I'm happy for you that you're at peace with yourself over the decisions you've made for your dogs

in what way?

I totally agree with you Joedee. My friend has a 3 year old dog that was neutered very young - he's a shepherd and is stuck in the mind of a young puppy. He's also the tallest/narrowest shepherd I have ever seen, with an exceptionally narrow chest.

I also have a 10 month old malinois-x street pup. She was neutered on the street by the TNR teams at 8 weeks before our shelter found her. Her legs are also incredibly long and she is also extremely narrow. I know she hasn't finished growing yet, however I'm not expecting her body proportions to change that significantly now. I'm also being real careful with her exercise because of it.

I am actually mildly concerned that she hasn't got her hormones for her growth and general development, although I don't think there's much I can do about that now.

I do wonder whether the differing experiences with growth after early sterilization might have something to do with breed size? I have only seen the effects in large breeds - perhaps with smaller breeds it's not as obvious?

Ziva, are you certain that your little girl's build is down to early speying and not simply genetics?

If you think about it, very many dogs speyed before their first season are larger boned and shorter legged than is typical of the breed. There are others that are unspeyed that are long legged and slender framed. Those that have full access to the statistics assure us that speying does NOT in fact result in the 'sypmptoms' that you describe.

Let me tell you about my dog, as if you weren't aware of her background and early life you'd probably be certain that her development had been affected by early spaying.

My dog is extremely fine boned and and long legged compared to her littermates and indeed most other Beagles we see. Her rib cage and scull are narrower. We've had breeders telling us that she's like that because we had her speyed early. But we've had her since she was a tiny puppy and know it's utter nonesense. She was always the little one in the litter. She was never the typical Beagle. By four months old people were commenting that she was leggy and very finely built. We have a photo of her with her sister when they were both six months old. Our little girl was petite, long legged and 'narrow'. Her sister was huge, chunky with a very broad skull and chest. A week later ours was speyed but her sister wasn't. The moment some people found out she'd been spayed before her first season they started to claim that she's slender framed and long legged because of the early speying. But the facts prove otherwise.

An aquaintance that used to breed Beagles has always told us that ours was a throwback to the pack hound. She gave us a photo of her first Beagle that was the daughter of a pack hound (born in the late 50's) and our little girl does indeed have an identical build. This was apparantly the norm for beagles in the area at the time. The little bitch on the left was in fact born in the late 50's, and is just one generation away from a pack beagle. Our little girl was 8 months old in this picture and had been speyed two months previously. The little pack hound had already had two litters when the picture was taken and was not speyed.



Amazingly, a little research uncovered the fact that our little girl is related to this dog. Both of them are granddaughters to Eton College Viper - the last working hound in their line.

Whilst this fine boned, longer legged look was (and still is) very common in pack hounds it is generally not considered to be desirable amongst breeders of show dogs. They have worked hard to breed these characteristics out of the Beagle. In fact, in this particular line I have photos that show exactly when the build changed from the fine boned, long legged hound to what we're familiar with today. But the genes are still in there and every so often you'll get a throw back - just like our little girl.

I would also like to add that our little girl can run the legs of her much bigger, chunkier sister. In fact, there are few dogs she meets that are a match for her. She is exactly what nature intended her to be, and in my opinion a fine example of a Beagle. She's certainly not immature - although she's not old before her time like very many unfit dogs you see. We have little informal dog shows at some of the clubs we go to and our little dog does very well. Those that don't know the Beagle breed standard are very impressed by her. Vets and dog trainers are always impressed by her - they comment that she looks nicer and is better behaved than most Beagles they see. If they were told that she was the way she is because of early speying the'd probably see that as a benefit of speying early But anyone aware of all the facts can see that it is in fact just down to genetics.

Genetics determine what a dog will look like. When people don't like what they see it's all too easy to blame it on speying, exercise, diet or whatever latest fad or theory is doing the rounds. But the statistics simply don't back up their theories. And I have to say, when I look around me in the park I am unable to tell which dogs were speyed before the first season and which weren't. Certainly it's not the case that the longer legged, immature, narrow chested ones were neutered early - some aren't neutered at all!!

& all these dogs & bitches are closely related & the same breed ? Of course not-so your statement don't back up your theory that removal of testosterone before maturity doesn't affect dogs/bitches in anyway.

The fact that testosterone is required as are the growth hormones to ensure the growth plates close. The studies I have read(in veterinary journels & not recent internet based studies)in clude X raying & scanning of the dogs & bitches-these quite clearly show that the growth plates do not close @ the same time(if ever in some cases)in prepuberty neutered dogs & bitches as they do in entire dogs & bitches. When similar studies have been done on cats there was very little difference(the conclusion was that in cats the testosterone is produced in sufficient quantities much early than in dogs)

You surmise that the studies have been carried out by veterinary researchers who want to prove that dogs shouldn't be neutered early & call it a fad etc-they aren't they research what the veterinary sector wish them to research & infact one study was done to prove that a theory the same as yours was correct & the results unfortunately showed that early neutering does affect the closure of the growth plates.

