Neuter/spay - Why? Why not?

pudel

Chuffy

it does not matter how much we try to control the birth of unwanted puppies... it's the level of commitment owners have toward their dog which is the REAL problem, a by-product of our convenience-hungry, throw-away society.

So you are saying that it is more realistic to change our convenience-hungry, throw away society, than to ask the public to neuter their pets?  Do you think that maybe the reason our society has that mindset is because of the instant gratification that is available- in this case- the availability of puppies on a whim?

 

I didn't say it was realistic.  I said it would be more effective.

Besides which, the "neuter!" campaign would have seemed rather unrealistic 30 years ago!  Now, you get looked at askance if you DON'T neuter, in many areas, 

Whether it is "realistic" or not is really beside the point.  If it's what needs doing, then it's what needs doing.  You got to start somewhere.

ron2

I understand the operations are similar but I do not identify Shadow's testicles as my own. His were removed and I still have mine and I separate the two, so to speak.

I didn't say the dog's testicles had the same value as the humans ones. 

Using the condom every time does not guarantee it will work.  They can and do break.  Using a condom is also completely non invasive and non surgical.  Also, one individual would only need to be castrated once in their lifetime, whereas a condom has to be used every time a "breeding" takes place.  So I didn't think the analogy was an accurate one. 

ron2

So, I'm saying that a good person with attention to detail and a set procedure can sometimes, through no fault of their own, wind up with a pregnant dam. It happens. Unless the dogs are speutered when possible. Then, they don't have litters.

This is true, but it's still not a reason to blanket-neuter IMO.... just because it will prevent a FEW unwanted litters.  Those FEW litters are not the problem.  The masses of puppies churned out by mills and people who want a miracle for the kids, THEY are the problem.  And the tendency people have to give up the dog when he becomes "too much work".

Liesje

JackieG

Liesje, if you read this, do you still think you are an average pet owner? 

 

With regard to my ability to contain my dogs, yes.  I live in the city in a small rental unit.  I do not have a fenced yard and could not afford to fence my yard even if I owned the place.  So I do not have a 6' privacy fence or an elaborate kennel/run.  One of my dogs has escaped on several occasions and if given the opportunity, he will take off (FWIW, he's neutered).  I face the same challenges containing my dogs as my lower-income neighbors on either side (an intact male pit bull in each of the units to the north and an aggressive large GSP in the house to the south).  I contain my dogs exactly the same way the neighbors in my old really bad neighborhood (think crack houses and gang wars) did - tie outs, leashes, or off lead.  I use "regular" collars and "regular" leashes, not expensive e-collars or devices commonly used by more experienced, dog savvy owners.

What seperates you from these other owners is.... commitment to the dogs?

Since we are being subjective, I would like to point out that I've yet to see a condom break and fail. I've read about it and in some cases, the failure was intentional. More often, the failure was due to not having one at the time or not wanting to use it.

Chuffy

just because it will prevent a FEW unwanted litters

A few unwanted litters can balloon. Now, you have these unwanted litters. And the practice, in the shelter will be to have them speutered, at whatever cost that is. Because the original owners had a failure in their containment procedure, even if it was a good one. Things happen.

Chuffy

The masses of puppies churned out by mills and people who want a miracle for the kids, THEY are the problem

Which could be solved if they neutered and spayed. Themselves and the dogs. Not neutering won't solve the puppy mill problem. Getting people to not purchase from millers would help. Getting people to spay and neuter non-breeding pets would help. That way, the only intact animals left are those in the hands of the breeders. Also, blanket neutering or neutering as a standard practice prevents more than a few unwanted litters. With an average litter of 5, that's approx 125 dogs that won't be born to land in a shelter. And that's just from just the one original litter. Some dogs are more prolific. Multiply that by 10, that's 1,250 dogs, not including the litters they can produce.

ron2

Since we are being subjective, I would like to point out that I've yet to see a condom break and fail. I've read about it and in some cases, the failure was intentional. More often, the failure was due to not having one at the time or not wanting to use it.

