Effects of Spaying on Longevity

Gaci too has a juvenile vulva (the proper term). She has had her episioplasty and it was a nasty thing. 50 stitches (I still cringe to this day...and have pictures to remind myself) between her vulva and her anus to try to fix the situation, and since the surgery she is now on incontinence meds to tighten things up and keep any leaking from occurring. It is much better but it's going to be a lifelong issue.

I can't be 100% certain it's from the spay, though, but I know her problems escalated a lot after she was spayed...she didn't show any symptoms beforehand, and it went downhill quickly after her spay.  So while there's no hard evidence, there is a correlation.

 Emma was spayed very early, and hers isn't severe enough to do surgery on, but she's had off and on yeast infections and leakage for her whole life.

Here's a pic from after Gaci's surgery.....

Warning: This is a picture post-surgery. Some folks may find it potentially graphic, therefore it is inserted as a link instead of inserted on the board.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/macmillk/Gacihome.jpg

 OUUUUUCH! Poor Gaci!!! I can imagine the recovery was not super easy, either.

Chuffy

In any case, I thought you could get "b*tches britches" for spotting?  If spotting were a concern with Dell - and the only concern - I would go with something like this, because I couldn't justify major invasive surgery JUST for this reason.

 I find it funny that most people object to the idea of debarking, saying that it is done just for the owner's convenience but will list not wanting to deal with the "mess" of girls being in season or the hassle of keeping an extra close eye on them as being a good reason to spay. Spaying is far more invasive and has far more long lasting effects on the dog than debarking.

Yes, the healing process took quite some time. She still has very obvious scar as well. But thankfully it did help....just too bad it didn't fix the problem.

AgileGSD

 ITA. Unfortunately the Spay-Neuter campaign was never really about helping people be better owners or reducing the pet population. It has always been about the Animal Rights movement and part of their agenda is to see that all pets are S/N. They got pretty far with their S/N campaigns in brainwashing the public to think that it really is the only responsible way and that dogs really are "happier and healthier" when altered. But they didn't get far enough, which has now led us to mandatory S/N laws. If it was really about helping educate people to be better owners, we'd have seen an equal push in training, proper care and confinement. Perhaps we need to start a new movement that promotes T&C :)

 

However, in response to the other member's suggestion that Training/Confinement is the answer to responsible ownership, I will say that I agree...to an extent. For generally good, responsible pet owners, definitely agree that T&C is perfectly reasonable and a good choice for many, if they want the responsibility of an intact dog. I would, though, venture to say that unwanted puppies are not often coming from these already-responsible pet owners.

I am curious as to how many folks here have actually been out trying to educate mass amounts of "at-risk population" (the ones who are causing unwanted litters) people on responsible pet ownership, not just the neighbor or a family member. Perhaps many have and are very successful at it. I can only speak to the population of people to which I have/do interact with about responsible pet ownership (By responsible pet ownership, I'm talking basic T&C - take the dog off the chain, give him a dog house in the backyard if he is to live outside, put him on a leash when you walk him, get basic vet care when your dog is vomiting for 48 hours, don't crate your puppy 22 hours/day, etc.), and the end result is that, more often than not, the people are not interested in T&C because it would require work. It would require them to change their day-to-day schedules, even a little bit, or exert some effort with their pets, and they simply are not interested in that. Many are low-income (a collar or a leash is not in the budget, let alone basic training classes) or come from a place where, culturally, treatment of their pet has always been this way and will always be this way. Telling them ways to do it differently is not only unwelcome but offensive. They are not interested in changing their ways of keeping their pets, so if I can at least get them to alter that pet, you can bet I will, even if it is a 10 week old female puppy, and hopefully before their uncle or friend tells them that they can make a lot of money by breeding that pup when she hits six months of age and selling her puppies, then repeating til she's dead. The dog is likely going to spend her life chained, under-exercised, or allowed to roam in traffic - the least I can do, if not get through to the owners about T&C, is get her fixed so she does not have to endure a life of producing puppies. For these people, I think mass S/N promotion is useful and serves its purpose. I would rather S/N be over-promoted, leaving responsible pet owners to explore S/N options for their own pets, than risk not reaching those that need to have their animals fixed.

