• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

2013 study on adverse impact of neutering on health of dogs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2013 study on adverse impact of neutering on health of dogs

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0055937

    free full-text article.

    http://www.borzoicentral.com/pdf/neu...connection.pdf

    older one disputing that there is any solid evidence that spaying prevents mammary cancer

    older classic that's been floating around for a while, summarizing the evidence:

    http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf
    Last edited by wendy; Apr. 15, 2013, 11:35 AM.

  • #2
    As hip issue seems to be very inherited and dog bloodlines may be more localized and less international than horse or cattle, how do they rule that out as a factor as opposed to the neutering? Maybe it is a sign we have more poorly bred dogs and puppy mills here? (I am not a scientist so i assume I am missing something.)

    Comment

    • Original Poster

      #3
      they didn't compare across countries- they took vet records from UCDavis of 759 golden retrievers. Since it's all one location, presumably the neutered and non-neutered dogs shared common bloodlines and reasonably similar environments.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh--I misunderstood and got going in the wrong direction as they started out comparing neutering rates in the USA verses Europe-i made a blind leap from there. :-)

        Comment


        • #5
          Random idle curiousness....

          I wonder what the general stats are for unwanted litters and if they track such a thing.

          Granted, besides the health benefits of spaying/neutering that we've all heard all along (but these reports are refuting as being not really beneficial to male dogs anyway), I'd figure that the primary reason why people spay/neuter their pets is to prevent unwanted breedings and/or the behaviors associated with reproductive-capable animals.

          Do we not flip that coin for our animals as pet owners anyway?

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            #6
            Ask around- many pet owners neuter their dogs because they believe it improves their health, because that's what they are told. Go to http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/spayne...r-top-ten.aspx and see their "top two" reasons for neutering are to improve the health of your dogs, which we have known for years it does not. My co-worker just about lost it this morning when I showed her the study above- she neutered her male dog at age 4 months SOLELY because her vet told her it would dramatically reduce his risk of dying from cancer (she lost her last, neutered male dog to cancer at a young age). So people are being flat-out lied to.

            it's really quite easy to prevent your dog from breeding without having to surgically sterilize it. Any responsible pet owner doesn't let their dog wander around unsupervised, and that's pretty much all it takes to prevent unwanted breeding. A bit more care must be taken when the bitch is in season, obviously, but it's not hard. There are other surgical methods that could be used to sterilize animals that are not as harmful as spaying and neutering- vasectomies, for example, or hysterectomies that leave the ovaries behind.

            In order to make a proper decision, you need to know the truth.

            Right now, if you try to adopt a pet from pretty much any rescue, shelter, or pound, they will force you to have the animal spayed or neutered, regardless of the age of the animal, with no regard to how much damage such polices have on the health of the poor animals. Some places are neutering 8 week old babies, dooming many of them to lifelong ill health and shortened lives.

            First, do no harm is the underlying premise of medical ethics. Neutering, particularly of immature animals, is clearly harmful. An alternative must be sought.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wendy View Post
              http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0055937

              free full-text article.

              http://www.borzoicentral.com/pdf/neu...connection.pdf

              older one disputing that there is any solid evidence that spaying prevents mammary cancer

              older classic that's been floating around for a while, summarizing the evidence:

              http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf
              The first paper shows a small increase in percentage in some problems/ diseases in one breed.

              The second paper doesn't show that there is any evidence that spaying doesn't decrease the risk of mammary cancer either. Just that the studies done previously supposedly do not decisively show that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Wait...they used Golden Retrievers as their study group? Those poor dogs have so many inheritable health issues that spaying or neutering have no bearing on to begin with! That makes this study much less credible to me. Had they used shelter mutts I'd pay more attention.

                Just my opinion.
                "IT'S NOT THE MOUNTAIN WE CONQUER, BUT OURSELVES." SIR EDMUND HILLARYMember of the "Someone Special To Me Serves In The Military" Clique

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wonder, Wendy, if there are any statistics on unwanted animals in Europe. Are they more responsible than we are here in the U.S.?

                  Maybe you live in a part of the country where responsible ownership is the rule, not the exception. I don't.