I have had a condom spilt TWICE and got the morning after pill in both cases, just to be sure.  After that I kept a pound coin between my knees until I could get to my doctor and get the pill.

ron2

A few unwanted litters can balloon. Now, you have these unwanted litters. And the practice, in the shelter will be to have them speutered, at whatever cost that is. Because the original owners had a failure in their containment procedure, even if it was a good one. Things happen.

True, but if and when they look to be the main source of the problem I will change my tune.

ron2

Chuffy

The masses of puppies churned out by mills and people who want a miracle for the kids, THEY are the problem

Which could be solved if they neutered and spayed.

But until we change the public attitude, that won't happen anyway.  Hence I think that's what we shuld be working on.  The people who are receptive to teh speuter message have GOT it now (whether or not we actually think that will help or solve the population issue).  Let's move on.

Chuffy

 

Liesje

JackieG

Liesje, if you read this, do you still think you are an average pet owner? 

 

With regard to my ability to contain my dogs, yes.  I live in the city in a small rental unit.  I do not have a fenced yard and could not afford to fence my yard even if I owned the place.  So I do not have a 6' privacy fence or an elaborate kennel/run.  One of my dogs has escaped on several occasions and if given the opportunity, he will take off (FWIW, he's neutered).  I face the same challenges containing my dogs as my lower-income neighbors on either side (an intact male pit bull in each of the units to the north and an aggressive large GSP in the house to the south).  I contain my dogs exactly the same way the neighbors in my old really bad neighborhood (think crack houses and gang wars) did - tie outs, leashes, or off lead.  I use "regular" collars and "regular" leashes, not expensive e-collars or devices commonly used by more experienced, dog savvy owners.

What seperates you from these other owners is.... commitment to the dogs?

Honestly....I don't know.  I don't really see the destinction.  I know there are people who chain their dogs 24/7 or allow them to run at large but I consider both of those neglect and not representative of "normal" dog owners.  I guess despite the overpopulation problem (which I am still hesistant to attribute to intact companion dogs owned by "normal" people), I really do believe that MOST dog owners in this country love their dogs and want the best for their dogs, though at times they are somewhat ignorant but maybe not so much that it effects the dogs' quality of life.  Yes, I train, show, and compete with my dogs but I don't think that puts me in a different category simply because if I did not do these things, I would STILL own dogs for companionship, just like my neighbors and family who don't do any formal training with their dogs.  My purpose for owning dogs and my means of containment are no different than anyone else.

Liesje

Honestly....I don't know.  I don't really see the destinction.  I know there are people who chain their dogs 24/7 or allow them to run at large but I consider both of those neglect and not representative of "normal" dog owners.  I guess despite the overpopulation problem (which I am still hesistant to attribute to intact companion dogs owned by "normal" people), I really do believe that MOST dog owners in this country love their dogs and want the best for their dogs, though at times they are somewhat ignorant but maybe not so much that it effects the dogs' quality of life.  Yes, I train, show, and compete with my dogs but I don't think that puts me in a different category simply because if I did not do these things, I would STILL own dogs for companionship, just like my neighbors and family who don't do any formal training with their dogs.  My purpose for owning dogs and my means of containment are no different than anyone else.

I guess you just don't believe the type of dog owner that I see daily exists.  Lucky you.

JackieG

I guess you just don't believe the type of dog owner that I see daily exists.  Lucky you.

No need to get snarky.  I volunteer in rescue and worked in a shelter before I got Nikon.  You don't know what I do or don't believe, or what I have seen or have not seen.  Obviously in these situations we see the worst of the worst, but the majority of dogs in US are not *in* rescues or shelters. I have no problems with rescues and shelters doing mandatory alterations, this is how 5 of my 6 animals were altered before I adopted them.  I'm talking about people owning pets (not dogs that have already been abandoned) - how altering or not affects how they raise or contain their pets.

