Thoughts on Spaying
-
So some good ones.
this study concentrates on dogs here and the spay/neuter life expectancy issue, including the belief here in the US by many that neutering causes more cancer. The study brings up that increase in cancer may be nothing more than the fact they actually live longer, not less.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0061082
We found that sterilization significantly affected survival in both males ( = 446, P<10−6) and females ( = 1372, P<10−6) (Figure 1A). Sterilization increased life expectancy by 13.8% in males and 26.3% in females among the FC dogs.
It's a really interesting article.
" http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna -
Interesting articles on neutering and behavior. (some same material but I found the vet's comments worth reading)
-
Dr Laura, a long time friend, wrote me long ago about the need for waiting a couple of cycles with bitches who were very aggressive as pups.
Since dogs' ovaries are inactive much of the year, they generally show less detriment from lack of estrogen than people, who have constantly cycling ovaries. The only research I have seen, and I haven't seen original papers, just what is quoted from Dr. Karen Overall, is that female dogs who are dominant aggressive before they go into heat may show some reduction, or at least less progression, by going through one or two heat cycles. The current theory is that these super-dominant females were androgenized by contact with the hormones of a male pup during gestation; on rare occasions when their placentas develop some communication. those with retained ovaries will have no protection from breast cancer, will continue to cycle and create an attractive nuisance with male dogs, and are at risk for a stump pyo on the bit of remaining uterus near the cervix. The only benefit in that case would be pregnancy prevention. And, every dog I spayed who was aggressive during the heat only went to their normally sweet diestrus selves.
-
replied to DebraDownSouth on last edited by GigiThis post is deleted!
-
replied to DebraDownSouth on last edited by GigiThis post is deleted!
-
replied to DebraDownSouth on last edited by GigiThis post is deleted!
-
replied to Gigi on last edited by DebraDownSouth
@Gigi
Almost nothing in your post that I agree with. You hit a really hot button. Pseudoscience.The "research flips" is the excuse anti-vaccers and other antiscience people use. Logic and intelligence says you go with the best info you have. If it changes, it changes. As for trusting studies...I always find it hysterical that the same people who slavishly follow quacks like Mercola and the latest pusher of some worthless product..NO research at all...just testimonials...complain you can't trust research. Of course, reputable publishers require researchers to state any connections. Of course they can still lie..but peer reviewed research still is the best we have.
And no, quackery rarely comes to be validated. A few home remedies are based on solid science. But most of the "natural" miracles have been tested and proven no better than placebos. A frighteningly large amount are actually dangerous for some. Trust me, if someone could do research and prove their product worked, they would.
I'm not bashing all natural medicine...again...much has been, gasp, researched and shown to be beneficial.
I can't even fathom a comment like Big Pharm kills more than diseases. Dear spirits...cannot get much less illogical. A drug may help or save the lives of a million people, but get pulled if even a handful die. Are pharmaceutical companies corrupt? Yeah, just like those selling quackery. Yeah there are cases of them knowing a drug is dangerous but figuring out profit vs law suits they go ahead. But even then you're talking about a few deaths per million. Antibiotics side effects kill people too but saves so many thousands of times more, who would say they kill more than help?
Okay one comment on being cautious we agree on.
Ignorance is only bliss if you really couldn't do better.
And the one litter thing has been so proven to be nonsense..I'll just say one fact...the one-time-breeders were once accountable for nearly 70 percent of AKC registered dogs. A bitch doesn't need to have a litter, period. If your bitch is of value to the breeding pool, that is the one and only reason to breed.
Now I will take my cranky self off the internet for the night. People who come here, could get guidance, have the intelligence to research, but put money in the pocket of a puppymill/irresponsible breeder because their wanting it now is the only important thing. People with a male looking for a breeding pair and totally dismissive of responsible breeders, and someone touting silly stuff is beyond my ability to treat nicely.
Have a good day, Gigi. Stick with the good knowledgeable responsible breeders here. They won't lead you wrong. The easy way is rarely right.
Oh and Dr Laura is a vet. Can't image why you would think dreadful Laura Schlesinger would be giving dog ..oh wait, she never let credentials stop her before. Oh yeah time to sign off.
Your other posts...it's an area even experts agree they don't have the bottom line for. Trust your gut. You obviously love your dog, just trust yourself.
-
replied to DebraDownSouth on last edited by GigiThis post is deleted!
