year of an extremely athletic life (he traveled all over the country with me - sort of like one of the protagonists in Steinbeck's Travel's With Charley) which I thought would last about 14 years, he developed a prostate infection which moved up and shut down his kidneys. I didn't notice it until he started peeing blood 17 days and many thousands of dollars before realizing I couldn't save him. He needed dialysis weekly, and the only companion-animal dialysis in California is at UC-Davis when I live in San Diego.

If you don't neuter a male that you're not going to breed, you may not have him as long as you would wish, and as you know dogs don't live long enough anyway.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Sorry about your loss, but for every story like that, there are many many more where the dog lived a long happy life.

I remember "Ted" an un-neutered Golden Retriever who at 15 still loved to chase tennis balls. I do not think that the people that claim neutering makes them live longer are basing this on fact, but emotion. It is alway going to suck to lose your dog. Claiming that neutering would save more dogs is not true.


----------



## maggie fraser

Sara Waters said:


> See I been in the country too long! We are all monosyllabic and isolated out here LOL, anyway I wasnt that desperate I live in a mans world - plenty of choice if I have the mind.


You sound more like a novelist as opposed to someone who "lives in a mans world".  So you live out bush then ? Which state ? I worked for a short spell years ago, out bush, in a mans world. How come you have such interest in spaying and dog population when you are out bush, in a mans world? I find that interesting.

By the way, I'm pretty fit too from walking the land but not surfing, doesn't colour my attitude none :-D.


----------



## Martine Loots

Steve Groen said:


> If you don't neuter a male that you're not going to breed, you may not have him as long as you would wish, and as you know dogs don't live long enough anyway.


Of all the dogs we had, only one male has been neutered at the age of 13 because of a health issue (testicle tumor).
Mostly our dogs lead long and healthy lives and we never had health issues for not neutering them.


----------



## Sarah ten Bensel

My six year old male is neutered. I bought the "Bill of Goods" and did it and I regret it becuase I believe the early neuter affected his conformation - very leggy. That I believe has placed him at a higher risk for injury.As far as drive, who knows as I have nothing to compare it to. However I knew of a working K9 that had to be neutered for health reasons and it did not impact his streetwork.
My 1 year old Pele is cryptorchid - bummer. He will have the undescended testicle removed in a few years and then have a VASECTOMY done on the other testicle. I have found a vet that is trained in vasectomies. I inquired about just removing the undescended testicle, but, not one vet said he would do it without either castration or vasectomy of the other due to "ethics". I wish they would consider the owner. I am hyper responsible (yeah accidents happen) but that is not factored into the vet's willingness to treat my dog. Vasectomy ought to be considered more frequently as an option in my opinion as there are benefits to maintaining the level of testerone from what I have read. I have heard vasectomy is done more frequently in Europe, but many general vets here in USA are not trained in the procedure. I will be going to a specialist for this combo surgery.


----------



## Steve Groen

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Sorry about your loss, but for every story like that, there are many many more where the dog lived a long happy life.
> 
> I remember "Ted" an un-neutered Golden Retriever who at 15 still loved to chase tennis balls. I do not think that the people that claim neutering makes them live longer are basing this on fact, but emotion. It is alway going to suck to lose your dog. Claiming that neutering would save more dogs is not true.


I guess my point boils down to this - a belief that seminal fluid and semen remaining static for a number of years is problematic. If the dog isn't going to use it, he may very well lose it, and his life.


----------



## maggie fraser

Steve Groen said:


> I guess my point boils down to this - a belief that seminal fluid and semen remaining static for a number of years is problematic. If the dog isn't going to use it, he may very well lose it, and his life.


 
What is that belief based on, some kind of religion? I don't get that at all.


----------



## Steve Groen

maggie fraser said:


> What is that belief based on, some kind of religion? I don't get that at all.


Just empirical knowledge of that specfiic dog. The dog led a relatively privileged life. I was with that dog 24 hours a day his entire life save for his first eight weeks, unless I was at work. He was never boarded, and he was kept inside the house when he wasn't with me. I'm fairly resolute in my conclusion that the dog's prostate infection and later kidney failure were related (which was the opinion of my vet, too), that one led to the other, and that they resulted from non-use.

My two cents.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

So, we have all these dogs that never used their seminal fluid, EVER, and lived full happy lives, and your dog dies (sorry) and now we must accept your conclusions, and not reality ?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Good God, I could go at any moment.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Higgins was 14 1/2 and had a heart attack. I wonder if it could have been because he wasn't neutered. What do y'all think?


----------



## Steve Groen

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> So, we have all these dogs that never used their seminal fluid, EVER, and lived full happy lives, and your dog dies (sorry) and now we must accept your conclusions, and not reality ?


You can disagree. I'm not asking that you accept my conclusion. I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em. 

Additionally, my guess is that most veterinarians in the US who subscribe to neutering as a health precaution do so out of concern for the dog's health, not financial gain and to relieve overcrowded local Humane Society branches. Lots of vets do have ethics.


----------



## Steve Groen

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Good God, I could go at any moment.


That's a good reason to hit the local sports bar on Christmas Eve.:razz:


----------



## maggie fraser

Steve Groen said:


> You can disagree. I'm not asking that you accept my conclusion. I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.
> 
> Additionally, my guess is that most veterinarians in the US who subscribe to neutering as a health precaution do so out of concern for the dog's health, not financial gain and to relieve overcrowded local Humane Society branches. Lots of vets do have ethics.


----------



## Sara Waters

maggie fraser said:


> You sound more like a novelist as opposed to someone who "lives in a mans world".  So you live out bush then ? Which state ? I worked for a short spell years ago, out bush, in a mans world. How come you have such interest in spaying and dog population when you are out bush, in a mans world? I find that interesting.
> 
> By the way, I'm pretty fit too from walking the land but not surfing, doesn't colour my attitude none :-D.


Love to be a Novelist! I own and run my own farm in Australia and also share crop with my neighbours as they have the big machinery. I am one of the few woman in my area to run my own sheep operation on my own. I also train working sheepdogs which is my passion. My nearest neigbour is 10kms away and when I stand at the top of my farm at night I can see just their lights. Before having my own farm I worked on farms and stations, mainly with men and a few women who like me loved the wide open spaces. 