Yes, I resent that I should be judged or constantly have to be justifying MY decisions about how my animals are contained and whether or not they are sterilized based on other people's actions.

I never judged you or even implied that YOU don't have every right to keep your dogs intact or not depending on your situation.  My point is and always has been that YOU are not the average dog owner.  No one on this forum is the type of person I described.  But these types of people are common in my area.  As you pointed out in your first response, income level has nothing to do with the ability to be a responsible pet owner.  A person doesn't have to take the dog to class or feed it the most expensive food on the planet or provide a $5,000.00 dollar fence to contain it. What is required is the belief that your dog is your responsiblity to contain, provide basic Vet care, provide basic training to make it a safe member of the family and the neighborhood and prevent litters that have no hope of a good home and that is what many,many people just don't do.

And yes you are right the majority of dogs in my area are not in shelters or rescues because there is no room for more.  They roam the streets until they die of disease or get hit by cars.  Not stray dogs but pets. 

Why do I get called snarky when I have read some posts that are down right mean and personally insulting?  Guess I am too new to be allowed to get caught up in the drama of the discussion. 

JackieG

Why do I get called snarky when I have read some posts that are down right mean and personally insulting?  Guess I am too new to be allowed to get caught up in the drama of the discussion. 

That's not true, members old and new should be civil, and if you see a post that is not, please report it via the link at the bottom.  We can't be everywhere or catch every comment.  Please contact me privately if you (or anyone reading) have any questions on this.

And a request/reminder to ALL to be civil and respectful of each other's opinions, in this thread and all others.  Thanks.

JackieG

What is required is the belief that your dog is your responsiblity to contain, provide basic Vet care, provide basic training to make it a safe member of the family and the neighborhood and prevent litters that have no hope of a good home

Right, so I believe that these people are/should be capable of containing their dogs and making decisions about whether or not to spay/neuter on an individual basis.  My point is that I don't think someone has to be an experienced breeder or someone showing/trialing dogs at high levels to be qualified to own an intact dog and keep it contained without sending puppies to the shelter.  I think a lot of pet owners are perfectly capable.

I guess maybe we disagree about how many people care for their dogs and how many don't?  I think we tend to see the worst of the worst and that sticks with us because we love dogs and can't imagine people treating their dogs that way.  It's hard for me to remember all the normal, healthy, well-socialized dogs I've met but I remember all the ones that were beaten, starved, tossed out of the car in a field......But I really don't believe that the majority of dogs owners in the USA are abusive and neglectful.  Too many are, and maybe a significant percentage are, but I don't think the majority are.  Maybe I'm too optimistic.....

ron2

Which could be solved if they neutered and spayed. Themselves and the dogs. Not neutering won't solve the puppy mill problem. Getting people to not purchase from millers would help. Getting people to spay and neuter non-breeding pets would help. That way, the only intact animals left are those in the hands of the breeders. Also, blanket neutering or neutering as a standard practice prevents more than a few unwanted litters. With an average litter of 5, that's approx 125 dogs that won't be born to land in a shelter. And that's just from just the one original litter. Some dogs are more prolific. Multiply that by 10, that's 1,250 dogs, not including the litters they can produce.

Ron,

Since I will not be breeding Selli, does that mean she should be spayed, even though that may significantly shorten her life?

GoldenAC

ron2

Which could be solved if they neutered and spayed. Themselves and the dogs. Not neutering won't solve the puppy mill problem. Getting people to not purchase from millers would help. Getting people to spay and neuter non-breeding pets would help. That way, the only intact animals left are those in the hands of the breeders. Also, blanket neutering or neutering as a standard practice prevents more than a few unwanted litters. With an average litter of 5, that's approx 125 dogs that won't be born to land in a shelter. And that's just from just the one original litter. Some dogs are more prolific. Multiply that by 10, that's 1,250 dogs, not including the litters they can produce.

