So, on the topic of spaying/neutering for canines

H

Haze

Zooville Settler
Disclaimer: I had seen alot of threads on the topic of spaying/neutering dogs, so I know alot of people on here might be tired to hear or read it. Also, it isnt because I have a dog, but more as to be better prepared when I choose to get one. Also, Im a dane, so I know my english isnt the best and there most likely will be grammatic errors. As long you understand what Im writting, then Im glad.

This might be more on the topic for female dogs, but I also think that it can be used as examples too for male dogs. Anyhow back on track.

This question or renewed topic in my mind, just poofed into matter after I watched a video (I will keep the video private as not to paint a target on the uploader) In the video, the person said that the dog, a female husky and which the person had in for an appointment, had an emergency spay because the husky ended up developing pyometra. That is fair as to save the life of the dog, but the person also began to talk more on the topic that it is important that we spay/neuter our dogs.

My question just comes in as, how best do I decide if I want to spay or neuter my dog when I get one?

Im in for the more of being natural, aka, not spay/neuter our dogs as to keep them close to what nature wanted. Unless it is life threating where spaying/neutering is the only option to save the life of the dog in question. Plus I also do want to give the dog the longest possible life and moment of his/hers life. Reading through all the researches that had been done about the ups and downs for desexing a dog (Using that word, much easier) But not only for dogs, for any animales. In what I can make of it, then it is more or less a 50/50 chance of what either sides would end up with as well to give the dog the longest possible life. To me both desexing or not sounds bad, of what health problems that might come in the future. Is the world really on the meta of "Desexing your animals!" train right now? Because that is what I mostly hear and reads right now. The overwhelming side of those that say you should desex your dog, cat, rabbit, horse and so on. For me it sounds like the same if someone higher up chooses that us humans should be desexed too against our choice and will. And Im sure almost everyone, if not all of us, dont want that. It feels like the same here for our companions.

And it isnt like Im not familiar with having pets nor having pets that are desexed or not. Currently I have two female cats, both sisters, that are spayed. That was more of the choice of my mom, as it was planned to let them be outdoor cats. You know, so they dont risk to get kittens. That is fair, as well the cat we had before wasnt spayed and ended up getting a tumor where we had to get the vet to put her down.

I dont know if it is just me, but it is scaring to see how most of the world want us to be. As well, Im interested in what your experiences is with it, or what your standings are with "Desex animals" train. Im not against desexing animals, as I know that it can be life saving. But I do prefer that our companions arent being desexed, as to let them have their naturally way of life. I also know like 99.9% of us that have pets do like to give them the life they deserve as well to care for them the best that we can.

And also to the admins, Im sorry if this thread is in the wrong place. I just thought it might fit better here. If possible, then you are allowed to move it.
 
New studies are showing that leaving dogs intact is generally better for their health (who would've guessed that nature knows what it's doing). But there are concerns with pyometra and pregnancy, so some vets are becoming familiar with just doing a hysterectomy or Ovary-sparing spay. This leaves hormones intact (and a generally small risk of ovarian and breast cancer), but meets the goal of sterilization and, when done properly, eliminates the risk of pyometra. It is possible if some of the uterus is left to have stump pyometra, so the vet I talked to removes the cervix as well. This shortens the vaginal canal though, which is obviously a concern for someone wanting to stick things in there. I plan to broach the subject by asking about possible injury from a friend's intact male, but have yet to do so.

Note that I am no expert and welcome corrections for anything I may be mistaken about.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read, 2 years is what's suggested for large breed dogs.
For bitches, the earlier the spay the greater the reduction in the odds of mammary tumors, but past around 3 there's not usually much reduction.
Pyometra tends to become more likely as a bitch gets older, literally it means "puss in the uterus" which is apt. It can quickly progress to fatal in very short order, but itf the uterus is removed as in a traditional ovariohysterectomy or in an Ovary Sparng Spay (OSS) the uterus is removed.

Both mammary tumors and pyometra risks follow lineage, so some breeds and lines will be more prone to it than others. There's a paper, "Breed variations in the incidence of pyometra and mammary tumors in Swedish dogs" that has a nice table in it with a large number of breeds that is a handy reference for estimating risk.