                  Comment

                  • Original Poster

                    #10
                    check the references in the study and read the 2007 summary- they've studied other breeds and yes, even mutts.

                    another thing not brought out in these studies- I have two papers, one where they spayed some lab beagles and measured metabolic rate before and after spaying. It dropped an astonishing 30% post-spay. The other study, they neutered some adult working dogs (military), and reported that post-neuter the dogs needed twice as much exercise to remain at a healthy weight. So they've been lying to you again about neutering- it really does make your pet fat, or at least it makes it much more difficult for anyone to keep their pet from getting fat. Have you noticed we have an epidemic of obese pets, possibly linked to the heavy spay/neuter propaganda? and obesity causes all kinds of health issues.

                    Maybe you live in a part of the country where responsible ownership is the rule, not the exception. I don't.
                    irresponsible owners don't usually neuter their pets anyway, so they don't really have any role in this discussion. The responsible ones are the ones that tend to neuter, usually on the basis of incorrect information about the health of intact dogs vs. neutered dogs, or just because they feel it's the "responsible thing to do". These are the people who need to be given the real information, so they can make the proper responsible decision for their pets.
                    Last edited by wendy; Apr. 15, 2013, 02:35 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wendy View Post
                      they didn't compare across countries- they took vet records from UCDavis of 759 golden retrievers. Since it's all one location, presumably the neutered and non-neutered dogs shared common bloodlines and reasonably similar environments.
                      Except you posted this tidbit in regards to the 2013 study. That makes a difference.

                      As for your assertion ALL responsible pet owners should have no problem keeping their intact pet where they won't produce unwanted liters? That's pretty bold and ignorant. Fences blow down, dogs ignore invisible barriers, some dogs can dig, other dogs may be on the loose, criminals break into homes/yards and let fido out...

                      Responsible owners will do everything they can to minimize their pet escaping, intact or not. But truly responsible owners also realize shit happens sometimes and you can't control it all. To say otherwise is like saying the Titanic had zero chance of hitting an iceberg and sinking.

                      Coming from one who HAS had dogs let out by a meter reader (Lhasa and Maltese, my childhood dogs), and whose highly trained cattle dogs (one is a GSD/ACD mix, one a Catahoula/ACD mix)dogs (adult life) are firmly and safely kept in the yard by an 8' privacy fence.
                      "IT'S NOT THE MOUNTAIN WE CONQUER, BUT OURSELVES." SIR EDMUND HILLARYMember of the "Someone Special To Me Serves In The Military" Clique

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        OP (Wendy), I have posted links to this and other studies that have demonstrated some adverse consequences to S/N on a couple of other COTH threads, and have been similarly critized/flamed, accused of "ranting about the evils of s/n" etc. By contrast, many in my breed club have been most receptive of and capable of thoughtful critical thought about these studies. I find some on the COTH boards have very closed minds about this issue, they have made up their minds years ago and that is that! No consideration of commonly accepted European views or practices, or consideration that different breeds may have different risks and so responsible owners may make different decisions based upon what is best for their particular animal.

                        Nevertheless, I thank you for your attempt to expose people to studies that may contradict dearly held beliefs.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wendy View Post

                          it's really quite easy to prevent your dog from breeding without having to surgically sterilize it. Any responsible pet owner doesn't let their dog wander around unsupervised, and that's pretty much all it takes to prevent unwanted breeding. A bit more care must be taken when the bitch is in season, obviously, but it's not hard.
                          And yet the "responsible owners" second most common argument against mandatory s/n legislation in California wasn't health, it was "but what if my prize show dog gets out of the yard accidentally and is picked up by animal control and then make me s/n!" Doesn't sound very responsible. The first most common argument was "you can't tell me what to do with my things".

                          When I was in London I noted that every dog walking around had testicles. They were also all 100% on leash, walking obediently by their owners' sides. Sadly, that's not what you see in the States.

                          I guess the question is, do we want to continue and expand the absolute known harm of overabundance of unwanted puppies and kittens here in the states? Or do we sacrifice them for the possibility of the small percentage increases shown in these small studies?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Houndhill View Post
                            OP (Wendy), I have posted links to this and other studies that have demonstrated some adverse consequences to S/N on a couple of other COTH threads, and have been similarly critized/flamed, accused of "ranting about the evils of s/n" etc. By contrast, many in my breed club have been most receptive of and capable of thoughtful critical thought about these studies. I find some on the COTH boards have very closed minds about this issue, they have made up their minds years ago and that is that! No consideration of commonly accepted European views or practices, or consideration that different breeds may have different risks and so responsible owners may make different decisions based upon what is best for their particular animal.

