Pro or contra neutering?

ORIGINAL: glenmar

Sorry, I missed that one.  The dogs that we bred WERE quality dogs.  And the pups that I placed on spay/nueter contracts were PET quality...those that would NOT make the cut in the showring.  And, we did absolutely everything RIGHT....nope I didn't show....hate the politics and butt kissing in showing, but I had absolute confirmation of the quality of my dogs from outside sources.....other breeders and a couple AKC judges who we got to know.  All the health testing, etc, we DID do.

 
I´m sure that you ARE one responsible breeder AND dog owner, no doubt that you really care for your doggies. But you gave your puppies away with a neuter contract. Why do you think the new owners would not do the same and be good breeders? Doing everything necessary like all the tests and stuff to avoid health problems...

Uh oh, and Glenda, I don`t think responsible breeding is bad.
I think people who haven`t ever had a dog should start with a puppy from a good breeder who socialized them properly and giving them a good start.
 

Because by breeding THOSE pups they would not have been doing a single thing to improve the breed.  These were PET quality pups.  And no one should be breeding unless it is to improve the breed.

So, the parents of those pups were not PET quality and then the pups were? That would mean you mated them to have PET quality pups? And then that doesn`t improve the breed, it improves your pups, but not the whole breed.
To stay at that level, for the breed not for single persons,  it would be necessary to breed with exactly and only ET quality pups.

No, my dogs were SHOW quality.  And although I did NOT show, again, I had outside confirmation from people who KNEW that they were in fact SHOW quality.  In any litter you will have some pups that are "only" pet quality.  Maybe they are a color that isn't quite right, or even a marking that is off a bit, or an ear set just a fraction of an inch too low or the vet cut the tail just a smidgen WRONG and they are then pet quality.  Nothing wrong with these pups other than that they just don't look "right" for the showring.  But by not allowing those less than PERFECT pups to reproduce, yes, you do improve the breed.  Because this way only the very best of the very best are ever bred.

Ahh, I got it completely wrong, now I understand!!!!! []
 
Okay, that´s what I can accept in a certain way.

Maybe I need to take an English course or two...sometimes I have trouble explaining what it is I mean!  Sorry for the confusion!

How is it a myth that male dogs have higher rates of health risks if they're unaltered? I've *known* dogs who died of testicular cancer. Callie had a dog who had to have a perianal hernia repaired,  and she says it never was quite "right". Early neutering prevents perianal tumors. Prostate problems are also *greatly* reduced in altered boys.

With your girl, going through heats over and over and never having puppies, she runs a high risk of a possibly fatal uterine infection. I'm 22 years old. I've never had children. Even if I *do* have children, I will likely end up "spayed" some time in the next couple of decades. I see a doctor, every year, to check my reproductive organs. Dogs don't have those doctors. They aren't checked for cancers and infections yearly. They can't tell you that this cycle hurt much worse than the others. Having reproductive organs, without a voice, is a risky thing.

Any animal in my house will always be spayed or neutered, and my convenience doesn't even enter the picture.  The millions of dogs being euthanized in shelters month after month would be reason enough.

Joyce & Max

Jennie, I never said that it is a myth that unaltered male dogs can have testicular cancer, please read my words right. I said, it is a myth that intact males would develope serious health problems because they cannot "relieve" themselves.
And I`ve also said that surely they can develope cancer in organs which are still there. I perfectly understand that when there`s nothing, you can`t get cancer there.
 
And it is a myth that a female dog needs to have at least one litter if intact to stay healthy, Either she will stay healthy or not but having puppies won`t make chances better or worse.
 
This sounds too much like "it`s too dangerous to walk across the street, you could get hit by a car and die so don`t go out there!" I do take care of my dog and we let her check at the vet each year and still she can develope a serious disease. But it can be cancer or SOMETHING ELSE. And for those who are afraid to get hit by a car, I would say "watch out when you crossthe street".
 
Dogs lack hormones when they get neutered. This can be good but it can also be bad. Let me say it again: I´m not against neutering at all but I´m against nuetering without a medical indication or because to prevent behaviour problems before they have occured.
I know some dogs, male or female, can develope such problems in behaviour, overreaching sexual instinct that turns out to aggressivity or females that "seem" to be pregnant after each heat (what?s the word for it? it´s not in the dictionary), when they pretend to be pregnant but are not.
But this is always a decision for each case, not in general.
 
And spaying is different than neutering ( is that correct?). When you get your dog spayed the organs are not removed, but pregnancy is not possible. Neutering is when you remove the organs also (? correct?). That`s would be enough to handle overpopulation cause then they would still have their hormones.
 
In Germany neutering isn`t even allowed without medical indication, it`s in the animal protection laws. No surgery is allowed without medical indication.
 

Glenda,
no problem, finally dissolved this little communication mess []

Here spay is the female surgery and this involves removing all the reproductive organs.  Nueter is the male surgery in which the scrotom is opened and the testicals surgically removed.

the organs are removed in a spay as well.  and even human women have a higher chance of certain cancers if they dont have at least one child.

Ah, thanks for the definition!
 
But when you say even women have higher chances of certain cancers this is not the right reason to have a child??!!
And sorry if I´m going too far, but chances of developing breast cancer is certainly higher when you have them. Still no reason to remove them.

of course not.  and as stated previously, the MAIN reason for spay and neuter is because of the pet population.  you may not think thats a valid reason but i still do.