I owned an oversized GSD(31" plus)but his mother was topsized & he was a huge puppy right from birth(weighed in at nearly 3 lbs)& unlike dogs whose height is affected by lack of testosterone, although big & tall he had the correct proportions & when mature was not slab sided or fine boned-unlike the son of my stud dog who was castrated @ 7 1/2 weeks. There was just too much of him all round

However it is clear that your mind is closed to research & studies & you are prepared to blindly believe what organizations like the RSPCA, Dogs Trust etc(ie non veterinary organizations)tell you that if they do it it doesn't affect the dog

At this point I will leave the thread in your capable hands as you obviously have a better grasp of Canine Genetics & far more veterinary knowledge than I do

scarter, you stated
and I asked

what is the nature of this 'different agenda' which you suspect those in showing and sport might have?

Personally I would expect a responsible owner to make a decision based on the welfare of each individual dog, regardless of what corner of the dog world they inhabit.

Sorry red collar, I didn't spot your question. I think I explained what I meant in more depth in an earlier post.

I won't go into explanations about why I think those with canine athletes would have different priorities as links have been posted on this thread to articles that talk about exactly that:

http://www.mahoosiveleos.co.uk/spaying.html

But a couple of quotes to give you background to the article...

(It's also worth looking at an article posted by EBMEDIC that counters a lot of the points made in the above article:

http://www.sheltermedicine.com/docum...20rebuttal.doc

)

I think we have a similar situation with the owner of the show dog. A show dog must conform to a breed standard. If there's even a small risk (or even an unproven theory) that early spaying will have have some subtle effect on the dog's development it's understandable that owners of show dogs won't want to take the risk. I don't think it's unreasonable for the show dog owner to decide that it's not worth risking having to give up a bitches show career just to give it a reduced chance of developing cancer. And lets face it, many show dogs are used for breeding so they can't be spayed. Pregnancy itself is a risk. It's not unreasonable to accept health risks in order to breed from your bitch.

However, as a pet owner I don't care about subtle changes in development (i.e. course coat, limbs 1mm longer). I have no desire to breed. All that matters to me is giving my dog the best possible chance of a healthy, long life. Early spaying eliminates the risk of certain cancers, pyoderma, phantom pregnancies. There are studies that show some possible increase in other health problems, but on balance, statistics show that the bitch spayed before the first season has an increased chance of a long, healthy life.

From my point of view it's less clear cut with the dog. It would seem that the main reasons for early neutering of dogs is to help with behavioural issues and to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Any health benefits are smaller and seem to be countered to some degree by negative effects on health. In the absence of clear benefits it makes sense to err on the side of caution and wait until the dog has fully developed....unless behavioural problems or unwanted pregancies are likely to be a problem.

Perhaps another example of where the show dog owner has a different agenda is when it comes to neutering males. As far as I'm aware neutered dogs can't be shown. So for the owner of the show dog it's a no brainer. They don't need to weigh up the pros and cons of neutering - early or otherwise. If they neuter the show career ends.

Of course, some pet owners care about the same things as show and canine athlete owners. So it's not that clear cut. And this is no doubt why different people and different vets have different preferences. If there was overwhelming evidence that one approach was superior in all respects then it would be a standard that all vets would be required to work to. Instead the standard advice from most sources seems to be to spey either before the first season or three months after it. In dogs most seem to advise neutering anywhere from 6 months to after full maturity is reached.

I hope that makes things clearer!

I agree to a degree. But if minimising health risks was the only criteria then statistics show us that all dog's not used for breeding should be spayed before the first season. I think it's perfectly reasonable to wait and accept a slightly increased risk of health problems if you feel that there's a possiblity (even an unproven one) that early spaying will have an adverse affect on your dog's 'career'. It's also reasonable to accept health risks in order to breed.

The fact that testosterone is required as are the growth hormones to ensure the growth plates close. The studies I have read(in veterinary journels & not recent internet based studies)in clude X raying & scanning of the dogs & bitches-these quite clearly show that the growth plates do not close @ the same time(if ever in some cases)in prepuberty neutered dogs & bitches as they do in entire dogs & bitches. When similar studies have been done on cats there was very little difference(the conclusion was that in cats the testosterone is produced in sufficient quantities much early than in dogs)


Can you cite the studies - although I suspect these are from the athletic article I have already looked at.

