Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > The Breeding Ground


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 04-29-2013, 07:37 PM
sillysally's Avatar
sillysally sillysally is offline
Obey the Toad.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: A hole in the bottom of the sea.
Posts: 4,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBanker View Post
I agree that 90% of the dog owning public needs their dogs altered; I think vasectomies and OSS are nice options for some people, but I also think that the majority of owners also don't need to be dealing with hormone related behaviors. Most people can't get their altered-young dogs under control.

Of course you can train around the hormones. People can and do and it is grand. Most people aren't going to put that much effort into training their dog. I enjoy training, and I still wanted to grab Gusto by the throat more than once when his hormones were kicking in.

People want to go to the dog park and stand around while their dogs play. They want to put their dog out in the yard and not worry about it while they cook dinner. They want to walk the dog off leash to the mailbox and not worry about it wandering off after the scent of a female in heat. And they don't want to work to make those things happen.

I agree that traditional spay/neuters are the ideal default for most owners. Those who are likely to research further into the other options are those who are most likely to be able to judge if they can handle those options. I don't support false information (on either side - if one more person tells me hormones don't affect behavior, I'm moving in with them for a particular 3 days of the month), but I also don't think encouraging average owners to leave their dogs intact is the answer.
This.

Alternative altering surgeries are expensive and not all that accessible in many areas. There are plenty of people who you can barely get to take their dogs to a low cost spay/neuter clinic, much less shell out hundreds on a vasectomy.
__________________

~Christina--Mom to:
Sally--8 yr old pit bull mix
Jack--6 yr old Labrador
Sadie & Runt--12 yr old calico DSHs
Pickles & Kiwi--3 yr old white winged parakeets
Yoda--1 yr old Quaker parrot
Solo--12 yr old Senegal parrot
Sheena--Quarter Horse--3/24/86-6/23/11--Rest Easy Sweet Girl~




Labs do it in the lake.


Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-29-2013, 07:40 PM
Linds's Avatar
Linds Linds is offline
Twin 2
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post
This.

Alternative altering surgeries are expensive and not all that accessible in many areas. There are plenty of people who you can barely get to take their dogs to a low cost spay/neuter clinic, much less shell out hundreds on a vasectomy.
Which is why I think most people here arguing for them (including me) are saying they should (and hopefully will one day) be more readily available as an alternative option or at least spoken about. I know a few years back I called around to multiple vets within an hour distance and got a lot of "Ummmm....we can neuter/spay them" with no idea about anything else.

And also the point being made is the price difference isn't a ton depending on the area.

ETA: No one that I've seen is saying all dogs should have these instead, just that it would be a good thing for them to be a viable, more easily accessible option given as an alternative to traditional spay/neuters. Not something people should be forced into getting instead of normal alters.
__________________

Last edited by Linds; 04-29-2013 at 07:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-30-2013, 06:00 PM
JacksonsMom's Avatar
JacksonsMom JacksonsMom is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBanker View Post
I agree that 90% of the dog owning public needs their dogs altered; I think vasectomies and OSS are nice options for some people, but I also think that the majority of owners also don't need to be dealing with hormone related behaviors. Most people can't get their altered-young dogs under control.

Of course you can train around the hormones. People can and do and it is grand. Most people aren't going to put that much effort into training their dog. I enjoy training, and I still wanted to grab Gusto by the throat more than once when his hormones were kicking in.

People want to go to the dog park and stand around while their dogs play. They want to put their dog out in the yard and not worry about it while they cook dinner. They want to walk the dog off leash to the mailbox and not worry about it wandering off after the scent of a female in heat. And they don't want to work to make those things happen.

I agree that traditional spay/neuters are the ideal default for most owners. Those who are likely to research further into the other options are those who are most likely to be able to judge if they can handle those options. I don't support false information (on either side - if one more person tells me hormones don't affect behavior, I'm moving in with them for a particular 3 days of the month), but I also don't think encouraging average owners to leave their dogs intact is the answer.
This. x1000.
__________________

Brit & Jackson


Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-30-2013, 06:02 PM
JacksonsMom's Avatar
JacksonsMom JacksonsMom is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanie View Post
I would like to see vasectomies and ovariectomies become more popular, but they aren't right now, and also they are rather expensive.