I have an interest in neutering dogs because I also spent time in a regional centre working in Agricultural research and was apalled by the number of dogs that were dumped and euthnaised so I got involved in starting a dog rescue in that town. My mum is also active in rescue and a couple of dear female friends too, one who rescues and rehomes working dogs from her farm and she sterilises before they go.

When I travelled and worked with my first working ACD when I was 17 I had her sterilised as most other stockman dont sterilise their dogs and it was difficult to not insure an unwanted litter of which there were many. Not many farmers of stockmen sterilise their dogs and many unwanted pups are shot or drowned, it is just the way it is, people on the land are very practical about life and death and anything that doesnt earn its keep are gone.

I have always sterilised my dogs but these days with the boys wait till they are mature. They have all lived long healthy lives.

I dont care if people dont sterilise or sterilise their dogs. I just think that you have to make a decsion - if you cant or wont manage then sterilise. If you are happy to go the extra mile than dont sterilise.

Anyway Maggie I am sure that was all very boring LOL. As to men there are plenty of farmers looking for wives. Life on the land especially in these hard times of drought is not always appealing to women and many young people men and women are leaving in droves.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

Kinda near sighted. One dog, and your conclusion is that all dogs should be neutered, even though there are studies that say otherwise, and people that have had more than one dog do not have that experience. PETA right ?

Quote: my guess is that most veterinarians in the US who subscribe to neutering as a health precaution do so out of concern for the dog's health, not financial gain and to relieve overcrowded local Humane Society branches.

How much does it cost to do a spay or neuter where you are at ? I think it is the number one surgery performed, and it takes maybe 10 minutes for a neuter all told. Maybe. So, how much does the anesthesia cost ? How much does the surgical thread cost ? And then, how much did the vet charge ?

I am 46. As long as I can remember, people have been preaching spay and neuter. There has been no difference in the amount of dogs, but there is a difference in the amount of different places that take in dogs. It is a thriving business.

I rescued dogs for years and years and we never lost a dog due to anesthesia. The last time I went in, they wanted to do a blood test to determine if the dog would have a reaction to the anesthesia. 60 bucks. 

Yet here you are with your one dog example, trying to tell me who has had many many more dogs than that, that you have some insight that unused sperm is a carcinogen.


----------



## maggie fraser

What state was that again Sara ? :grin:


----------



## Steve Groen

Don Turnipseed said:


> Higgins was 14 1/2 and had a heart attack. I wonder if it could have been because he wasn't neutered. What do y'all think?


If he never bred and lasted that long, maybe he was a lucky dog?


----------



## Steve Groen

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.
> 
> Kinda near sighted. One dog, and your conclusion is that all dogs should be neutered, even though there are studies that say otherwise, and people that have had more than one dog do not have that experience. PETA right ?
> 
> Quote: my guess is that most veterinarians in the US who subscribe to neutering as a health precaution do so out of concern for the dog's health, not financial gain and to relieve overcrowded local Humane Society branches.
> 
> How much does it cost to do a spay or neuter where you are at ? I think it is the number one surgery performed, and it takes maybe 10 minutes for a neuter all told. Maybe. So, how much does the anesthesia cost ? How much does the surgical thread cost ? And then, how much did the vet charge ?
> 
> I am 46. As long as I can remember, people have been preaching spay and neuter. There has been no difference in the amount of dogs, but there is a difference in the amount of different places that take in dogs. It is a thriving business.
> 
> I rescued dogs for years and years and we never lost a dog due to anesthesia. The last time I went in, they wanted to do a blood test to determine if the dog would have a reaction to the anesthesia. 60 bucks.
> 
> Yet here you are with your one dog example, trying to tell me who has had many many more dogs than that, that you have some insight that unused sperm is a carcinogen.


You really have to stop the personal attack, implicit or otherwise. It's a bit over the top. That said, I'm not offering that unused sperm is carcinogenic. I'm saying that an unused organ may be the cause of other problems. 

And, although I've never researched it, I bet I could find studies showing the opposite of yours. So, I guess it comes down to what we'ver learned in our own experience.

You're 46, you've apparently had lots of dogs, and had a dog that lasted 14.5 years without breeding. That's great. I'm 54, and I disagree with you that the odds favor a dog lving that long as an unneutered male that doesn't breed.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler

Oh, jeez, why am I doing this?

Steve,

If your concern is that the seminal fluid is remaining static, as I think you put it, then there's an easy cure for that. Do you think if you had an intact male dog collected (nice, huh?) every year, he would live forever?

Laura


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: You really have to stop the personal attack, implicit or otherwise

No I don't. Here is my definition of personal attack. If I were to walk up and slap the lips off your face, that would be a personal attack. 

Talking on a message board with someone who is laughing at you right now, is not a personal attack. Never has been, never will be. Get over yourself.

You find me all these studies, and post them here. Love to see them. 

By the way, Don's dog Higgens died at 14 1/2. See what happens when you skim and think your reading comprehension is all that ? LOL Higgens ****ed a lot of bitches as well.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Steve, you know I don't keep dead weight here. I think I bred him 3 times. Once at 7 mo, once at about 5 years and once at about 9 years. I am just making a point. Dogs get a multitude of different things. We can take all the precaution and prevetative medicine and if they are going to die early, they are still going to die early. If they aren't, they aren't. I could easily say the longevity my dogs have is because I keep them away from vets. while it ois probably very true, it isn't conclusive. It may have something to do with they only get two vaccinations as pups...which in itself goes back to keeping them away from vets. You choose to get you dogs neutered to prevent one thing but, at the same time are leaving them far more susceptible to numerous other life threatening ailments.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:
> Talking on a message board with someone who is laughing at you right now, is not a personal attack. Never has been, never will be. Get over yourself.
> 
> It might be some day. You should see whats going on in kids schools, there not even allowed to call the fat kisds fat or queers-queers. For now you just get in a bit of trouble but there working on making all these *** bully laws. One day soon you might hurt someone’s feelings online and there’s gona be a bunch of cops outside your door because you broke the cant hurt someone’s feelings law. Someone like Steve really might call the internet hurt feelings police; he is from San Diego you know?


