When are you spaying/neutering?

[tesslynn]

breeding is excessive

Gabe was neutered recently at 9.5 months. She said based on his crazy behavior that he was fine to be neutered before 1 year old. He is now 11 months old and I can tell the neutering has helped with the rebellion!

Bottom line: find a vet that you trust to help you determine the right time for you to fix your pet. I had two female shelties growing up. Both of them were fixed at 10 months old; one of them died of cancer early and the other girl died of old age at 13 yo. IMO, genetics is a stronger influence on these conditions then the actual act of spaying/neutering.

Also, didn't I hear that certain states were going to by law require pets be fixed? And breeders would have to obtain a certification to breed?

I think something needs to be done about pet populations, it is CRAZY how many pets are euthanized daily/yearly because there just aren't enough good homes. And that is due to the selfishness of irresponsibility in our society. I don't like that freedom has to be legislated but it is NOT right to have millions of pets end up in shelters. I really don't think people should have a choice about spaying, period. Maybe then puppy mills wouldn't be a problem. Who are a LARGE contributor to the problem, they should be heavily TAXED, that way maybe it would put them out of biz.

 

[The Quahog]

There are three issues involved here- behavior, preventing breeding, and medical issues.
Preventing unwanted breeding is pretty simple and doesn't merit much discussion. The people for whom that is a problem are not here reading this.
Behavior is very individual, and more so breed dependent. I would not like to see the average family manage an intact male of the aggressive breeds like Jack Russel, ChowChow, or Rottie. Other hyperactive breeds like Labs and GSHPs could fall into that category for other reasons. Now, yes, anti-neutering advocates would say they got the wrong breed and should have done their research. Fair point. But we are talking about advice for those who already made that decision.
Finally the medical aspect, where we are on firmer ground. There are two main concerns- testicular tumors and prostate problems. Testicular tumors actually aren't that much of a concern. In the dog, unlike humans, these tumors very rarely metastasize and are visible, so except in the case of retained testicles it is not unreasonable to do a wait and see and neuter if a tumor develops. Prostate cancer isn't common, but it is deadly. If your dog gets that you will wish you had had him neutered.
Anyway, this is the approach I would take in discussing this with a client. Since I would wait until 9-12 months, there is time to see how behavior is developing.

 

[Mignarda]

Prostate cancer isn't common, but it is deadly. If your dog gets that you will wish you had had him neutered.

Not really (in my case). I would be sorry that things hadn't worked out according to the formulations of cost/benefit I had calculated. This is more an emotion-based point of propaganda; namely, if you fail to do this, and that happens on account of it, you will wish you had done that. It's like saying that if you don't wear steel-toed shoes around the house, and you accidentally drop a heavy object on your foot, you will wish you had worn steel-toed shoes around the house. But the decision to wear steel-toed shoes around the house, or not (as the case may be) should be rationally based on the likelihood of your dropping a heavy object on your foot, weighed against the inconvenience and cost of constantly wearing steel-toed shoes, and not on the likely state of your feelings should something bad befall you.

I'm not trying to be contrary here, but I think this is an important thing to bear in mind when trying to make decisions about the health and safety of a pet.

 

[Mom2Melli]

I agree on the three issues . . .

Breeding -- not happening for my boy. We live in the mountains behind multiple fences. Not happening. Yes, I 100% agree pet overpopulation needs to be stopped. However, it may not best be stopped with mandatory spay/neuter but rather we Americans (in particular) valuing our animals enough to be responsible for our current animals and for future generations of the many breeds. I value my dog and my breed and therefore I am responsible for all aspects of his care and for assisting others in education so they may be better pet stewards too.

Behavior -- waiting, watching. That is dependent on breed and individual. So far so good for me. Trust me, he starts peeing on the walls or humping the cat and the vet is on speed dial.

Health -- I want to truly understand the benefits and risks of whole versus neutered with long term studies. Right, if he gets a sex-organ related tumor I will wish I had him neutered. However, if he gets kidney failure, liver failure, cancer in another area, etc. etc. I will wish I had fed differently or not used certain meds too frequently or not given the shot protocol I chose -- oh, wait, this would be just like my three Aussies. I valued my time with them and didn't dwell on the could have beens had not X or Y triggered their demise at ages 12, 10, and 8. However, does neutering cause anything else long term that is a bad thing? Are there other benefits to present hormones throughout life? Thank you for the name to google. I know it has been frequently discussed, and I didn't have time to cross reference to speak on this thread. Maybe my use of "see" was amorphous -- accurately "I want to go and read up on some research . . . and plan to since I have at least 6 months to do it and we are heading into holidays and tax season and after that I can focus on testicles". Just for accuracy sake here. Take it as an overworked tone, not ticked off tone. In essence, I want to truly do what is best for the animal and I want to take the time soon to really research it. And back to Norway . . . I assume a whole country of dogs is not dropping dead of sex-related causes or they would not take such as stance. They don't want to kill off dogs but rather do what is best for them. Right? I view them as data on a large population of unneutered animals living healthily? Or not? I am not viewing politics, ethics, responsibility, etc. Just health data at this point to help me decide what is best.