Some people freak out just at the normal price of a spay or neuter - that's why low cost spay/neuter programs exist.

I doubt they will ever become popular with the general public.
I think someone like my dad would laugh in my face if I told him I was getting a vasectomy for my dog. And I'm pretty sure 90% of the general public would do. That's why it hasn't become a 'normal' thing to do. I think it's great if you want it for your dog, but I just think encouraging them for the average joe won't fly very well, even if they are easily accessible and the same prices. I feel people just wouldn't see the point.

To be honest, I think it'd be a scary world if stuff starting coming out about 'dangerous' neutering/spaying CAN be. Because people would immediately latch on to that and use it as an excuse to not fix their animals. Maybe I sound cynical but really, I've seen dogs in the hands of ... well, idiots, LOL, and I think it'd be a dangerous combo. Spaying/neutering has become such a 'normal' thing when you get a puppy. It just is as natural as getting their puppy vaccines, etc, so most just do it. I just think most of the public is better off this way.
__________________

Brit & Jackson


Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-30-2013, 08:29 PM
Dogdragoness's Avatar
Dogdragoness Dogdragoness is offline
FINALLY warm ... YAY :D
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gillett/San Antonio TX
Posts: 3,419
Default

I still don't understand what is wrong with traditional spaying/neutering? It's not like it hurts the animal. People these days talk about it like its some kind of horrible act of cruelty.

It seems like to me that it would be far more cruel to be like "yeah you'll still have the urge to breed ... But you won't be able to do anything about it." To a dog.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-30-2013, 08:37 PM
SevenSins's Avatar
SevenSins SevenSins is offline
APBTs & One Crazy Banana
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogdragoness View Post
I still don't understand what is wrong with traditional spaying/neutering? It's not like it hurts the animal. People these days talk about it like its some kind of horrible act of cruelty.

It seems like to me that it would be far more cruel to be like "yeah you'll still have the urge to breed ... But you won't be able to do anything about it." To a dog.
I'm not anti-neuter, but traditional neuter has been shown to cause just as many health problems as it's been advertised to prevent for so long. Especially with early neuter and large or giant breeds. That's perfectly logical, you can't really expect to have NO side effects from removing natural hormones from an animal's body.

OSS bitches still have "seasons," minus the parts that involve the uterus itself, because their hormones are still intact. They can and will breed a male if given the opportunity, they just can't get pregnant.

Hell, my fully INTACT bitches go through seasons and aren't always bred, certainly not every cycle. That's not "cruel" either.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-30-2013, 08:43 PM
Linds's Avatar
Linds Linds is offline
Twin 2
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogdragoness View Post
I still don't understand what is wrong with traditional spaying/neutering? It's not like it hurts the animal. People these days talk about it like its some kind of horrible act of cruelty.

It seems like to me that it would be far more cruel to be like "yeah you'll still have the urge to breed ... But you won't be able to do anything about it." To a dog.
Nothing is "wrong" if it's what works best for you and your dog.

But, whether or not it hurts the animal is debatable. You are removing important hormones that effect your dogs health, body and behavior. So yeah, I personally do believe altering a dog, especially before maturity CAN hurt them. Might not, might be worth it, might not be. But it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

So if there is a way to minimize the health risk while still getting rid of the ability to reproduce? I think that it deserves some more attention.
__________________

Last edited by Linds; 04-30-2013 at 08:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-30-2013, 11:06 PM
Losech Losech is offline
Active Pup
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Southern Oregon
Posts: 19
Default

My neutered (at 2 1/2 months by the shelter) Shiba tries to hump every female in heat he comes across. He'll start bloody fights over her. He'll try to escape, bark, whine, and scream to get at her... He may not have balls anymore, but he sure thinks he does. How is that any less cruel than an intact male doing the same thing?
My Shiba has multiple health problems linked to (especially "early") neutering as well. Poor dude can't make up his mind.