----------



## Steve Groen

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Oh, jeez, why am I doing this?
> 
> Steve,
> 
> If your concern is that the seminal fluid is remaining static, as I think you put it, then there's an easy cure for that. Do you think if you had an intact male dog collected (nice, huh?) every year, he would live forever?
> 
> Laura


The live forever part I can do without.

I think "collection," or better simple "disposal," of some sort would resolve a major problem with intact dogs as it would most intact human males, and it probably should occur more frequently than on a yearly basis. I don't know about dogs, but it'd probably let the human race live forever, if anything.

As any 13-year old boy might say to himself, there's something going on down there. And that's less than two dog years. Ever had a dog with external tags and fatty cysts that keep popping up? Just think of the storage pressure and cell deformation in the prostate gland and those big blue balls of an unbred male at seven years. Do you think that could back things up to the point of causing dysfunction of other organs, like the bladder or kidneys? I do.


----------



## maggie fraser

My dog used to occasionally masturbate, he doesn't do it so much now.


----------



## Steve Groen

maggie fraser said:


> My dog used to occasionally masturbate, he doesn't do it so much now.


A double-page spread of Blida des Contes d'Hoffmann would cure that.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis

I had a vet tell me the same thing about my Male malinois. 
I told her I was considering breeding him and I would not be fixing him.

So she said he would most likely get testicular cancer.

I then asked her why a good friend of mine has 14 male dogs for breeding, none are fixed, and none have had cancer. 

She decided that friend of mine had a very " lucky " breeding situation. 

I laughed at the vet, and left.

It was interesting how cocky she had gotten by talking to pet people on such a regular basis.
I guess she had never had a working dog person call her on her numbers.

What a joke.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Interesting read.

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com:80/2010/12/rethinking-spay-and-neuter.html


----------



## Matt Grosch

forgive my laziness of not wanting to go back through all 20 pages at the moment, were the real statistics on the increase in cancer rates posted somewhere in this thread?



*I also wonder if a genetic unhealthy mess (AKC non working dog) eating unhealthy food and not being active could have higher rates of cancer in a variety of areas, testicular/etc


----------



## Matt Grosch

you got to get the evil out....reminds me of this insightful chris rock bit (skip to the 3min mark)

****chris rock is known for using some bad language 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDt9G3tIxEw




Steve Groen said:


> The live forever part I can do without.
> 
> I think "collection," or better simple "disposal," of some sort would resolve a major problem with intact dogs as it would most intact human males, and it probably should occur more frequently than on a yearly basis. I don't know about dogs, but it'd probably let the human race live forever, if anything.
> 
> As any 13-year old boy might say to himself, there's something going on down there. And that's less than two dog years. Ever had a dog with external tags and fatty cysts that keep popping up? Just think of the storage pressure and cell deformation in the prostate gland and those big blue balls of an unbred male at seven years. Do you think that could back things up to the point of causing dysfunction of other organs, like the bladder or kidneys? I do.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

"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.(5)"


----------



## maggie fraser

Another interesting read; Unforunately I seem to have lost the main link for this article so I'll post a couple of blocks of text.

Reproduced with the kind permission of Dogs Monthly Magazine –November 2008
*Neutering - the pros & cons*
Neutering is also known as the 'kindest cut'. But for whom - dogs or humans? Vet *Mark Elliott*

*Assumption: Neutering is a relatively safe procedure*
*Canine View*
Various studies incorporating neutering show that post-operative complications following elective
surgery vary considerably. Some show frequencies between one and 24 per cent for all
complications and one to four per cent for severe complications.
Some dogs do die, but as best I could tell this is reported at around 0.1 per cent (or one in 1,000). I
could find no studies showing reduced mortality risk with early neutering but as you can imagine it
is very difficult to design a study to research a negative result.
*Assumption: Neutering reduces the risk of mammary cancer in the bitch and early*
*neutering prevents it*
*Canine View*
Without doubt, studies show there is a benefit, but the statement is somewhat misleading.
Unneutered bitches have only a 3.4 per cent chance of developing this problem with age, with 50
per cent of those cases being malignant.
Early neutering reduces this risk to 0.5 per cent of the 3.4 per cent = 0.017 per cent, but spaying
the bitch after the first season and before the second reduces it also to eight per cent of 3.4 per
cent = 0.27 per cent.
So the argument for early neutering over leaving the bitch to have one season on the basis of this
argument doesn’t really stack up as particularly significant to my mind.
The risk of developing mammary cancer in later life increases with each subsequent season.
However, there is also a downside to counter this argument which is that some studies show
increased incidence of other cancers following neutering including:
*Osteosarcoma *(bone cancer) - by a factor of one to three times (normal incidence 0.2 per cent).
*Heamangiosarcoma*–there appears to be a five times greater risk of contracting this cancer in
neutered bitches and 2.4 times in neutered dogs. The normal incidence in unneutered canines is
approx 0.2 per cent.
*Urinary tract cancer *(in bitches only) - there is two to four times greater risk of developing urinary
tract cancers. The normal incidence is less than one per cent.
So what is seen as a benefit for bitches for mammary cancer risk is, arguably, roughly balanced by
the increased risk of other cancers. Net gain - zero?
For males it could be argued, therefore, that there is an overall increase in risk.
*Assumption: Spaying prevents pyometra*
*Canine View*
Of course pyometra (a potentially fatal womb infection) is prevented following spaying, since the
uterus and ovaries have been removed.
The incidence of pyometra by 10 years of age has been shown to be around 23-24 per cent which
is significant. However, most cases of pyometra will be resolved by the bitch having a
hysterectomy at the time, with death as a result of the condition being around four per cent.
So, relatively speaking, the risk of death from spaying is 0.1 per cent and the overall risk of death
when older from Pyometra if left unspayed is one per cent.
These results, then, show a net gain from neutering for only nine bitches in every 1,000.
*Assumption:*
*Only a small number of bitches become incontinent post-operatively and it is easily treated*
*Canine View*
Studies vary considerably but, as best I can determine, between 12 and 20 per cent of bitches
become incontinent to varying degrees after spaying, usually around two to three years later.
Larger dogs are more prone to incontinence after the op, as are some breeds. Most will respond to
long-term treatment, but not all.
Reproduced with the kind permission of Dogs Monthly Magazine –November 2008
Incontinence is devastating, particularly for owners where the pet lives in close proximity and when
she fails to respond to treatment it can be a reason for euthanasia or rehoming.
It is hard to determine if early neutering is more significant here: some studies showed less risk of
the condition but more likely it was severe, while other studies did not seem to draw a conclusion.
*Assumption: The increase in size of early neutered dogs is not a problem*
*Canine View*
Early neutered dogs show delayed closure of bone growth plates and so will tend to be significantly
larger than their un-neutered siblings. They also tend to be lighter of bone structure and have
narrower chests and skulls. This alters body proportions and the lengths, and therefore weights, of
some bones relative to others. In the hind leg this has been correlated with heavier legs below the
stifle and altered angle of the joint leading to greater risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture with all
the attendant stress and surgery needed to correct that involved.
Logic dictates that bone density is affected by sex hormones and certainly I personally have found
a number of neutered bitches whose lameness responds to supplements, similar to those used for
human osteoporosis, for this alone. Which finding raises questions for me to which I can find no
research to answer.
Other studies have shown that early neutered dogs have a higher incidence of hip dysplasia, but
that study did have no standard criteria for diagnosis (reflecting the difficulties in interpretation of
observational studies). This presents an argument for allowing the dog to mature before surgery.
*Assumption: Neutered dogs get fatter don’t they?*
*Canine View*
Yes, but this is really a human management issue unless the dog develops illness such as
hypothyroidism. Obesity is an obvious health problem for many reasons.
*Assumption: Male dogs will not get prostatic disease and testicular cancer if castrated*
*Canine View*
The latter is obvious as you cannot get disease in an organ that is not there, but the assumptions
regarding prostate troubles are much more complex. In older intact males with simple enlargement
of the prostate due to testicular tumours late castration is usually curative, as it is with most
testicular cancer (approx 7% incidence and surgery is 90% curative –a 0.7% gain for castration).
However, prostatic cancer, which logically you would think not a problem in neutered dogs, some
studies suggest is actually is up to 4 times more likely! Overall Prostatic Cancer incidence is
around 0.6% negating the benefit of castration already mentioned? However, combined with
concerns previously mentioned regarding other Cancer incidences this raises some difficulties
when defining castration as a Cancer benefit.