My general advice is to reference the paper I mention above and if your bitch is among one of the higher risk breeds, you should probably consider it before she's 8 and for the very high risk breeds, such as Great Danes, before she's 6. There are some exceptions though, such at rottweiler bitches, which really shouldn't be spayed at all except in emergencies due to serious increases in the risk of some cancers (osteosarcoma, I believe). Talk to your breeder if you can for the most specific info on risk and talk to other breeders of the breed for a less specific but likely accurate estimate of the risk. When/if is a hard choice and it depends on a lot of issues, be informed and talk to your vet.

The risks for males is typically less, I'm more interested in bitches so I'm more informed there and will have to leave filling in some details about the boys to others.

Spay/neuter doesn't always spell the end of an active sex life, but it can; I feel there's more to a relationship than sex, but it's not a trivial matter.
 
egoldstein said:
From what I've read, 2 years is what's suggested for large breed dogs.
For bitches, the earlier the spay the greater the reduction in the odds of mammary tumors, but past around 3 there's not usually much reduction.
Pyometra tends to become more likely as a bitch gets older, literally it means "puss in the uterus" which is apt. It can quickly progress to fatal in very short order, but itf the uterus is removed as in a traditional ovariohysterectomy or in an Ovary Sparng Spay (OSS) the uterus is removed.

Both mammary tumors and pyometra risks follow lineage, so some breeds and lines will be more prone to it than others. There's a paper, "Breed variations in the incidence of pyometra and mammary tumors in Swedish dogs" that has a nice table in it with a large number of breeds that is a handy reference for estimating risk.

My general advice is to reference the paper I mention above and if your bitch is among one of the higher risk breeds, you should probably consider it before she's 8 and for the very high risk breeds, such as Great Danes, before she's 6. There are some exceptions though, such at rottweiler bitches, which really shouldn't be spayed at all except in emergencies due to serious increases in the risk of some cancers (osteosarcoma, I believe). Talk to your breeder if you can for the most specific info on risk and talk to other breeders of the breed for a less specific but likely accurate estimate of the risk. When/if is a hard choice and it depends on a lot of issues, be informed and talk to your vet.

The risks for males is typically less, I'm more interested in bitches so I'm more informed there and will have to leave filling in some details about the boys to others.

Spay/neuter doesn't always spell the end of an active sex life, but it can; I feel there's more to a relationship than sex, but it's not a trivial matter.
Click to expand...
This might come as a stupid question. But when you talking about numbers, like 3, 6 and 8, is that in years or months we talking about?
 
Haze said:
This might come as a stupid question. But when you talking about numbers, like 3, 6 and 8, is that in years or months we talking about?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad; years. Not a stupid question at all, foolish of me to not provide context.

To elaborate on my example, from the paper there were 104 Great Dane bitches in the data and 62% of them had pyometra before they were 10, that's not good odds. I'd call it terrible odds because that's not just bitches who had pyo and lived, some of them didn't, the paper doesn't state how many lived. If I had an intact Dane bitch, I'd seriously consider spaying her (OSS would *probably* be my choice) before she was 10. Since danes have a historically low lifespan, death from pyo certainly contributing to that historically low average, I would probably consider it at 6, but if she made it to 8 I think I'd be taking to my vet. Pyo can take a girl quick and it's easy to delay a day before really noticing there's a problem and sometimes it's too late by then and even if you do everything you can, she's still got very poor odds of survival.
I see it as a numbers game and I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to my companions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egoldstein said:
Sorry, my bad; years. Not a stupid question at all, foolish of me to not provide context.

