1. Please do not get personal in debates, by all means discuss what someone has posted, address each point they make if you must, but don’t start discussing (or dissing!) the poster. The first person who get’s personal is the one who will face reprimand.

1. If anyone feels someone has made a personal attack in any way, please use the report post icon to let us know as-soon-as-you-notice-it. All too often people carry on with the ‘fight’ and 5 pages later decide to report the post when they find they are ‘losing’. In these cases you are just as much to blame for continuing the fight. It’s best to alert us as soon as possible so we can put a stop to it if need be.

For starters. Border Dawn has a go here.


And you Malady made your implications here


AnneUK, you weighed in here



To which Border Dawn replied:


And these are just the examples I can find first off. See how it looks like America bashing. "If Americans do it, it must be wrong" Garbage.

First off I'd like to address the reality of pediatric spays/neuters. Since none of you with the exception of AnneUK has ever seen one of these procedures, or followed the progress of a pup or many pups all the way through, how can you claim with any factual certainty that this practice is "barbaric" and "harmful"? You've said yourselves that you'd never even heard of such things until now. Just because we are a bit ahead of the curve over here in some areas doesn't make us wrong. The FACT is, it is safer than waiting until a female has had her first heat, and it is is safer than anesthetizing an older dog, and they DO recover faster, and they DON"T have any lasting after effects of being neutered so young. They grow up to be perfectly normal dogs with no health or behavior problems at all. I have seen and been a part of hundreds of pediatric castrations as well as castrations done at the "standard" age of 4-6 months, and later life spays and neuters. The older they get, the harder it is on them. The anesthesia takes longer to work out of their systems, and the procedure takes longer and is riskier due to increased vasculation to reproductive organs with age.

Take your blinkers off. You are humanizing these dogs. They are not little human babies, they are puppies. An entirely different species, and these are veterinarians that know what they are doing.

And why would a rescue group do this, because it only makes sense. No reputable rescue group would adopt out an animal that hasn't been castrated. So your choice is to keep the puppy in rescue kennels for SIX MONTHS, or neuter him at twleve weeks and send him to live in a home environment with his family so he can go about the business of growing into a healthy balanced family pet.

As to this comment. This just shows me how emotionally blinded you are to this whole subject.



Again, these are DOCTORS performing surgery. They know a little something about anatomy. Generally, if the testicals aren't in the scrotal sack by 12 weeks (and in most cases they are) they are usually just inside the inguinal canal and can be gently manipulated down for removal, or an incision is simply made in another location. It is very rare indeed that the testicals would still be retained in the abdomen at 12 weeks, and if they are, they are most likely not going to drop at that point. By 12 weeks, the canals have narrowed too much for a testical still in the abdomen to drop through.
By twelve weeks, for most male pups, the testical are in the scrotum, or the inguinal canal and the procedure is no different than a normal neuter, EXCEPT, that the patient experiences a faster recovery and fewer complications.

As for titre testing and over vaccination, you would be amazed to find out that AVMA and major vet schools all over the country have already changed our outdated protocals, and the change has been slow, because guess what, a human beings resistence to change is a universal trait. YOUR vets don't want to embrace pediatric spays/neuters and OUR vets are slower to change vaccine protocols because its different from what they have been taught all these years. But change is coming and growing.

Titre testing, IMO and the opinion of my doctors, are pointless. You can confirm or deny the existence of antibodies to the virus, yes. But noone can say with any certaintly, at WHAT LEVEL these antibodies will actually protect the pet from contracting the disease!

Finally, what rescue group ANYWHERE, has enough money to titre test every dog that walks into the rescue? If rescue in the UK is anything like rescue here, the money is very tight. Generally speaking (unless they are owner surrenders that come with records) dogs that end up in rescue here weren't cared for enough to be castrated OR vaccinated. They were probably back yard ornaments, or strays. The rescue groups here do a very valuable service for dogs. They give them a chance at life! They don't have resources just falling at their feet. They work tirelessly the spend their own money, they stay up night and day, they fight for the animals and the cause, and to say that vaccinating them and spaying/neutering puppies is cruel is beyond ridiculous. The other option is euthansia, or a horrible death on the streets. Which are you advocating here?

As for the question who is responsible for most of the unwanted dogs, although ethical breeders do add to the unwanted dog crisis (hence the reason I would like to see breeders neuter their pups before rehoming them) the main problem is puppy farmers and back yard breeders.

Whilst I agree for most breeds and crosses it is puppy farmers and byb it is also the people who buy unsuitable and unethically bred dogs!

it is so called ethical breeders and owners who get rid once they have served their purpose who make up the vast majority of the dogs in rescue.

Ethical breeders rehome unwanted dogs usually to people on their list, not to rescues. I think you mean UNethical breeders that do this, as they 'get rid' of dogs much quicker, and have a bigger turnover of breeding dogs.

Ethical breeders in no way make up the 'Vast Majority'.

Ethical breeders rehome unwanted dogs usually to people on their list, not to rescues. I think you mean UNethical breeders that do this, as they 'get rid' of dogs much quicker, and have a bigger turnover of breeding dogs.

Ethical breeders in no way make up the 'Vast Majority'.

Is there a reason you deleted the part where I say in certain breeds? That was rather an important part of my response as I am sure you are aware.

I agree, most ethical breeders are striving to produce the dog closes to breed standarss and too do that unfortunatly you have to move on. I have a puppy list and also two excellant homes who are looking for a slightly older dog as for one reason or another they cant have a puppy.
Thants not adding to rescue as all these people only want a Welshie whos parents have been health checked.

..and you also said so called ethical breeders.

If they are the ones making up the vast majority of dogs in rescue, they are no where near ethical !!.

..Regardless of breeds, it's puppy farmers and BYBs that wouldn't know an ethic if it hit them in the face, who sell inappropriately, disgard breeding dogs, get rid of 'wonky' dogs, and so on, not ethical breeders ! Ex breeding dogs from ethical breedes dont end up in rescues, unless it has resulted in something devastating, like homelessness, death, illnesses etc. Ethical breeders strive to place ANY dog with a good home.