Other studies have confirmed this *Hypothyroid *link and, for interest, the most common clinical
findings in hypothyroidism include obesity, seborrhoea (greasy skin), alopecia (hair-loss),
weakness, lethargy, bradycardia (slow heart rate), and pyoderma (skin infection). I could go on, but
it would be impossible within the scope of this article to cover all the possible other minor issues
seen as a result of neutering, so I shall stop there!
*The price dogs pay*
A little research will enable you to make an even more informed choice, but I would venture to ask
'where are the benefits for the individual dog in all this?' Most of the benefits reported on the
Internet and elsewhere are clearly associated with societal, human behaviour and convenience
arguments. Many years ago dogs were domesticated and perhaps this is the price they pay as part
of that bargain?
Clinically the arguments for neutering male dogs do not, in my opinion, stack up to much at all and
may it actually be a negative action when looking at their long term health . For bitches there are
some apparent positive benefits, but still minimal in my opinion when compared to the risk factors
and long-term health issues should the individual be unfortunate to suffer them.

References and Further Reading:
Complications Resulting from Sterilization/Contraception techniques –a list of research articles
http://nal/usda.gov/awic/pubs/SpayNeuter/complications.htm (saves a lot of listing)
Long term risks and benefits of early age gonadectomy in dogs. C.V.Spain et al. JAVMA Vol 224,
No3, Feb1, 2004.
Canine Reproduction. Peggy Root DVM. Article for the Puli club of America
http://www.puliclub.org/CHF/AKC2007Conf/Canine%20Reproduction.htm
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete. C Zink 2005
http://www.caninesports.com/Spayneuter.html


----------



## Don Turnipseed

This one sentence say's it all Maggie.

"Most of the benefits reported on the
Internet and elsewhere are clearly associated with societal, human behaviour and convenience
arguments."


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> This one sentence say's it all Maggie.
> 
> "Most of the benefits reported on the
> Internet and elsewhere are clearly associated with societal, human behaviour and convenience
> arguments."


Yep, I specifically left that in there.


----------



## Matt Grosch

thx maggie, here is the orig link


http://www.homeopathicvet.co.uk/pdf files/Dog neutering with links.pdf


----------



## Jessica Kromer

Here is the link to the article that Maggie posted for those interested...

http://www.homeopathicvet.co.uk/pdf%20files/Dog%20neutering%20with%20links.pdf

It is one of my favorite synopsises of the spewter controversy, as with the one posted at the beginning of the topic - http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/longtermhealtheffectsofspayneuterindogs.pdf

Take both to the vet with me when I have to go in. Stops all arguments...

ETA: Oops, Matt got it up first, sorry for the repeat.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

One of my exwives doctors put it to me plainly once. Not wanting to speak ill of his fellow doctors, he simply said, "Keep in mind, a surgeon goes to school to be a surgeon and operate and he only makes money if he can operate." This was in answer to my question of, "is this operation necessary". He got his point across while still being proffessional. We are talking about surguries and vets are no different. Surgery is their bread and butter. 

Since some of these articles are obviously written by DVM's, it is apparent that they always leave out the very major, and devastating, role their colleagues play in creating this social atmosphere as it was put. And people tend to trust their vet. I used to trust vets until I quit using them. It was glaringly obvious how much better and long lived my dogs were.

This speuter issue is always referred to as a controversey. I just don't see the controversy. I see a bunch of people that just don't want to admit that these "elective" surgeries are done for their convenience and nothing else. I see people grasping at any straw as the reason they have them done. The reality is, if you have numerous dogs in a lifetiime. You are going to loose a few to something unforseen. They say, "Ignorance is bliss".