stormyknight

It would require them to change their day-to-day schedules, even a little bit, or exert some effort with their pets, and they simply are not interested in that. Many are low-income (a collar or a leash is not in the budget, let alone basic training classes) or come from a place where, culturally, treatment of their pet has always been this way and will always be this way. Telling them ways to do it differently is not only unwelcome but offensive. They are not interested in changing their ways of keeping their pets, so if I can at least get them to alter that pet, you can bet I will, even if it is a 10 week old female puppy, and hopefully before their uncle or friend tells them that they can make a lot of money by breeding that pup when she hits six months of age and selling her puppies, then repeating til she's dead. The dog is likely going to spend her life chained, under-exercised, or allowed to roam in traffic - the least I can do, if not get through to the owners about T&C, is get her fixed so she does not have to endure a life of producing puppies. For these people, I think mass S/N promotion is useful and serves its purpose. I would rather S/N be over-promoted, leaving responsible pet owners to explore S/N options for their own pets, than risk not reaching those that need to have their animals fixed.

 Strange that you'd be able to convince people who won't even spend money on a collar and lets their dog roam to spend money on having their dog altered. The best solution for this problem is not altering but a strictly enforced leash law.

AgileGSD

stormyknight

It would require them to change their day-to-day schedules, even a little bit, or exert some effort with their pets, and they simply are not interested in that. Many are low-income (a collar or a leash is not in the budget, let alone basic training classes) or come from a place where, culturally, treatment of their pet has always been this way and will always be this way. Telling them ways to do it differently is not only unwelcome but offensive. They are not interested in changing their ways of keeping their pets, so if I can at least get them to alter that pet, you can bet I will, even if it is a 10 week old female puppy, and hopefully before their uncle or friend tells them that they can make a lot of money by breeding that pup when she hits six months of age and selling her puppies, then repeating til she's dead. The dog is likely going to spend her life chained, under-exercised, or allowed to roam in traffic - the least I can do, if not get through to the owners about T&C, is get her fixed so she does not have to endure a life of producing puppies. For these people, I think mass S/N promotion is useful and serves its purpose. I would rather S/N be over-promoted, leaving responsible pet owners to explore S/N options for their own pets, than risk not reaching those that need to have their animals fixed.

 Strange that you'd be able to convince people who won't even spend money on a collar and lets their dog roam to spend money on having their dog altered. The best solution for this problem is not altering but a strictly enforced leash law.

And yes, enforced leash laws would go a far way, regardless of whether a pet is S/N. However, that is a huge problem when there is not even an animal control in the town/county, not to mention that it also requires a heck of a legal team for the city/county to go after violators that try to skip out on their $50 fine for a loose dog/protest/etc. I know of leash law violation cases that are tied up in court/collecting fines from 2005...at some point, the city legal dept. decides it isn't worth all the effort for $50 and the leash law becomes very hard to actually enforce. Of course, like I stated above, since their is no animal control in some areas, leash laws aren't even enforced to begin with.

stormyknight

The altering is subsidized (even free) and does not affect the way the owner lives their life/takes care of their dog. T&C does. Not that strange.

 Actually it is strange. I have known of cases where irresponsible owners were offered free altering, even with someone piking the dog up and bringing him back for it and they still wouldn't do it. Not because they were worried about their dog's health, not because they had any sort of idea about altering one way or another but because they really didn't care what happened to the dog. That seems to be the case with most free roaming dogs - their owners are rather indifferent towards the dog.

 It is good there is free S/N available in your area for people who want to take advantage of it though.

stormyknight

And yes, enforced leash laws would go a far way, regardless of whether a pet is S/N. However, that is a huge problem when there is not even an animal control in the town/county, not to mention that it also requires a heck of a legal team for the city/county to go after violators that try to skip out on their $50 fine for a loose dog/protest/etc. I know of leash law violation cases that are tied up in court/collecting fines from 2005...at some point, the city legal dept. decides it isn't worth all the effort for $50 and the leash law becomes very hard to actually enforce. Of course, like I stated above, since their is no animal control in some areas, leash laws aren't even enforced to begin with.

