I was 'bothered' because you originally stated that

and went on to say

which I interpreted as implying that other factors may be allowed to override considerations of health of the animal rather than remain secondary considerations.

Yes, of course I can look up 'agenda' in the dictionary and see that it is defined as a list or plan.

However I know that when someone is convinced that they are right in their actions, and goes on to state that others have 'different agendas' they are not usually talking about the to-do lists that these other people have made. They usually mean that the other person is in error (whether or not an actual list is involved ).

As you have clarified now

I'm happy to apologise for misinterpreting your use of the term 'different agenda'.

I disagreed with your blanket statement that all bitches not intended for breeding should be spayed before the first season. It's a case of judging each case individually.

My decision-making was not entirely based on statistics. I'm lucky to have good friends who know more about dogs than I ever will, including behaviourists with a lifetime's hands-on knowledge who were able to discuss behavioural issues as well as physical health. They have reported behavioural problems of dogs who were neutered before maturity being trapped in permanent puppyhood with a puppy mentality in an adult body causing behavioural problems in their relationship to other dogs - hence the need for behavioural input. This sort of impression is hard to pin down with statistics, but nevertheless reflects personal experience

For statistical purposes I read Laura Sanborn's review
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

for non-reproductive effects

http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposiu...ession%20I.pdf

for incidence of pyometra

http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/0...n_R.Hagman.pdf

for procedures in the event of pyometra

http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proce...6049&O=Generic

papers such as this for estimating post-operative complications of spay

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1576507

I came to the conclusion that statistics could be used to support different viewpoints, so I asked myself who I trusted most to present a dispassionate case. I have to say that this was not the pro-neutering lobby who seem to be heavily reliant on papers produced by rescues.

To be honest I have not been impressed by the conduct of some pro-neutering proponents, particularly on other forums. When one is trying to learn about an issue it is as much about who you trust to give a balanced view rather than who has the most published articles.

In answer to your questions about my own bitch, I was more concerned about pyometra than mammary tumours, probably because I felt that any change in mammary tissue would be more evident than changes in the uterus.

On the subject of pyometra, the Hagman paper indicates that a year-on-year risk of pyometra at less than 10yrs of age is around 2%. The lifetime risk being 23-24%.

Of these figures around 4% of cases are fatal, i.e. approximately 1 entire bitch in 100 for a lifetime risk. However mortality associated with anaesthesia has been recorded at 0.43% in dogs. http://www.jaaha.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/13

So in any one year up to the age of 10 I considered a 2% risk of pyometra carrying 4% estimated mortality - i.e. 0.08% chance of mortality from pyometra in that particular year. Set against a risk of death under anaesthesia of 0.43%, as a year-on-year calculation it did not appear to be conclusive evidence in favour of spaying, but I realised that increased age brought a higher risk of both pyometra and complications under anaesthetic.

So my bitch was spayed just as she came up to her 7th birthday which is when I considered that the balance tipped from 'not spay' to 'spay' and while she was still in good general health to undergo anaesthetic.

Hope that answers your questions

Appology accepted. It was pretty obvious that you'd been putting your own personal spin on what I'd actually written so I didn't take offense

I have to say that I don't see things as being quite as black and white as you. I wouldn't condemn someone for factoring in aesthetic/conformance or performance issues into the equation when deciding the best time to neuter. Nor do I condemn the people that factor in convenience, behavioural or birth control. Our dogs are all destined to live different lives. What is acceptable in one lifestyle/home/family/discipline is totally unacceptable in another. We all have different agendas and I most definately don't think that because you choose health factors over all else that you can take the moral high ground over people that are willing to accept an increased risk of mamory tumors or pyometra in order to reduce the risk of the dog developing in a way that is not likely to win competitions/shows. In my opinion this is no different to the person that chooses to accept the increased risks associated with breeding.

My dog won't be competing seriously (although I should add that she does compete in a few activities and is kicking the butts of late speyed and not speyed at all animals But that's probably got nothing to do with spaying. ). So for me all that matters is the health benefits of spaying before the first season. A simple statement of fact. The rest is a bonus. When it comes to our little boy Beagle there aren't health benefits associated with neutering early, so the most significant issues with him are those relating to behaviour and development. Unless we have behavioural problems that experts feel might benefit from neutering we'll wait until he's fully developed before neutering. We wouldn't be prepared to do that with a bitch as the health benefits associated with early spaying outweigh any negatives associated with development.

And of course, not everyone believes what vets etc tell us about the health benefits of early spaying. But I happen to believe them

Actually, that's another missleading spin on what I actually said What I actually said was:

Which is very different from your missquote. And as I said previously (more than once I think), I acknowledge that not everyone interprets the statistics the same way. As you say, for most of us it comes down to who's interpretation you trust as we don't have access to the figures to perform our own analysis.

And yes, you answered my questions and it is now very clear why you draw different conclusions to me. I am taking account of the risk from the most common cause of cancer in dogs - mamory tumors. You aren't. The main benefit to speying before the first season is to significantly reduce (almost eliminate) the risk of the most common form of cancer in bitches. If I felt that I could eliminate death from mamory tumors by screening then I might conclude that spaying later would be beneficial from a health point of view.

yes, mammary tumours are indeed a concern and I believe one of the reference studies was carried out on Beagles, which is near to your heart I think.

When making my own decision I took into account those available studies which indicated that my own (cross)breed is not a breed that is mentioned as being particularly at risk from mammary tumours, nor is her overall conformation (lean) a risk factor. In addition, various references quote incidence of benign tumours around 50% of total tumours.