----------



## Sara Waters

Don Turnipseed said:


> One of my exwives doctors put it to me plainly once. Not wanting to speak ill of his fellow doctors, he simply said, "Keep in mind, a surgeon goes to school to be a surgeon and operate and he only makes money if he can operate." This was in answer to my question of, "is this operation necessary". He got his point across while still being proffessional. We are talking about surguries and vets are no different. Surgery is their bread and butter.
> 
> Since some of these articles are obviously written by DVM's, it is apparent that they always leave out the very major, and devastating, role their colleagues play in creating this social atmosphere as it was put. And people tend to trust their vet. I used to trust vets until I quit using them. It was glaringly obvious how much better and long lived my dogs were.
> 
> This speuter issue is always referred to as a controversey. I just don't see the controversy. I see a bunch of people that just don't want to admit that these "elective" surgeries are done for their convenience and nothing else. I see people grasping at any straw as the reason they have them done. The reality is, if you have numerous dogs in a lifetiime. You are going to loose a few to something unforseen. They say, "Ignorance is bliss".


Don, a lot of what you have written here I agree with. My sister was a specialist surgical surgeon and she always said to me that her business partner and other surgeons she knew would go down the surgery track way to quickly for her liking. She would only do surgery where she thought there was no other option and with her own dogs she would prefer not to rush into surgery.

As to the speutering, the medical fors and against have never really influenced my decisions as I have owned and known many dogs. Most of mine have all been sterilised except for my current 2 young males and have all lived long healthy working lives and so too have I known many uneutered dogs to do the same.

I spay mine for convenience and none of them are what I consider as breeding quality dogs and I personally have no interest in dealing with puppies or managing their heat cycles, all of them had easy spays and recovered extremely quickly. Most of my dogs have been bitches. The only one I have lost early was from a poison bait laid for foxes and wild dogs.

I will still be firm in my belief that if you are not going to manage your animals in terms of breeding you are best of neutering them, I cant tell you how many times I have seen young bitches get pregnant on their first heat because their owners had no clue what was going on. Many people out there just want a pet and have no clue about the reproductive cycle of their bitch, and often no clue about dogs at all. Or they have a cute fluffy and decide it would be nice to have pups etc, for no other reason than they look cute. Doesnt matter if they have a vile temperament - one person I know bred his vile temperamented fluffy bitch because he thought having a litter would settle her down and make her nice. A lot of dogs are produced for no good reason due to poor management or old wives tales.


----------



## Nick Jenkins

I second Sara 100%.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sara, to be clear, OI don't care if people spay/neuter or don't spay/neuter their own dogs. It is a personal choice. I commend you on just stating the facts that you do it because it is convenient. The people that do it and get on the band wagon of how beneficial it is....are merely promoteing BS and the legislation that goes with it. Call a spade a spade and domn't use a crutch to ease your concience is the way I look at it. Many people do it just because they are ostrasized at public places here in the states. The haven't got the sand to tell people to mind their own FKing business. That is about the weakest reason in the world to put an animal through a surgery....because other ignrant people will frown on you.

The business of keeping an overcrowded pet population down is another one. Shelters do indeed import dogs because as I have said many times...they are the biggest vendors of dogs in the country. In area's where they don't have to bring dogs in, they keep the dogs a specific amopunt of time. They are then PTS because they are deemed "unsaleable". They have an endless supply and they sell or they don't.....but they don't like, or want, to put it so bluntly. They do the same thing breeders used to do. They cull the pups that didn't sell from a previous litter when they have another coming. They would be crucified if the pupblic realized this is what they do.....as would a breeder these days. It is about turn over. The demand far exceeds the quantity available as the first link pointed out.


----------



## Nick Jenkins

There may be some places that see it like that and make money off of adopting out dogs but I would reckon most don't. Look at animal control shelters across the country. Where I am at, which is Alachua County Florida it is relatively small no really big cities like Miami, Ft.Lauderdale, Tampa, Jacksonville. They take in about 4,000 dogs a year and PTS half of them. Most aren't even put up for adoption. Add that in with the fact they have to take in animal from the public as well as court cases and PTS animals that are adoptable to make space for whatever comes in, makes it far from profitable. Mandatory vet care, maintenance, etc and then getting less than $100 from a dog.
The humane society of the United States (HSUS) has more expenses than income according to this http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848 . And most other shelters subsist off of donations and volunteers, I dont understand how a seemingly thriving business model would need either government funding (animal control/ animal service) or rely on donations and volunteers if it was really making tons of money.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler

Nick Jenkins said:


> The humane society of the United States (HSUS) has more expenses than income according to this http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848 . And most other shelters subsist off of donations and volunteers, I dont understand how a seemingly thriving business model would need either government funding (animal control/ animal service) or rely on donations and volunteers if it was really making tons of money.


How many animal shelters does the HSUS actually operate with that money, Nick?

Laura


----------



## Joby Becker

The HSUS is not affiliated with any local shelters...they use less than .005 of the money to actually physically help animals....
The HSUS is a terrible example to use...would be more better to use a local shelter budget....I do think Don may be LA LA LAND on this one though...the HSUS is a business entity, nothing to do with physically helping animals..

...."HSUS spends most of the donations it receives on things other than the actual care of animals. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, after analyzing documents filed with the IRS, the HSUS collected $86 million in 2008 and — get this — gave only a half of 1 percent ($450,000) of that budget to the care of needy animals.

Furthermore, $20 million was allocated for legislation, litigation and campaigns. More than $24 million, which is 28 cents of every dollar received by HSUS, was spent on further fundraising!

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that 41 HSUS employees were paid at least $100,000, and HSUS President Wayne Pacelle’s salary was more than $250,000."