I find it quite hilarious and sad that removing a dog's balls is not laughable and is socially acceptable, but a vasectomy is laughable and not socially acceptable.
I will not alter any of my future dogs unless it is 100% medically necessary and the only way to save their lives. If I've got a male I never want to breed, he'll get a vasectomy. A female I never want to breed, a tubal litigation.

Sure most people don't know squat about canine reproduction and containment, and a lot of people shouldn't have dogs in the first place.

If people still choose to alter their pets, that's their choice and it should be, just like leaving them intact should be. But this decision should be an informed one, not shoved in their faces as the "right" "responsible" or even "wrong" one.
I think proper and unbiased education is the answer to the problem.

But that's my opinion, and what do I know.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 05-01-2013, 12:45 AM
medusozoan's Avatar
medusozoan medusozoan is offline
Previously ravennr
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Losech View Post
I find it quite hilarious and sad that removing a dog's balls is not laughable and is socially acceptable, but a vasectomy is laughable and not socially acceptable.
I will not alter any of my future dogs unless it is 100% medically necessary and the only way to save their lives. If I've got a male I never want to breed, he'll get a vasectomy. A female I never want to breed, a tubal litigation.

Sure most people don't know squat about canine reproduction and containment, and a lot of people shouldn't have dogs in the first place.

If people still choose to alter their pets, that's their choice and it should be, just like leaving them intact should be. But this decision should be an informed one, not shoved in their faces as the "right" "responsible" or even "wrong" one.
I think proper and unbiased education is the answer to the problem.

But that's my opinion, and what do I know.
This is my opinion as well. In the past year or so, I've been doing a lot of research regarding spaying and neutering. I've got a lot of studies piled up that I've gone through, and I'm currently taking a theriogenology course to get some more education on the subject.

I can understand the need to speuter shelter dogs when they are young. Shelters don't have the time or resources, generally, to keep up with adopters to make sure they do this on their own. If a breeder ever told me my dog had to be altered prior to one year, I wouldn't buy one of their dogs, simple as that. I personally don't like females, and unless something happens where I end up with one (in which case I'll deal with it then), I know I will always choose a male first. As such, it has always been my decision that my male would not be neutered before a year, at least, if at all. The more I read into this through studies, the more I see that while spaying can be very beneficial to females, neutering is often holding more cons than pros when it comes to males. I consider myself a responsible owner, and I have never had an accident with my intact males in the past. I don't know if this is considered 'bragging' or something negative, but I do not consider myself to be an average person when it comes to my pets, especially dogs.

That being said, I do believe that the average, 'moderate dog owner' needs to alter their pets. While I wish we lived in a world where people were generally responsible enough to do this at a more reasonable age, I know that's just completely far-fetched, so we work with what we're given. I do think, though, that the information out there needs to change. I have never once seen a packet of information on spaying/neutering. Anything I have seen is a small little pamphlet doing nothing but showing euthanasia statistics and only the benefits of spaying/neutering (and often, those benefits are exaggerated). The AVMA has taken the stance that they fully support early spaying/neutering at just a couple of months old, despite studies, so of course that really doesn't help the situation of being educated. What are owners to do when the only information they're given is benefits and the organization that should be giving them unbiased information is in full support of early speutering without linking to all of the studies showing the adverse effects of such a procedure? It's certainly not surprising the flak a lot of us get for wanting to keep our pets intact.

A few of my friends are new dog owners. I invited them to join the course I'm taking on canine reproduction and reproductive health, which focuses on spaying and neutering. None of them have taken me up on the offer. It is a free online course that requires a very small amount of time each week, and you don't even have to keep up with it. It can be completed at your own pace. This shows another problem; many people just don't care. And you can't make people care.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 05-01-2013, 05:31 AM
BostonBanker's Avatar
BostonBanker BostonBanker is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Posts: 8,132
Default

Don't you still have the risk of pyo with a tubal ligation? I was under the impression that was why the OSS existed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site