                            Nevertheless, I thank you for your attempt to expose people to studies that may contradict dearly held beliefs.
                            I do think that part of it is what type of dog you have. If I had 10 lb. dogs, I'd probably have them neutered at 6 months of age. As it is, I have dogs that are larger and I am more worried about joint issues and things like bone cancer (which I have unfortunately had in one of my own dogs), and that has moved me to look at these studies awfully carefully. I used to believe that responsible pet owners had their pets altered at 6 months unless they were showing conformation, but when you have a large breed and you read studies like this it does change things.
                            I have to say that even I was saddened by this study. I have a male that I've let mature unneutered. Eventually, I plan on getting a female puppy - so I wanted to go ahead and neuter my male and then spay the female at about a year. With females, spaying seems to be a bit more beneficial, health-wise. Now I am left to ponder what to do. Any ideas?
                            I must say that while anything can happen, whether or not you can prevent accidental breedings largely depends on how you manage your dogs. I wouldn't have an intact animal in all circumstances. With the new health concerns, I do wonder about switching to vasectomies instead of neuters. Anyone know?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sad thing is, many intact pets are owned by irresponsible owners. This creates full shelters. I can understand why shelters impose a spay/neuter policy.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I have had multiple intact Irish Wolfhounds and have never had an accidental breeding in forty years.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I understand it is a different situation when animal shelter adopt out animals to inexperienced owners who are actually not terribly responsible, in this country. In that case, the chance of unwanted litters outweighs the particlar health benefits to the particular animal. Sadly.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    You sometimes have to do what is practical for a population, or adopt out animals to less than optimal situations which are nevertheless better than euthanasia.

                                    However, if you have the luxury of deciding things on the basis of what is best for a particular animal, your decision as to s/n can be based upon this, rather than upon population matters.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Sadly, US pet owners seem much less responsible than many Western European/UK /Scandinavian pet owners, who seem to be quite capable of managing intact dogs, to the extent that they may consider it quite odd or less than optimal to s/n for other than health reasons....and even then,spare ovaries when possible, which is something I would try to do as well if I had to hysterectomize for health reasons.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Casey09 View Post
                                        I do think that part of it is what type of dog you have. If I had 10 lb. dogs, I'd probably have them neutered at 6 months of age. As it is, I have dogs that are larger and I am more worried about joint issues and things like bone cancer (which I have unfortunately had in one of my own dogs), and that has moved me to look at these studies awfully carefully. I used to believe that responsible pet owners had their pets altered at 6 months unless they were showing conformation, but when you have a large breed and you read studies like this it does change things.
                                        I have to say that even I was saddened by this study. I have a male that I've let mature unneutered. Eventually, I plan on getting a female puppy - so I wanted to go ahead and neuter my male and then spay the female at about a year. With females, spaying seems to be a bit more beneficial, health-wise. Now I am left to ponder what to do. Any ideas?
                                        I must say that while anything can happen, whether or not you can prevent accidental breedings largely depends on how you manage your dogs. I wouldn't have an intact animal in all circumstances. With the new health concerns, I do wonder about switching to vasectomies instead of neuters. Anyone know?
                                        Read the studies. The benefits of not spaying or neutering after one year or two (for large breeds) is really quite small.

                                        You did read the Shade thread, right? A quarter of bitches will develop a pyometra by the age of 10, and then there's a HIGH rate of recurrence.

                                        To everyone else:

                                        If you get your dog neutered and don't want it to get fat, don't feed it too much. Don't feed the dog free choice. Entire dogs can get MASSIVELY fat too, btw. You should have seen my husband's beagle!

                                        I'm sure someone will accuse me of being some sort of neutering fanatic, but that's not the case. My family had entire females for a total of 18-19 years, and it was a PITA. Since I've never owned show dogs, I'd never have any interest in keeping a dog entire most of its life. Our Cairn Terrier always got false pregnancies after her heat cycles, where she would collect all of toys in her bed and then cry over them when they wouldn't nurse. She was spayed at 9 1/2 years per our vet's advice. Our JRT had one short heat cycle, followed one month later by a real heat, then a false pregnancy with milk, then mastitis (back then vets didn't spay when a dog was in heat or had milk). She was really sick with the mastitis for a couple of days. Needless to say she was spayed after that!

                                        Pounds are full of entire dogs. Guess why they're there. Even responsible dog owners have a hard time keeping their dogs contained and accounted for all of the time.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X