Why NOT neuter?

Yes, I was looking for a response - not from anyone in particular, but I genuinely wanted to know if there were any other reasons to neuter which I had missed. 
 
No I am not looking for a fight.  I'd genuinely like to urge people not to have the wool pulled over their eyes by professionals and think for themselves.  Some dogs/bitches can manage fine without the op, and some do need it.  I do think it's wrong to label people irresponsible who have chosen not to get their pet "done".  OK, so some of them are, by definition, they haven't even given it that much thought.  But some have simply decided it's not the right decision for their pet.
 
WRT my comment on people having their dog done for their own convenience, it goes both ways.  I can think of a few people that I know personally who didn't intend to have their bitches "done".  Welfare reasons?  Because they weighed up the pros and cons and made an informed decision?  No, because the op was too expensive.  One did change their mind though..... why?  Concern for their pets welfare?  The discovery that help was available for people who couldn't afford it?  No. She was (and I quote) "too messy".  I can't help feeling there was a fundamental "wrongness" to the decision making process there.
 
Some irresponsible owners shouldn't frankly own any dog at all, but since we can't stop them we can at least spread the word "DO NEUTER!!!" and hope they at least listen to that and don't contribute more to the unwanted dog population.  Having said that, it tends to be the caring and responsible people who listen to the advice on offer and get their pets done - the others don't.  Having worked in a shelter, kennels and vets', I think the vast majority of strays that came in were intact.  Clearly, the owner hadn't bothered to fix the fence, OR the dog and I suspect no amount of advice to the contrary will make a difference to people like that.
 
I do appreciate why people concerned about pyometra would spay their bitches - it's life threatening and upsetting and I've seen bitches almost die from it.  One did die.  OTOH, I have also seen dogs and cats almost die from having the spay operation - and some did die.  Anaesthetics get safer all the time and these days the risks are minimal, but they are still there. 

I am for neutering, unless one owns a showdog, or is used for breeding.
 
Can anyone guarantee that their dogs don't get out of their enclosed area, or break away from a leash?
Accidents happen all the time.
I rescue dogs, and I am sad that I can't put a bigger dent into the dog population that needs to be rescued.
 
 

Meilani,  good post!  I get my rescue posters from Kinkos on 95th and Cicero. Come meet Marvin and Newt at a dog showing at the Petsmart in Orland Hills on Jan 6th.  Volunteer to be handler.  I guarantee you will get muscled.
 
I guess I am a dilemma for this forum because I have neutered/spayed 8 of my dogs except Drizzle.  Although I feel it was special circumstances, keeping Drizzle natural has added to my dog knowledge and richened my experience in keeping an intact female in my house.  It has caused me to up my care, up my handling, up my safety, up my security, and take other precautions to continue to be a responsible owner.  In my opinion it is a 100% certainty that there will not be an accident resulting in a litter.  Plus the neutered dogs have benefited from the added protection and precautions.  Oh yeah, it is more expensive to keep an intact female.
 
Ron2, trust works both ways.  In order to come up with your conclusion you had to develop a trust in the written sources and the professional advice you received.  So if you think about it, trust is part of your reasoning.  If you#%92ve kept up with the circumstances of why Drizzle is not spayed, at which time would you have had her undergo the operation?  Given the facts that in order to get her I had to make a handshake deal with the breeder, my vet and other vets never discussed (lectured) with me the benefits of spaying Drizzle, a possibility that my vet may have other motives, and this past September Drizzle had surgery but spaying was not mentioned.  It is not fair to say NOW because Drizzle is a Great Dane and by standards near the end of her life.

In order to come up with your conclusion you had to develop a trust in the written sources and the professional advice you received