To elaborate on my example, from the paper there were 104 Great Dane bitches in the data and 62% of them had pyometra before they were 10, that's not good odds, I'd call it terrible odds. If I had an intact Dane bitch, I'd seriously consider spaying her (OSS would *probably* be my choice) before she was 10. Since danes have a historically low lifespan, death from pyo certainly contributing to that historically low average, I would probably consider it at 6, but if she made it to 8 I think I'd be taking to my vet as pyo can take a girl quick and it's easy to delay a day before really noticing there's a problem and sometimes it's too late by then and even if you do everything you can, she's still got very poor odds of survival.
I see it as a numbers game and I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to my companions.
Click to expand...
So in theory, I shall weight the pro and cons as of the moment. I also will elaborate. I dont have a dog as a pet as of yet, but I do like to get one. My original question was more as when I get one so Im more prepared and not blindly follow whoever says something. I will also give said dog the best and longest possible of his/hers life. Hinges on why I wouldnt mind to have my dog (Again, if I had one) get spayed/neutered as to save their life. The last thing I want is to have any pets under my care to suffer. It wouldnt be right for them nor us as pet owners
 
egoldstein said:
The risks for males is typically less, I'm more interested in bitches so I'm more informed there and will have to leave filling in some details about the boys to others.
Click to expand...
I wonder why this is. This might be a real stretch but have you seen any data on medical complications between intact bitches that are reproductively inactive vs dams that are producing litters?

I wonder if when the bitch's reproductive system stays intact but is dormant, it leads to more medical complications.

The male's system is way less complicated and so leads to, well, less complications. That seems obvious. Also, if a male dog is sexually active with its owner, its entire reproductive system is active and functioning as intended, getting its "workout" so to speak and keeping things fresh and moving. That's not really the case with a female.
 
GoldenGait said:
I wonder why this is. This might be a real stretch but have you seen any data on medical complications between intact bitches that are reproductively inactive vs dams that are producing litters?

I wonder if when the bitch's reproductive system stays intact but is dormant, it leads to more medical complications.

The male's system is way less complicated and so leads to, well, less complications. That seems obvious. Also, if a male dog is sexually active with its owner, its entire reproductive system is active and functioning as intended, getting its "workout" so to speak and keeping things fresh and moving. That's not really the case with a female.
Click to expand...

I'm not a vet nor related field, so I'm not the most informed on the subject.
My understanding is that reproduction is hard on a bitch and can lead to many health problems, especially without a significant rest period between litters. It's taxing to build bodies from your body.

The difference for males is that their investment is significantly lower and the reproductive system being simpler likely leads to fewer issues, but not zero.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no argument for spaying/neutering or castration ever, besides immidient and otherwise unavoidable death.

All arguments I ever hear about spaying pets are also true for humans, but still, it's not common practice to castrate humans. The whole castration thing is just a big marked, there is alot of money to be made. So they overexterregate tiny chances for illness to the point, where it looks that they are guaranteed to hit, if you don't desex your animals.
 
egoldstein said:
My understanding is that reproduction is hard on a bitch and can lead to many health problems, especially without a significant rest period between litters. It's taxing to build bodies from your body.
Click to expand...
Yeah, imagine building 10 new bodies that pop out all blind and deaf and now you have to nurse every single one of them day and night. That’s pretty rough.
 
Schuppentier said:
There is no argument for spaying/neutering or castration ever, besides immidient and otherwise unavoidable death.

All arguments I ever hear about spaying pets are also true for humans, but still, it's not common practice to castrate humans. The whole castration thing is just a big marked, there is alot of money to be made. So they overexterregate tiny chances for illness to the point, where it looks that they are guaranteed to hit, if you don't desex your animals.
Click to expand...

Would be a lot of bitches dying of pyo if everyone waited until it was imminent.
This isn't a matter of overexageration, the data is there and verifiable.
Here's the top 4

Bernese Moountain Dog 66%
Great Dane 62%
Leonberger 61%
Rottweiler 58%
For those top four, more than half the bitches will get pyo before they're 10.

The ever popular Labradors are greater than 1 in 4 and German Shepherds are nearly 1 in 3
That's not a tiny chance for illness, that's significant risk of death and a typically quite large vet bill to try and save them vs a much less expensive procedure to remove the risk of pyo entirely. To suggest it's overblown hype is to be willfully ignorant of reality.

The number of zoos who've lost a beloved partner to pyo is huge; there's a reason I'm as aware of it as I am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would say it's a gross violation of their rights to bodily autonomy... but i feel like genital mutilation is not first in line for that issue... and it's a looooong line.
Not to mention that the only reason for it... is human irresponsibility.
 
