Agree with this. I do not want some senseless law TELLING me to neuter my dog or not. That is MY choice as a pet owner, based on my dog as an individual and our circumstances. I do not agree with blanket rules as what suits one dog does not suit another.

I do think vets should push the message strongly about neutering both dogs and bitches after maturity. Most issues associated with castrating male dogs relate to prepubescence neutering before the dog is physically mature.

I do and always will have a female spayed. The pyo risks alone, in my opinion, warrant any risk associated with spaying.

Male dogs - less clear cut and I now wouldn't unless there was a valid reason for it.

One thing I will say is that there is a wealth of information out there, much of it contradictory

It wouldn't be a 'senseless' law - but based on recent, up to date and overwhelming evidence. Did you even bother to read the report/links? :/

When I asked about price I was thinking of the rescue organisations. They don't have unlimited funds and enough people moan about the price of rescue dogs now.

rune

Most of which is highly speculative and concludes with personal opinion.

There are also many studies out there supporting the opposing view.

Unless things have changed dramatically since I last researched it, the evidence is sketchy and speculative to say the least

i had phoebe spayed at about 18 months old. she changed alot but i always blamed the "teenage years" thing but have since been told it could have been getting spayed. I had none of the behaviour problems, allergies or any thing before that time but never really put the two together. Im still not 100% convinced that spaying her is to blame but i will be putting a lot more thought and research in to it with my next dog. didnt really know about the other options. It was the best thing to do in our situation her season was so heavy it looked like somebody was murdered in our house and i never had any intention to breed her and wanted the idea taken away. Had i know or been advised of other options i would have thought about it

Trouble is of course that the recent up to date and overwhelming evidence changes with time. So no, it's my dog and I don't think the law should tell me whether to chop off his nadgers or not.

I don't think there's a huge difference in price - it's more a question of 'older' vets not trained/experienced with the new procedures. Possibly part of the reason they stay schtum about it?

I'd like to know the price difference. Not guess at it.

rune

I might have thought the same if it wasn't for the NAIA report - they are a highly respected organisation, with a good track record.

Besides, the report speaks for itself - it reviews 50 medical papers - none of them published by themselves.

If they reviewed just 2 or 3, or even up to 10 I might suspect them being highly selective, but 50 is difficult to argue with - especially on a topic so specialised.