 
To me, it wasn't a matter of "trust" but a result of logical thinking and, to some extent, the experiences in my life. When my grandparents got Danny, they trusted they could handle him. He was just retired as a sire of a champion line of Apricot Poodles. He was a little to big for show but sired show-winning pups. Well, the first thing he did was sire a litter with my granparent's Black Poodle. After that, they learned their lesson and had the dogs spayed and neutered. The pups were given away. So, I did get to see, first hand, how JQP handles intact animals, i.e., not with the best of luck. And you are not JQP. You are, indeed, smart and conscientious. So, the things I learned from that and what I have read about the health care and ethical breeding can use that experience from my childhood as an example for spay and neuter. I gather you are smart enough to properly handle intact animals as would, say, a breeder that was competent. And, I could see where you are hesitant to have her undergo such a procedure late in life, as geriatric dogs can have problems with sedation. However, they can usually get around that with bloodwork to see what she will or will not do well on. Nor am I doubting your ability to care for your animals because you trusted your breeder and trusted your vets. FWIW, my vet never suggested neutering Shadow. IMHO, that's because we live in a rural county and he is used to dealing with ranchers and stockmen, for whom breeding is a source of income. He leaves that up to the owner. However, if we were down in Big D, I would imagine most vets would suggest neuter/spay unless the owner is a breeder or shower. And possibly, the only reason to not spay or neuter would be in the case of a geriatric dog for whom the surgery could be so traumatic as to be life-threatening and only necessary if the procedure would, indeed, save their life. If she were to get uterine cancer, would you than have the procedure done, especially if it gave her a few more years of life? Or would you go ahead and have her PTS, as the uterine cancer will spread and kill her, painfully?
 
Semantically speaking, I don't think my following the ethical breeding and husbandry practices we have assembled is on the same level as trust in a breeder who must keep intact dogs for his/her business. An ethical breeder should either spay/neuter the animal, prior to delivery or make it a condition of the purchase agreement that the ownwer will do so. That's where "trust" actually comes in. The breeder trusting that the owner will do the responsible thing. As for trust in science, I don't trust that an apple falls from the tree to the ground. I know it does. Trust would be the feeling that if I can move fast enough, I might be able to catch it before it hits, or move out of the way.[]

Misskiwi- Thank you! What a cute little lizard!

ORIGINAL: glenmar

Yes, it has changed now, and it's a little cutie!  THANK YOU so very much for changing it.  I fully realize how stupid my phobia can seem to some folks

I worked in a zoo for 4 years, and 3 of those years I held snakes for people to pet, helping them overcome their fears. I understand how fear of snakes develops, and I also understand how irrational it can be sometimes. You can't help that you're terrified, it just happens. Even after working at a zoo and owning snakes for years, snakes still get my heart rate elevated from time to time. Its instinct, something you don't always have control over, even when you're calm and rational. I have no problems changing my avatar to something more pleasant. I'd use a pic of my puppers if I could get a good photo of both of them, but I can never get both of them to look at me at the same time.

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

Just a heads up... I changed my avatar (hopefully). Let me know if it meets your approval.

i love your crested gecko =D

Thanks for your replies. I really didn't want that subject to turn into a big debate, but that's what forums are for, aren't they? I appreciate people's decisions -to- and -not to- neuter, I just wanted to hear what was the thinking process for those who decided against it.

Personally, I am against the surgery as a routine procedure. It could be true that overall benefits for neutering pets outweigh the risks, but I don't think this formula applies to *all* dogs in *all* environments with *all* owners. I am not a vet, but from the research I did, it seams like spaying females will likely be beneficial, but neutering males carries more risks. That's not the breakdown that I am advocating - males vs. females, it's also the environment and behaviors of your pets that I'd like to see owners consider before performing an operation.

I don't like people putting it as simple as: "Unneutered dog = irresponsible owner." Scandinavia has a very low rate of neutered/spayed dogs and their shelters are not overfilled with unwanted animals. (Japan has more guns but not nearly as much crime and gun related accidents as we do in the US.) There is a lot more going on here that we need to consider.

I think there are too many professionals today to whom we look up to (not just vets), who are motivated by other factors than our well being. They oversimplify things, they inadvertently promote the 'Why think, here are the answers' attitude.

I won't judge any pet owner on wether *their* reasoning was right or wrong.

ORIGINAL: TinaK

I don't like people putting it as simple as: "Unneutered dog = irresponsible owner." Scandinavia has a very low rate of neutered/spayed dogs and their shelters are not overfilled with unwanted animals. (Japan has more guns but not nearly as much crime and gun related accidents as we do in the US.) There is a lot more going on here that we need to consider.

I would summarize the above quote with the following: In general, Americans are too stupid or lazy to take responsibiltiy for their animals. There are lots of people out there who are capable of keeping an intact dog healthy and happy without screwing up, but 95% of them are not capable. If I walk down the street and see 5 intact male dogs, I'd be willing to bet that 4 of them haven't seen a veterinarian in the past year, and 3 of them have behavior problems.

Spend a day in the vets office... 8 out of 10 hit by car dogs and cats are intact males. Maybe I should start keeping records so I can have good numbers to back up my personal observations.