Until you confirm the studies i will refrain from commenting - except that a scientific fact is only as good as the data which supports it. Thats the fantastic thing about it; Science is self correcting.

Scarter, thanks for your detailed reply.

As I understand it the links re the sports dogs do not say ‘don’t neuter’, but encouraging the owners to reconsider (‘revisit the standard’) of early neutering. There is also food for thought in this and similar articles as to whether to neuter at all.

Surely that is reasonable? Any responsible owner will not subject their dog to surgery without considering the pros and cons of whether to neuter and if so when?

Yes, I hear what you are saying about the sports dogs owners who are concerned whether performance will be affected by bone development, and similarly show owners concerned about coat and breeding lines, but to imply that these considerations come before the health of the individual dog is doing a disservice to the many owners who take a decision on grounds of health first, and then pursue their special interests.

I don’t believe that urging caution, not to jump in and neuter as the norm, is evidence of an ‘agenda’.

It is strange that neutering has been promoted as so much the norm that those people who advise caution are said to have an ‘agenda’. Surely an entire dog with all its bits and bobs intact is the default mode, so IMO any alteration to that state involves as much if not more consideration than allowing them to live entire. I consider that neutering, being an unnatural state for the dog, is the act that calls for heart searching and decision-making - not the other way around.

In the same way that much of the cautionary literature is found on sports websites, you'll no doubt agree that much of the pro neutering literature is found on rescue sites - and as such one wonders whether their commitment to the wider dog population may give rise to their own agenda - and whether what is right for the combined population of rescue dogs is necessarily right for each and every individual concerned at the particular time when he finds himself in rescue, or whether it is valid to apply this to every dog in an entire area as it is in some USA states?

As owners of individual dogs in the UK we have the luxury of considering each one as a special case. However the available literature is not as straightforward as is sometimes presented.

Ms Howe’s article which you quoted rebutting Zink (on the question of osteosarcoma) dismisses the first study quoted by Zink because it relates to Rottweilers, and Ms Howe seems to imply that this study somehow doesn’t count because Rottweilers are apt to suffer from osteosarcoma anyway. There is more 'spin' in some of these articles than a fairground ride.

Of the second study she says:

So even someone as active in the early neutering lobby as Ms Howe concedes that there was evidence of a twofold higher risk of osteosarcoma amongst neutered dogs compared to entire, she just didn’t agree that early (as opposed to traditional age) neutering was responsible for this increase. So, yes, she rebuts Zink, disputes the factor of age of neutering, but concedes the twofold osteosarcoma risk associated with all neutering.

It's enough to make your eyes water

All concerned owners, whatever our particular interests, read the available literature and make our decisions. We are all concerned to minimise health risks – which is why I can’t agree with your statement

That is your opinion scarter. It's a great opinion that will stand you and your dog in good stead, I'm sure.

Other people have read the literature that you have read, like you, they consider that health risk is the only criteria, yet their interpretation leads them to come up with a different opinion for their dog.

The only people who seem to be telling others what they should do are the pro-neutering lobby. Sometimes they come across as rather strident, judgemental individuals who imply that those who choose not to neuter are irresponsible and don't put their dog's health first. IME that's not the case at all.

I think you will realise that you're making an issue about nothing if you look up agenda in the dictionary. According to dictionary.com....

You seem to be bothered by the fact that I stated that I understand that show dog, sports dog and pet dog owners would have different agendas. Now that you've seen in black and white what agenda means does it still upset you that I understand that show, sport and pet dog owners have different agendas from each other? I agree with the author of that article that people with sports dogs might have good reason to make different choices for their pets. If mine were primarily a sporting dog I might have chosen differently. I would have a different agenda to the one I have now. But there is nothing that he mentions that leads me to believe that speying my little bitch later or not at all would have given her an equal or greater chance of good health.

I'm afraid I don't see these things quite like you. I don't think the person that makes a different decision from me is wrong. They simply have a different agenda...the things that they consider most important are different from the things that I consider most important. It doesn't mean that they care less or more about their dogs.

Yes. I know. As I said:

But as you've mentioned that you disagree that speying before the first season gives a dog the best chance of good health and longevity, I'd be very interested in hearing your interpretation of the statistics. Have you gone as far as to work out the liklihood of developing ostosarcoma, mamary cancer, pyoderma etc in :

1. a bitch spayed before the first season
2. a bitch spayed after the first season
3. an unspayed bitch

Now I will admit that I haven't done the sums myself. I've trusted my vet who assures me that mamary cancer and pyoderma are such big killers that the increased risks in some other conditions caused by neutering pale into insignificance. What are the health factors that swayed you, and convinced you to accept an increased risk in mamory cancer? What decision did you make for your dogs?