So back to the original question, when am I neutering? I am not sure. IF I neuter it will be between 1-2 years since data presented in another thread showed that is the optimum neuter window for physical and mental development and lack of side-effects. IF I find on researching when I get around to it that it is indeed much healthier to remain intact AND the dog behaves intact, then I may leave as is. In essence . . . I am still looking into it.

 

[ClantyreSheltie]

Behavior is very individual, and more so breed dependent. I would not like to see the average family manage an intact male of the aggressive breeds like Jack Russel, ChowChow, or Rottie.

Very much this. Our breed had the "gift" of having an incredibly popular stud dog who had very little libido. So Shelties, in general, are not going to chew through a crate to get to a bitch. They aren't going to go on hunger strikes, they aren't going to chew windowsills. This is not the case for many other breeds. Probably why those breeds end up as "mixes" so frequently.

Don't get us started on "overpopulation". It's all in the statistics and how they are presented.

 

[JLSOhio51]

...Yes, I 100% agree pet overpopulation needs to be stopped. However, it may not best be stopped with mandatory spay/neuter but rather we Americans (in particular) valuing our animals enough to be responsible for our current animals and for future generations of the many breeds...

I'm with you Mom2Melli. While I don't really quarrel with the "overpopulation" data (I believe that there is an overpopulation issue - but the data is too often skewed by those wanting to prove a point), I generally am reluctant to look toward additional legislation as a fix for all of our ills. Perhaps our Canadian, European (and other) members don't have the same issues, but there seems to be a "they ought to make a law" syndrome in the U.S. whenever we run into issues that we don't condone. While it is within our rights to push for legislation to cure all ills, those opposed to us have the same rights. Example: We might want more laws to force spay/neuter while the animal rights folks want laws to stop the breeding of purebred dogs. Inviting more legislation can have some pretty nasty unintended consequences.

 

[cookieP]

I'm with you Mom2Melli. While I don't really quarrel with the "overpopulation" data (I believe that there is an overpopulation issue - but the data is too often skewed by those wanting to prove a point), I generally am reluctant to look toward additional legislation as a fix for all of our ills. Perhaps our Canadian, European (and other) members don't have the same issues, but there seems to be a "they ought to make a law" syndrome in the U.S. whenever we run into issues that we don't condone. While it is within our rights to push for legislation to cure all ills, those opposed to us have the same rights. Example: We might want more laws to force spay/neuter while the animal rights folks want laws to stop the breeding of purebred dogs. Inviting more legislation can have some pretty nasty unintended consequences.

Agree, agree, agree. Agree in all sentiments.

Responsible pet owners keep their pets either indoors or behind secure fences (or they live way out in the country and keep an eye on their dogs when they're outside, etc). Responsible pet owners do not have unintentional breeding problems. Forcing every pet owner to pay for the ignorance of irresponsible pet owners by forcing them to make a choice regarding their pet that they may feel is unhealthy (not to mention forcing the end of the breeds we all know and love) is not the answer, in my personal and humble opinion. I do commend the European way of thinking in this regard--educate, don't legislate.

The consequences (sometimes unintended, sometimes not so much) of signing every issue we don't like into some kind of law are broad, and often lead us onto a very slippery slope.

 

[Mignarda]

I'm in agreement with the last two posts. I don't consider spay and neuter to be cruel (despite my reservations against them) and we certainly don't need legislation to address such issues. The word "cruelty" should conjure images of the worst kind of abuse, and we will be doing ourselves a disservice if we start defining it in any other way.

 

[Caro]

I'll reiterate - please keep on topic. If you wish to discuss the merits of desexing, legislation or anything other issue besides when you are getting your puppy fixed or specifically addressing the OP's comments regarding her own puppy please start another thread in the health section.

 

[kryslaurelle]

I was thinking about this topic today, and I figured I would just post here instead of making a new thread. I'm beginning to consider getting Enzo snipped next month (at 8 months old). Has anyone had any first hand experience with neutering a reactive dog? Enzo seems so hyper vigilant about his environment, and completely loses his mind when he sees other dogs. He seems to be getting worse

I've tried playing the 'look at that!' game, but if he sees another dog even 40 yards away he can't seem to break his focus on it. He's fine with his 'friends', and can work around other dogs in our class, it seems to be mostly when we're on the street. Also, we went to USDAA nationals a few weekends ago, and everyone brought their dogs. He was totally fine around them. Even calmly sat next to a big lab on the bleachers.

I understand that neutering isn't a cure-all and I'll still have to work with him, but will it maybe tone him down a bit? I've read so many conflicting studies - one says neutering makes dogs more reactive, another says it reduces reactivity. One says it makes dogs more aggressive, another says it helps calm aggressive dogs.

I feel like I've failed him in some ways, and I just want to make it right.