 

Ron,

Since I will not be breeding Selli, does that mean she should be spayed, even though that may significantly shorten her life?

I know this was for Ron, but I think this is really interesting.

Neutering dogs and spaying bitches are 2 totally seperate issus IMO.  If she is properly contained where no male dogs can get to her when she is in heat - no problem.  If she escapes, or an accident somehow happens, there is a shot she can have to prevent the pregnancy going ahead.  If she (and you) cope with the heats OK, I see no reason to spay her.  It may change her temperament, her metabolism, energy level, coat quality and ability to control her bodily functions (although I think the latter tends to be EARLY spays, so would depend on her age), but in terms of preventing unwanted puppies, it only prevents a heat and therefore possible puppies, twice a year.  Males are physically capable of producing puppies any day of the week.

That said, for the neuter of males to be properly effective, it needs to be mandatory, which I disagree with. 

Plus, I am hearing about increased risk to the bitch to keep her entire, because the strain on her body to to go through the "cycles" (OR litters) is too high and therefore spaying increases their life span....  Sounds like my info is different from yours!

GoldenAC

Ron,

Since I will not be breeding Selli, does that mean she should be spayed, even though that may significantly shorten her life?

Prove that it's going to shorten her life. You post as if that is a foregone conclusion, nigh unto a fact. And I don't see such. I haven't seen actual studies, merely a few people, one of them a vet, mentioning studies. The closest thing I have seen to numbers I already linked in a study that showed that aggression may not be affected by neutering if it is a modal behavior, as opposed to a hormonal behavior.

If your dog was male and prone to jump the fence and find the bitch in heat he has been smelling, I would say that neutering would extend his life. Around here, dogs and coyotes get run over by cars or shot by ranchers in the middle of the night. Or lose a fight with a coyote or a wolf. Duke, Shadow's puppyhood friend met his fate with a coyote. I don't know if Duke was neutered, but it doesn't matter. Neuter or not neuter did not end his life. Improper containment and management did. However, if he was neutered, there is a 100% chance he didn't sire any litters.

You are also above average. Duke's owners were average, i.e., they didn't think much about and living near the lake like many others there, were not concerned when their dog was running loose. Seriously, at Willifa Woods on Lake Texoma, you have to brake for loose dogs, as in plural.

Liesje

Right, so I believe that these people are/should be capable of containing their dogs and making decisions about whether or not to spay/neuter on an individual basis.  My point is that I don't think someone has to be an experienced breeder or someone showing/trialing dogs at high levels to be qualified to own an intact dog and keep it contained without sending puppies to the shelter.  I think a lot of pet owners are perfectly capable.

Excellent point. Now, I'm going to be twerp and ask you to consider what you want. As you pointed out in another post, you have worked in a shelter. So, let's say that you are still working in a kill shelter. Mr. and Mrs. JQP walk in with JQP, Jr. and Sis and want to adopt a dog who is intact. He was brought to you that way and you saw no reason to neuter him. And these people are of the same mind as you. They already own another dog, a female, who is intact. How can you know that they can contain the pets properly? Most shelters do not have the time, procedure, money, or protocol, to check such things. What if they really promise to do good? What if they show you some pics of kennels or runs? And you are supposed to just assume the pics are from their house? What if they violate the contract? Just as one might violate the speuter clause of a breeder contract. "I don't care about the ethics. How hard is it to enforce the contract?" Let me go you one better. A person comes in to adopt an intact dog and he wears low slung pants and a Hilfiger Hoodie (high-style gangsta). Can you trust him to contain intact pets? What about someone with a 4 foot chain link fence? If you reject on that last one, you just rejected me. How are you going to keep the intact dogs when more are coming in because you can trust the general public will have the luck you've had. Although, didn't Coke escape once? That's not a judgement or an insult. Stuff just happens. Fortunately, he is neutered so there won't be any oops litters, even if he encountered someone else's intact female.