*"Like any kind of sophisticated political operation, you use the best research tools in order to drive your message, but in terms of our policy formulations, I can't think of a time that we've done research."*
-Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

*"We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."*
-Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

*“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.”*
— Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President

*“The Humane Society should be worried about protecting animals from cruelty. It’s not doing that. The place is all about power and money.”*
— HSUS consultant and former HSUS Chief Investigator Robert Baker, in U.S. News & World Report

*“[T]he Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies … The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter.”*
— From a 2001 disclaimer issued by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> How many animal shelters does the HSUS actually operate with that money, Nick?
> 
> Laura


Hi Laura,

That was a rhetorical question wasn't it Laura?
As I'm sure you know, the HSUS doesn't run any shelters and "rescues" few if any animals. They are an Animal rights group in league with PETA. Their purpose is propaganda and BSL and legislation to take any pet owners rights.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler

Yes, it was rhetorical. Just trying to point out to Nick that the HSUS was probably not a good example to use. But Joby did a much better job. I was lazy. 

Laura


----------



## Sara Waters

Here our no kill shelters are mainly run off volunteer funds and they are overflowing with some dogs having been there for years. The pounds as you say just euthanaise after a set time unless the dogs are picked up by rescue, claimed or bought. 

Rescues will treat, sterilise and spend a fair bit on medical expenses if required.

Our biggest vendors seem to be pet shops who source their pups from who knows where, large breeding operations such as puppy mills churning out so called designer fluffies and a some registered ANKC breeders. Farmers sometimes send their surplus pups to pet shops or they simply shoot them.

There is also a lot of privately advertised pups from people who have thought it a good idea to allow their bitch to have one litter before being sterilised, want the kids to see birth, think they will make money or whatever other reason they may have. That seems to be quite common. If things go wrong and medical intervention is required they often dont/cant afford to provide it and the dogs is dumped or euthanaised.

Many of the above seem to end up in pounds where they are culled as they often have issues already. Some are lucky and get a second chance.

There is certainly a lot of demand but a lot die to satisfy the demand. If animals were properly bred and managed one would surely hope there would not be such a high cull rate of unsaleable animals.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

LOL Joby, you think most of what I say is from La La Land. . The reason they PTS the dogs that don't sell is because, AC's and shelters are largley manned by vounteers. The reason they can't go through and pick and choose the more adoptable animals is people doing the gassing are, for the most part, normal people with feelings and emotions. There is no way they can ask them to pick and choose the lucky ones. Otherwise they would just euthanize the old, sick and totally unadoptable. They eliminated the need to ask anyone to pick and choose with the specific date method. Lots of better dogs are PTS than what they have coming in....but it is like the gov't and tax dollars....there is always more coming in. While they are non profit, basically, the few at the top of the chain make the money and it behooves them to operate in this fashion for job security. Many busimness in these United States are non profit... like the Salvation army....because they are non profit in no way means no one is making good money.


----------



## Joby Becker

Don Turnipseed said:


> LOL Joby, you think most of what I say is from La La Land. . The reason they PTS the dogs that don't sell is because, AC's and shelters are largley manned by vounteers. The reason they can't go through and pick and choose the more adoptable animals is people doing the gassing are, for the most part, normal people with feelings and emotions. There is no way they can ask them to pick and choose the lucky ones. Otherwise they would just euthanize the old, sick and totally unadoptable. They eliminated the need to ask anyone to pick and choose with the specific date method. Lots of better dogs are PTS than what they have coming in....but it is like the gov't and tax dollars....there is always more coming in. While they are non profit, basically, the few at the top of the chain make the money and it behooves them to operate in this fashion for job security. Many busimness in these United States are non profit... like the Salvation army....because they are non profit in no way means no one is making good money.


Don...you'd be suprised...I mostly agree with you on a lot of things...I do not think most of what you say is crazy...only some of it, and just a little crazy...usually just crazy enough to believe it..

This philosophy you just stated does make some sense to me, it reads a little different than what you said before about the selling of the dogs and all that...

I think I may agree with you on this topic, maybe just misunderstood what you were actually saying...

I DO think that by PTS dogs on a timely basis, that gives them more opportunity to PTS more dogs, and more opportunities to find homes for some...If they just kept all the dogs the facility would basically come to a standstill...If they were not able to take in more dogs, where would all these dogs go?


----------



## Sara Waters

Joby Becker said:


> I DO think that by PTS dogs on a timely basis, that gives them more opportunity to PTS more dogs, and more opportunities to find homes for some...If they just kept all the dogs the facility would basically come to a standstill...If they were not able to take in more dogs, where would all these dogs go?


That is often what happens in the no kill shelters, they are overflowing with dogs and often find dogs tied to their gates overnight. People either dont have the guts to deal with their own problems, or they simply dont care. 

I just hate the way it has got to the point where there are so many dogs so totally disposable when they become inconvenient in some way. If I was forced to, I would rather euthanaise my own dog than drop it off at the pound for someone else to deal with.


----------



## Joby Becker

Sara Waters said:


> That is often what happens in the no kill shelters, they are overflowing with dogs and often find dogs tied to their gates overnight. People either dont have the guts to deal with their own problems, or they simply dont care.
> 
> I just hate the way it has got to the point where there are so many dogs so totally disposable when they become inconvenient in some way. If I was forced to, I would rather euthanaise my own dog than drop it off at the pound for someone else to deal with.


I was gonna post that but erased it...thought it would make me look to crass.

I think that anyone who turns a dog in to a shelter should be forced to put it down themselves when they get there, that might help some....but then they would dump them somewhere more often I suppose...


----------



## Nick Jenkins

Sorry the HSUS wasn't great I was trying to find budgets of local shelter quickly but all I found was non profit stuff so I apologize about that example. 
I still do not believe that there are shelters out there making tons of money. Yes there may be people working there that make a good living but that is due to being at the top of the ladder and running things rather than from the success of "selling" dogs. 
The ones they PTS are not killed due to anysort of rationale other than not wanting to waste space on a dog that won't get adopted soon. There is no reason to waste a kennel when several dogs could go through in the time one has to stay there. I dont think this is for profit but rather to maximize the small amount of time, and space available. 
Also agree with if you are bringing a dog to a shelter you should euthanize it yourself. Some people do it because they can't pay for medical care so they know the shelter will. Another reason a profit is unrealistic people using the system.