However, my bitch is heavily saluki saturated, and salukis are quoted http://www.salukiclub.org/SalukiHeal...-hemangio.html as being particularly at risk for hemangiosarcoma (Sanborn quoting Prymak, among others). Indeed this is one of their few major health issues, together with hypothyroidism and osteosarcoma.

All of these three risks are increased by spaying (Sanborn quoting Ru, Prymak and Paniciera studies).

We do what we consider best for our individual dogs, given the information available.

Exactly! Which was my point in this thread. I simply can't understand why certain individuals take issue with the decisions we make for our own dogs. After all, we know them best and we are quite capbable of doing the reasearch and speaking to experts that are fully versed in all of the research and that know our dogs well.

You seem to be under the impression that I've offered an opinion about what others should do with their dogs. You couldn't be more wrong. In fact I was pointing out that I can see lots of reasons why others would make different decisions. I simply explained the decision we made for OUR dogs.

Someone had mentioned that they thought breeders weren't keen on spaying before the first season. I responded with:

But you are of course right with regards to the bit in bold. There will always be exceptions to the 'rule' that spaying before the first season results in the greatest health benefits. As you point out, some breeds have genetic tendencies towards certain problems, and obviously sickly dogs will be at greater risk from surgery than from the cancer and pyometra that spaying protects them from. So yet another reason why some people might come to a different conclusion.

If people are responsible and acting upon advise from vets that understand the research and know the dog well I really do think others should butt out and refrain from trying to convince them that they have harmed their pets simply because they've chosen a different approach to neutering.

And I will say again - if it really was so clear cut then all vets would be working to the same guidelines. In fact there are no guidelines issued because so much comes down to personal preferance. The standard advice to spay either before or three months after the first season simply does not apply if you have a breed of dog that tends not to develop mamory tumors.

Spaying/castration/neutering whatever is all a load of crap in my opinion, in most cases it's down to convenience, people get a male dog puppy, 6 months down the line ''he's started cocking his leg, taking an interest in female dogs, doesn't seem to like males any more etc. Let's get him neutered! Sorted. Or not. You get a male dog, learn to live with and control a male dogs characteristics for gods sake. Testicular cancer is a reason to castrate instead? Well maybe we should remove his organs and bones maybe shall we, to prevent them getting cancer????????

Bitches, well we will get her spayed so that blood doesn't drop everywhere, or to make sure she won't get pregnant. The same principle as males. Something called nature. Pyometra more or so happens when the bitch is quite old. Plenty of entire wild bitches lived long lives. The same with bitches as i said about dogs regarding cancer.

I have never had an accidental litter, or a dog straying, it's all about controlling these natural things and being responsible.

People who spay or castrate to me are lazy. Just like people who think that raw feeding isn't natural. Just because us humans are living more and more unnatural lives, doesn't mean animals should.

I have no problem with neuturing for health reasons. Dogs may now be domesticated but they are still dogs.

2 of my bitches are spayed, one when she was 5 years old because she had started to suffer badly with phantom pregnancies, the other one when she was 3 years old because she developed a nasty infecd each time she came in season. I f these problems hadn't arised they would still be intact. Doesn't mean they would be bred from nor would it mean future health issues would increase.


RANT NOW OVER

Placeholder post really as I want to look at the cites in this thread.


As a bit of a derail it is interesting to note that zoo keepers do not rely on raw diets for their wolves. Instead commercial diets are produced to aid health and longevity. Nor am I sure about the accuracy of the bolded statement - or more specifically I don't think it applies to MOST dogs.


additionally surely keeping dogs at all is for the owners convienience? Therefore we owe it to them to do the best for them. And therefore we are back to studying evidence again.

Perhaps as another thread we should examine the ethics of dog keeping - but its not really my area.

LOL .... I liked your rant Lurcherlover!!

I'm neither for or against sterilisation, although I am against pre maturity sterilisation. I consider it the equivalent of giving a 6 year old child a hysterectomy as a routine procedure!

I also think alot of new dog owners sterilize as they are guilt-tripped into it by the pro-neuter brigade and it is done without much thought or research and hence often way too young as a result.

I agree spaying is largely down to convenience. Yes, there is a possible health gain if you spay a bitch before a first season - but this is something I wouldn`t do anyway. I do feel spaying when mature is justified if one isn`t going to breed from the bitch as the animal gains from a more stable homonal state and also is released from the need to be confined for 3 weeks twice a year. People with multi-dog households need to manage their pack, and spaying / neutering is a good way to do this. Those of us who have limited space - no run or secure kennel for a bitch on heat - have to consider this holistically. In my case, most of my bitches were spayed and all my dogs neutered. That way I am able to keep a mixed group in close proximity.

Possibly you might consider the case of the Guide dogs for the the blind situation. another poster on the castration thread.

All very well in an ideal world but sadly we live in a far from ideal world, hence why there are so many unwanted puppies and dogs in rescues and accidental matings everyday.
Where I live we have lots of Chavvy lads and irresposible people who I wish were "Lazy" as you put it and would get thier dogs castrated or spayed as they wander loose mating and attacking other dogs.
All responsible pet owners have had thier dogs and bitches done to stop adding to the unwanted population of dogs round here. The loose dogs will scale a 6' fence to get into some responsible owners garden where they are confining thier bitch. One owner of a 7 month old bitch got attacked by a dog in the summer that leapt into the garden to mate with her bitch, she was sitting in the garden with her dog when this one came over the gate. She tried to stop it and get her bitch in but the dog attacked her and still mated the bitch.
I am "Lazy" as to protect mine round here they were done at 6 months, but that is not the only reason I have over the years lost a dog to testicular cancer and a bitch to pyo and I am not willing to risk any of that again.
If the world took your view then sadly there would have to be mass culling of dogs as there would be a population explosion as not all owners sadly are as responsible as the people on here.