 Leash law violations shouldn't have to be cited only by dog wardens/AC officers.

AgileGSD

Chuffy

In any case, I thought you could get "b*tches britches" for spotting?  If spotting were a concern with Dell - and the only concern - I would go with something like this, because I couldn't justify major invasive surgery JUST for this reason.

 I find it funny that most people object to the idea of debarking, saying that it is done just for the owner's convenience but will list not wanting to deal with the "mess" of girls being in season or the hassle of keeping an extra close eye on them as being a good reason to spay. Spaying is far more invasive and has far more long lasting effects on the dog than debarking.

i'm not arguing but i have heard of a few cases where debarking left the dog in quite a bit of pain and caused breathing problems. i cant remember where i saw that article but it was pretty sad. here is one i found just now http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html

it sounds just as invasive and just as risky. its even banned in one state.

spaying vs dealing with the mess though.... thats personal preference and a personal decision. you may be the most responsible person in the world and still not want to clean blood off the carpet, walls, furniture, not to mention the smell of it. i've done it before and probably wont ever again because i hate cleaning carpet any more than i have to((i own males and Amber was spayed three years ago so i dont have to worry either way lol)). add to it that when you have that intact female safely contained someone else DOESNT have their intact male contained at all. when Amber was going into her first heat i had to guard her 24/7. we kept her inside the house and we had an outdoor dog kennel(landlord wouldnt let us fence our yard in) but no sooner did i put her in the kennel so i could go feed my horses than the our neighbours cocker spaniel tried digging her out. when i tried to get him by the collar to take him home he turned around and tried to bite me! i got the water hose after that and complained loudly to the landlord. he solved the problem for me because the cocker belonged to his son. they kept him locked up after that. but other people arent so lucky. my aunt told me about a friend of hers who had a dog jump through her window to get into their house because of their female dog inside.

i'm not for or against spay and neuter. i mostly just think about MY dogs and how i want to care for them. and if someone asks me my opinion on theirs then i'll willingly give it.... mostly i think its something people need to seriously think about and ask themselves why they dont want to get their dog spayed. if its adopted from a shelter then chances are its already been spayed and there are no questions to ask.

but there are people who will follow advice blindly. one of my cousins is just that way and she has been dealt so much conflicting information that she just decided to give up on owning any dog ever again. her sister is the "dog expert/breeder" and gets upset any time you mention neutering. but i'm an advocate for breeding for a purpose(besides "oooo wook at da cute widdle puppies!";)

the other thing is people will say "its so expensive to get them spayed!" ... well it is! but in my area its only expensive if its a walk in.... if you get the dog from a shelter(as opposed from an ad in the paper) then you pay about $50 or $15(if the dog has been there too long) for the adoption fee and the dog is already fixed, wormed, vaccinated etc.. but at one vet's office if you bring in your own dog to have it spayed you're looking at about $200... or more in some places.  and they will charge you for vaccinating and worming even if you dont want that done! they dont ask. they just do it anyway and then tack it onto the cost of the surgery.

DumDog

spaying vs dealing with the mess though.... thats personal preference and a personal decision.

As it is, dogs are property, so pretty much nything you want to do to them is a personal preference and completely allowed, within reason.  But I will NEVER condone spaying purely because an owner doesn't want to deal with the blood... not when there are products available to deal with that which don't require major, invasive abdominal suregry, with general anaesthetic and all the associated risks.

Now, for a bitch who is having difficult phantom pregnancies, or for someone being continually harassed by intact and determined males - then i think spaying is an option, when any other available options have been exhausted first. 

stormyknight

The altering is subsidized (even free) and does not affect the way the owner lives their life/takes care of their dog. T&C does. Not that strange.