----------



## Joby Becker

Nick Jenkins said:


> Sorry the HSUS wasn't great I was trying to find budgets of local shelter quickly but all I found was non profit stuff so I apologize about that example.
> I still do not believe that there are shelters out there making tons of money. Yes there may be people working there that make a good living but that is due to being at the top of the ladder and running things rather than from the success of "selling" dogs.
> The ones they PTS are not killed due to anysort of rationale other than not wanting to waste space on a dog that won't get adopted soon. There is no reason to waste a kennel when several dogs could go through in the time one has to stay there. I dont think this is for profit but rather to maximize the small amount of time, and space available.
> Also agree with if you are bringing a dog to a shelter you should euthanize it yourself. Some people do it because they can't pay for medical care so they know the shelter will. Another reason a profit is unrealistic people using the system.


I agree with this..


----------



## Don Turnipseed

AC and most shelters are not there to make a profit, they are there to provide a public service. If they don't provide that service they will be shut down. Profit isn't the issue. They have an easily replaceable inventory. To utilize the space they have, it is run like a large, for profit organization. Many very nice dogs are PTS because they didn't sell in a certain time frame. Many of these dogs are much more saleable than the new dogs coming in. AC's are simply a revolvng door operation through necessity. I live in a rural county with no major cities. They sell about 700 dogs a year. They sell a dog to anyone that has the money. They feel everyone has the right to own a dog. My license fees are way up to help subsidize that cause and that is from the director of the AC here. Plain and simple.


----------



## Matt Grosch

Joby Becker said:


> I was gonna post that but erased it...thought it would make me look to crass.
> 
> I think that anyone who turns a dog in to a shelter should be forced to put it down themselves when they get there, that might help some....but then they would dump them somewhere more often I suppose...




Ive thought about this, how this could end up being more humane than what would happen to them with a crappy shelter or dirtbag that adopts them, but can you imagine the shit storm if someone couldnt keep their dog so they went out to the desert and shot/buried it? They'd likely go to jail


----------



## Joby Becker

Matt Grosch said:


> Ive thought about this, how this could end up being more humane than what would happen to them with a crappy shelter or dirtbag that adopts them, but can you imagine the shit storm if someone couldnt keep their dog so they went out to the desert and shot/buried it? They'd likely go to jail


of course they would, for failing to provide proper vet care....or animal cruelty...


----------



## maggie fraser

Well, one could always take it to the vet to be humanely put down .

Some of you are making it sound as though either the dog gets dumped in a shelter and left to the dirtbags, or are bludgeoned in the back yard as an only alternative.


----------



## Joby Becker

maggie fraser said:


> Well, one could always take it to the vet to be humanely put down .
> 
> Some of you are making it sound as though either the dog gets dumped in a shelter and left to the dirtbags, or are bludgeoned in the back yard as an only alternative.


people here in the states dump dogs off at shelters in order to avoid having to pay the vet bill to put dog to sleep if they don't want it...


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Joby Becker said:


> people here in the states dump dogs off at shelters in order to avoid having to pay the vet bill to put dog to sleep if they don't want it...


They dump dogs off for a multitude of reasons. Moving, POS dog that doesn't warrant spending money on it. Many, if not most, came from the shelters to start with. If this podunk area moves 700 dogs a year, most of what gets turned back in is dogs the sold for a song to someone that had no business with a dog in the frst place. AC's and many shelters are akin to meat markets.


----------



## maggie fraser

Joby Becker said:


> people here in the states dump dogs off at shelters in order to avoid having to pay the vet bill to put dog to sleep if they don't want it...


Folks do that here too, but where the centre doesn't put them down within seven days, they attach all manner of conditions to potential homes as well as a hefty adoption fee. Ridiculous conditions like no dog will be adopted out to where there are other unneuterd dogs, male or female, will not be kept outside, or left for more than four hours a day, all regardless of how good a home it may be.


----------



## Sara Waters

maggie fraser said:


> Folks do that here too, but where the centre doesn't put them down within seven days, they attach all manner of conditions to potential homes as well as a hefty adoption fee. Ridiculous conditions like no dog will be adopted out to where there are other unneuterd dogs, male or female, will not be kept outside, or left for more than four hours a day, all regardless of how good a home it may be.


Here it depends, rescue organisations are more strict and check out the homes and lifestyle of potential adopters as they dont want dogs to keep recycling through rescue, but pounds are usually just glad for someone to come and adopt the dog. Although an adoption fee is always applied to cover expenses and to avoid people looking for free dogs. Usually between $150 and $250.

I got one of my working dogs from a working dog rescue and they gave him to me un neutered and free. They just wanted him to go to a working home as he was from good working parents and many farmers will only take un neutered animals as they like to breed from dogs they have put a lot of time into and turn out good. He was quite timid from beatings as a pup and no farmer wanted him. He has turned out a good dog and works sheep with authority.

People dump for a number of reasons and some walk away kidding themselves their dog will find a good home and they remove themselves from any further responsibility, others just dont want to deal with the problem anymore or pay to deal with the problem. 

After christmas there is a long isolated stretch of highway here, where people heading off on holidays dump their xmas puppies. They either throw them out the car window or leave them in a rest bay with or without a bowl of water and drive off. A agricultural protection officer was telling me they had to go and lay baits to get rid of them all.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sara said, 


> He was quite timid from beatings as a pup and no farmer wanted him.


Sara, do you know for a fact the dog was beat or are you assuming he was simply because he was timid? Everyone that rescues a timid dog says they were abused and beat when the reality is that most of them are there because they are timid by nature. Probably why he ended up there and the real reason no farmer wanted it in the first place.


----------



## Sara Waters

Don Turnipseed said:


> Sara said,
> 
> Sara, do you know for a fact the dog was beat or are you assuming he was simply because he was timid? Everyone that rescues a timid dog says they were abused and beat when the reality is that most of them are there because they are timid by nature. Probably why he ended up there and the real reason no farmer wanted it in the first place.


I know for sure, I was trying to find out from the previous owner who got him as a pup from a farmer, who the parents were as I was told they were from good registered working lines from another state. 

The rescuer phoned him up to find out this information and he was extremely abusive to her, refused to give the information and threatened to do all sorts of terrible things if he ever saw the dog again. He lived in suburbia and I think was totally unable to handle the dog, a very aggressive character.