One vet recommended spaying cause her vulva would shrink reducing the chance of an infections. Another that a male would have a higher risk of testicular cancer compared to those without them. And neither vet showed any sort of study or information analyzing all the +/-, despite serious drawbacks. A friend also allowed a spay out of precaution while she was sick, when the real issue was something totally different.

There is heavy bias to spay/castrate in the US simply because of overpopulation... It seems to be the "catch-all" when any problem arise ignoring possible negative health effects.
What should you do? Research all you can, and hope you make a decision that is what is best for your pup.
 
Wolfpup said:
So instead of being responsible adults we choose to alter nature. Great going humanity. What about those who believe in a higher power. So the higher power got it wrong? Nothing else to do so stir the stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe read? You seem to be implying that there's no reason for spay/neuter besides irresponsibility, but there have been numerous examples given already on why it's sometimes necessary or prudent. If spay/neuter is being irresponsible, what do you call ignoring a very common infection that can quickly lead to the death of the dog? Me personally, I'd call it ignorant or selfish depending on whether the caretaker was merely incompetent and didn't know vs knowing, but not caring because it might inconvenience them.

If there's a higher power it definitely got it wrong. A cervix which fails due to normal operation and allows normal bacteria into the uterus resulting in the death of the bitch seems like something only a sadist would design.

Responsible adults look at the health risks and make choices based on facts, they put their personal feelingss aside and try to make sound decisions that are in the best interests of the DOG.
 
It's a much easier topic for males, as the issues being intact may present in the long term (prostate issues, cancer, etc.) aren't as immediately life-threatening/sudden and regular exams and screenings can usually catch them.

Other people have already discussed females plenty, and I strongly agree with the precautionary outlook of having them get at least a hysterectomy as they get up there in age. Pyo is very quick and deadly in older dogs and it will cost you a fortune to have that emergency operation done, too.

Don't buy the BS about neutering dogs essentialy being equated to mutilation. The truth is that potential health issues caused by neutering mostly only present themselves in cases of puppies being altered. The dog really doesn't care, either. Even though I would have chosen to keep him intact personally, I can still get my older dog off even though he's neutered.
 
egoldstein said:
Would be a lot of bitches dying of pyo if everyone waited until it was imminent.
This isn't a matter of overexageration, the data is there and verifiable.
Here's the top 4

Bernese Moountain Dog 66%
Great Dane 62%
Leonberger 61%
Rottweiler 58%
For those top four, more than half the bitches will get pyo before they're 10.

The ever popular Labradors are greater than 1 in 4 and German Shepherds are nearly 1 in 3
That's not a tiny chance for illness, that's significant risk of death and a typically quite large vet bill to try and save them vs a much less expensive procedure to remove the risk of pyo entirely. To suggest it's overblown hype is to be willfully ignorant of reality.

The number of zoos who've lost a beloved partner to pyo is huge; there's a reason I'm as aware of it as I am.
Click to expand...
What are some breeds that have the lowest rates of pyro?
 
Dragon935 said:
What are some breeds that have the lowest rates of pyro?
Click to expand...

Incidence rates largely correlate inversely with size, meaning that the lowest risk are generally among small dogs.

Here's a link to the paper I'm referencing. It's a short paper and fairly readable, but starting on page 2 is a table of breeds and their rates of risk. In case anyone has trouble reaching that link, here is a link to a forum post with the paper attached.

For anyone not familiar with reading papers, I'm happy to provide a bit of a walkthrough of understanding the data.
Breeds are listed in alphabetical order.

The first number is the percent of bitches out of the entire sample who had pyo by age 10. The number in superscript next to it is the rank, where 1 is the hghest and risk decreases as one goes down in rank. The next number, in parenthesis, is the total number of cases.

The next colum of numbers is for mammary tumors and it follows the same format used for pyometra.

The third column is bitches who had pyo, mammry tumors, or both, same format.

The fourth collums lists the total number of bitches for that breed in the dataset. The greater the number the higher the confidence in the accuracy of the data.
example.png

In this sample, you can see Basset hounds have a rate of 44% for pyo and rank 14 with (75 cases), they have a 25% rate of mamary tumors and rank 22nd with (38 cases). Skipping the third column as it is combined data and going to the end we see there were 517 Basset Hound bitches in the study. This is a very basic overview, details are in the paper itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
egoldstein said:
Incidence rates largely correlate inversely with size, meaning that the lowest risk are generally among small dogs.