In general (ie, with exceptions) an owner with an intact animal IS an irresponsible owner, because 99% of the time they didn't make the decision by being educated and doing what they thought was right for their pet, they made the decision out of laziness, or just failed to make a decision at all because they didn't care.

ORIGINAL: ron2

When my grandparents got Danny, they trusted they could handle him. He was just retired as a sire of a champion line of Apricot Poodles. He was a little to big for show but sired show-winning pups. Well, the first thing he did was sire a litter with my granparent's Black Poodle. After that, they learned their lesson and had the dogs spayed and neutered. The pups were given away. 

 
poodles don't have to be bred to like colors do they?
 
*says the person without a poodle*

ORIGINAL: TinaK

I don't like people putting it as simple as: "Unneutered dog = irresponsible owner." Scandinavia has a very low rate of neutered/spayed dogs and their shelters are not overfilled with unwanted animals. (Japan has more guns but not nearly as much crime and gun related accidents as we do in the US.) There is a lot more going on here that we need to consider.

ORIGINAL: Misskiwi67

I would summarize the above quote with the following: In general, Americans are too stupid or lazy to take responsibiltiy for their animals.

Wow, that's quiet a "summary"!

I won't even go into that.

ORIGINAL: DPU

ORIGINAL: papillon806

Actually there are many studies showing this...it is a known fact.  (I'm glad you brought that up []).  Hormones (like estrogen and testosterone) cause closure of the growth plates.  Without these hormones (neutering/spaying) before the animal is done growing, causes continual expanding of the growth plates (thus causing the dog to grow larger).  In most cases this isn't a big issue (just means if you have a small breed dog and neuter/spay it very early, it may just be larger than it is "supposed" to be).  However, it can become an issue in large/giant breeds if the continual expansion of the growth plates lead to uneven growth between the ligaments, bones, and tendons. 

So I was bamboozled by my vet when she spayed Blizzard at such a young age.  I am going to check how old she was at the time but I recall it was right after her last visit for ear cropping, 3 months.  Blizzard and Drizzle are from the same litter.  As I stated before Blizzard is bigger both boned and weight by 50 lbs compared to Drizzle.  They are both 8 yo and within the last few months Blizzard back legs are growing weak.  She is now on pain medicine.  Geeze, I hate to think my vet was actually experimenting with these 2 dogs.  Spaying one, not bringing up spaying the other and then see what happens 8 years later. This is so upsetting and I did not make the connection until this thread.

First of all, you bear the ultimate responsibility for whether either of your dogs was spayed, not the vet.  Vets are not usually in the habit of "experimenting" in that way, and I think you are a bit off base, hopefully.  But, even if your argument about hormones and growth plates is accurate, that isn't a reason to keep a bitch intact until she's three years old, or to leave her intact for the rest of her life.  I wish I could spay my Yorkie, and would do so immediately if I thought she would survive it  - she's an anesthesia risk, but I also worry about her getting pyometra, although hopefully, at her age, if it hasn't happened, it won't. 
You say we are off topic, but IMO when someone asks if there are reasons NOT to spay/neuter, I have no problem telling them that there aren't, for most dogs, and highlighting the situations in which I think it is ok.

As to why Chuffy and papillon were not attacked, probably the same reason you were not attacked - we are discussing the topic of spay/neuter, pro and con.  If someone is trying to "provoke" a response from you, you don't have to answer. Or, you can continue the discussion. That is always up to you unless the moderators say we've slipped over the edge.

Ron, thanks for letting me know who really belongs to the sisterhood.  I have always wanted to know that.
[sm=rotfl.gif]

Misskiwi67

I would summarize the above quote with the following: In general, Americans are too stupid or lazy to take responsibiltiy for their animals.

 
  That is an immature and ignorant response. 

ORIGINAL: dogslife

Misskiwi67

I would summarize the above quote with the following: In general, Americans are too stupid or lazy to take responsibiltiy for their animals.

That is an immature and ignorant response. 

Whoa... looks like I offended some people. Don't take it personally. The pure fact that you're here discussing these things puts you far above the average dog owner. If you consider yourself an "average" dog owner... then you need to open your eyes to the real reasons we have problems with BYB's, puppy mills, overfilled humane societies and animal abuse.

  Kiwi, the only fact there is that you surmise without facts.   If we state that a whole group of people is this or that you are going to find yourself in a situation where you may have to be a little more articulate.