He is not the slightest bit timid now and is by nature quite the extrovert and works sheep very well. In fact I think he will be a good trialing dog and is very confident with stroppy sheep. He still cringes slightly if I raise my hand but not so much now. 

My other rescue a kelpie is very timid by nature which is why the farmer gave her to me, she wasnt ill treated at all. She remains timid and is going to be a debateable working dog as she runs when challenged by sheep or if I raise my voice to her. She is going to be a real challenge to train, so I have just started with basic obedience and will go from there.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sara, I don't know if your experiences are the same as mine, but a purpose bred dog, even when pretty timid, many times is a great worker in the hunting field. The work is what they have been bred for and they are usually quite at ease doing it.....outside of hunting, the handling may be more of a problem.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Sara Waters said:


> The rescuer phoned him up to find out this information and he was extremely abusive to her, refused to give the information and threatened to do all sorts of terrible things if he ever saw the dog again. He lived in suburbia and I think was totally unable to handle the dog, a very aggressive character


If I'd given up a dog (for what ever reason) I'd be abusive too, if some stranger (self described rescuer) calls me out of the blue looking for "information". Too many 'rescuers" are on ego trips where they decide who is worthy to adopt a dog and seem to think that they get to judge why anyone would give up their dog.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Sara Waters said:


> .
> he was extremely abusive to her,


allegedly...


----------



## Joby Becker

I have seen dogs that you would think somebody beat the crap out of them....

I owned a dog once that was 6 months old, I tried to put more confidence in the pup, but it was just a real shottily bred dog....my roomie jumped off the porch when I was doing ob out in the front yard and scared the dog so bad it ran straight into the house foundation about 15 ft away and knocked itself out...

I guarantee if it went in a shelter people would say it was abused...

An angry person on the phone does not prove abuse to me...a lot of dogs end up in a shelter because they have issues, a lot of those issues can appear to come from abuse...when in reality they are from poor breeding...


----------



## Sara Waters

Joby Becker said:


> An angry person on the phone does not prove abuse to me...a lot of dogs end up in a shelter because they have issues, a lot of those issues can appear to come from abuse...when in reality they are from poor breeding...


No this dog doesnt have issues anymore it really didnt take long with some proper training for him to become a really well adjusted dog and a good worker. He has a beautiful temperament and we are still working on tracking his lines down with some other help. The lady who rescued him knows working dogs as she has her own and she picked him up from his original owner and fostered him out before I took him. I trust her assesment of the situation. I know her well from trialing.


----------



## Sara Waters

Thomas Barriano said:


> If I'd given up a dog (for what ever reason) I'd be abusive too, if some stranger (self described rescuer) calls me out of the blue looking for "information". Too many 'rescuers" are on ego trips where they decide who is worthy to adopt a dog and seem to think that they get to judge why anyone would give up their dog.


It wasnt like that. She just told the guy that the new owner wanted some information on the dogs parents so I could register him for trialing. There was no judgement involved, she is a very down to earth woman. The man just gave her a barage of how much he hated the dog and didnt want anything more to do with it.


----------



## Sara Waters

Don Turnipseed said:


> Sara, I don't know if your experiences are the same as mine, but a purpose bred dog, even when pretty timid, many times is a great worker in the hunting field. The work is what they have been bred for and they are usually quite at ease doing it.....outside of hunting, the handling may be more of a problem.


The timid little kelpie comes from excellent working lines and her mother was a top dog. Her breeding kicks in when I work her on my dog broke sheep who will always work towards me and are calm and she is brilliant. 

The problem I have is with sheep she is not used to, so moving her on to sheep I have taken from the main flock where they dont automatically come towards me and need some force and will challenge her. Sheep arent stupid they sus out a weak dog immediately. My BC is at the same stage of training and he has complete control and the sheep know it, if they even think about charging or running he soon sorts them out with a very strong eye contact and physical prescence. He uses his brains and his body and they respect him.

My timid kelpie panics, abandons ship and runs for home. Her previous owner was an experienced stockman and he just didnt have the patience or time to deal with it. She is very young though so I will persevere. She has the gathering instinct and all the moves but I dont know if the strength can be taught, I havent dealt with a dog like this before. I suspect not.


----------



## Joby Becker

gotcha Sara..just saying..I see at least 40-50 dogs a year and hear of MANY more where the people say the dog they adopted was abused...they either were told that, or they just KNOW it, from the way the dog acts...

adopters of dogs that are scared of men, tall people, or people that wear hats...are notorious for not realizing that their dogs are probably just crappily bred dogs...

I have to believe as well that some people in the shelters pass on the news that the dog was abused, when they do not know if it was or not, to gain sympathy for the animals...


----------



## Sara Waters

Joby Becker said:


> gotcha Sara..just saying..I see at least 40-50 dogs a year and hear of MANY more where the people say the dog they adopted was abused...they either were told that, or they just KNOW it, from the way the dog acts...
> 
> adopters of dogs that are scared of men, tall people, or people that wear hats...are notorious for not realizing that their dogs are probably just crappily bred dogs...
> 
> I have to believe as well that some people in the shelters pass on the news that the dog was abused, when they do not know if it was or not, to gain sympathy for the animals...


Yes I can believe all of that. I once took on a pup and she had bad fear aggression, despite good socialisation and training. She was terrified of situations that were unfamiliar but fine with people and dogs she knew. Nothing to do with abuse, just poor breeding and temperament. I worked hard on that dog and we did make a lot of head way and she improved so much, but she was always going to need some management around strangers. When I met her sire I realised he was exactly the same. People would ask me if she had been abused and she definitely had not.


----------



## Charles Lerner

Please, I don't mean any offense. But, dog with ED!!!!! it just sounds like one of those commercials for erectile dysfunction. 
It is cracking me up following this thread!


----------



## Joby Becker

Charles Lerner said:


> Please, I don't mean any offense. But, dog with ED!!!!! it just sounds like one of those commercials for erectile dysfunction.
> It is cracking me up following this thread!


this is the BEST board..


----------