Here's a link to the paper I'm referencing. It's a short paper and fairly readable, but starting on page 2 is a table of breeds and their rates of risk. In case anyone has trouble reaching that link, here is a link to a forum post with the paper attached.

For anyone not familiar with reading papers, I'm happy to provide a bit of a walkthrough of understanding the data.
Breeds are listed in alphabetical order.

The first number is the percent of bitches out of the entire sample who had pyo by age 10. The number in superscript next to it is the rank, where 1 is the hghest and risk decreases as one goes down in rank. The next number, in parenthesis, is the total number of cases.

The next colum of numbers is for mammary tumors and it follows the same format used for pyometra.

The third column is bitches who had pyo, mammry tumors, or both, same format.

The fourth collums lists the total number of bitches for that breed in the dataset. The greater the number the higher the confidence in the accuracy of the data.
View attachment 339502

In this sample, you can see Basset hounds have a rate of 44% for pyo and rank 14 with (75 cases), they have a 25% rate of mamary tumors and rank 22nd with (38 cases). Skipping the third column as it is combined data and going to the end we see there were 517 Basset Hound bitches in the study. This is a very basic overview, details are in the paper itself.
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot this is good info!
 
gsdmixg said:
It's a much easier topic for males, as the issues being intact may present in the long term (prostate issues, cancer, etc.) aren't as immediately life-threatening/sudden and regular exams and screenings can usually catch them.

Other people have already discussed females plenty, and I strongly agree with the precautionary outlook of having them get at least a hysterectomy as they get up there in age. Pyo is very quick and deadly in older dogs and it will cost you a fortune to have that emergency operation done, too.

Don't buy the BS about neutering dogs essentialy being equated to mutilation. The truth is that potential health issues caused by neutering mostly only present themselves in cases of puppies being altered. The dog really doesn't care, either. Even though I would have chosen to keep him intact personally, I can still get my older dog off even though he's neutered.
Click to expand...
Interesting that approximately 90% (all ages) of the Swedish dog population is intact.
 
I am totally against spaying/neutering. They are only irresponsible owners who want a "calmer" dog when they are the ones who have to train it, and to top it all off they let them roam the neighborhood alone without caring.
 
So if supposedly you want to reduce aggression in a male dog you remove the testicles. So I was wondering what do you have to remove if you want to reduce aggression in a female dog? Or do you perhaps need to glue some testicles on so they can be removed and reset her personality.
 
HugDoggy said:
So if supposedly you want to reduce aggression in a male dog you remove the testicles. So I was wondering what do you have to remove if you want to reduce aggression in a female dog? Or do you perhaps need to glue some testicles on so they can be removed and reset her personality.
Click to expand...
neutered male dogs and sterilized females become more aggressive with their peers, this is another of many side effects.
 
5legs said:
I am totally against spaying/neutering. They are only irresponsible owners who want a "calmer" dog when they are the ones who have to train it, and to top it all off they let them roam the neighborhood alone without caring.
Click to expand...
I feel like it's the lazy way to address behavioral issues, and it doesn't even work.
 
Aka said:
neutered male dogs and sterilized females become more aggressive with their peers, this is another of many side effects.
Click to expand...
Well that's what happens when you mess with an animals natural hormone levels.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, but I was just making a joke about one common misconception about desexing of dogs.
 
here are the main side effects of neutering/neutering in dogs. if some people can't understand, I can translate into English.Screenshot_20210307-223112_Gmail.jpg
 
I just dont believe in modifying an animal in any way just to make them better to live with. I think if you cant satisfy a dog the way he was created naturally, then you shouldnt have one! We grew up in rural Texas, neutering was rare out there and the dogs got along just fine...

No modifications, no clipping ears, docking tails, de-clawing a cat, and no neutering! What is with our obsession with forever pre-adolescensing an animal? If your dog is getting out abd fucking other dogs, then you are a bad owner!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top