Just a note here - our intact bitch is actually DH's dog, and my own feelings on the matter aside, he strongly resisted the idea of spaying when we first got her.  The rescue wanted it done and offered vouchers for us to get it done heavily subsidised.  DH made all the right noises and once out of earshot, said to me that it wasn't up to them what he did with his dog.  If they hadn't rammed it down his throat so much it's possible he wouldn't have been so against the idea.  To his mind, even if he wanted to breed a litter from her, that is his choice, and people resent being told what not to do.  While i understand fully why shelters are desperate to reduce the numbers coming in their doors with s/n, and feel it is their responsibility to see any dog being re-homed is altered asap, i also understand the resistance to their interference, and how it fosters resentment.

On the other hand, he had no problem with securing the garden, keeping her on a lead when necessary, supervising her (although he isn't so good at that imo, maybe it's a guy thing) and training her so that she is under control.... because a dog who is NOT trained and contained directly impacts the surrounding neighbourhood in a negative way, so it's expected that we be asked to do those things, out of consideration for others even if not in respect of the law.

DumDog

i'm not arguing but i have heard of a few cases where debarking left the dog in quite a bit of pain and caused breathing problems. i cant remember where i saw that article but it was pretty sad. here is one i found just now http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/Webzine/0201/debarking.html

it sounds just as invasive and just as risky. its even banned in one state.

 From first hand experience, I can tell you spaying is much more invasive and has a lot more long term health effects. If debarking is properly done and proper after care is given, it has little to no effect on the dog even within just a couple hours after the surgery. I have not debarked any dogs but have been around quite a lot of debarked dogs, have seen multiple debarked dogs within hours of their surgery and was responsible after care on one. Dogs can eat and drink within hours of the surgery - the one I did aftercare on was eating RMBs a day or two afterwards. Unlike a spay there are no incisions to heal, no layers of skin/muscle/tissue to to heal, no removal of organs or hormones and very little chance of any kind of infection. I'm not saying debarking is great - like altering or cropping it is an elective surgery and there is always a risk with surgery. I just find it ironic that because of what is considered PC, most people feel debarking is "cruel" (even to the point where some call for it to support it to be outlawed) while at the same time pushing for S/N as being "in your dog's best interest" (even to the point where some call for it to be illegal not to have animals altered).

DumDog

spaying vs dealing with the mess though.... thats personal preference and a personal decision.

 When I was young, my family only ever had males for this reason.

DumDog

 add to it that when you have that intact female safely contained someone else DOESNT have their intact male contained at all. when Amber was going into her first heat i had to guard her 24/7. we kept her inside the house and we had an outdoor dog kennel(landlord wouldnt let us fence our yard in) but no sooner did i put her in the kennel so i could go feed my horses than the our neighbours cocker spaniel tried digging her out. when i tried to get him by the collar to take him home he turned around and tried to bite me! i got the water hose after that and complained loudly to the landlord. he solved the problem for me because the cocker belonged to his son. they kept him locked up after that. but other people arent so lucky. my aunt told me about a friend of hers who had a dog jump through her window to get into their house because of their female dog inside.

 In the 12+ years I have had intact girls, I have never had any of those issues (and don't personally know anyone who has). I've not had boys hanging around our house looking for the girl, trying to get into the yard or house and my boys have not busted through crates and doors to get to them either. The occasional male dog will wander by and sniff the fence line but my barking dogs quickly discourage them from sticking around. While I'm sure some such stories are true (know of a neighbor dog who did dig under a fence to get a dog int he next yard for example), I suspect some are also cover-ups for people who were lapse in their management, had an accidental litter and didn't want people to think they were being irrepsonsible (know of several cases where the story changed on how a breeding happened depsite everyone's best effort). 

 Paintball guns are quite effective on the neighbors' dogs, I've found. Bean had a persistant (enormous, bulldoggy) suitor, when she was in season, last time. It only took missing him, twice, to scare him away. I keep girls in season on a leash, regardless of fencing. Chain link is a JOKE when it comes to keeping dogs apart for reproductive purposes.