Bob Barker is Winning!

[CanadianGolden]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Have not been on here in a while but figured I would comment on the topic.

I didnt see anyone say anything about developmental disorders (esp orthopedic) in dogs that have been spayed/neutered at an early age. There is a theory that altering large breed dogs to early affects the development of the tibial plateau and thus leads to increased chances of CrCL ruptures. I am not saying I am jumping on this ban wagon cause there is not enough data out there to back it up, but what if we discover down the road there is a link? What happens when 5-10 yrs down the road we see increased CrCL ruptures in dogs in S. CA? How will the govt respond when people start slapping lawsuits on them for requiring their pet to be altered at a young age and now it is linked to cruciate disease?

I think there is a pet overpopulation, but the solution may not be requirement but better yet education. Instead of having families go out and buy an expensive prue breed dog, go to the humane society and adopt one. Besides they usually have great personalities and less pathological problems down the road due to a vat of different genetic combinations.

Just my 2 cents 😀

There's quite a bit of info supporting joint problems and other orthopedic implications of S/N prior to adulthood. There is also info supporting increased risk of osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, and negative behavioral conditions in animals that are S/N early. I can post the sources if anyone is interested--they are all published in peer-reviewed journals.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I didnt see anyone say anything about developmental disorders (esp orthopedic) in dogs that have been spayed/neutered at an early age

Yes, yes, and yes!! - those were the l"arge/giant breed issues" I mentioned in my first post It's definitely becoming scientifically supported. I just glossed over it cause I was in a rush - but you are totally spot on.

Bakaduin, I'm more talking about puppy mills and the majority of BYBs who usually have three or more breeds they are selling, huge numbers of litters, etc. They will absolutely push to get licensed, because they want to keep making money. Not so much the occasional joe schmo

would doubt joe smo in his back yard with two unsterilized pets who constantly get it on with him selling the puppies will be included in that.

Of course not, but how would we legally define a good breeder? Who would decide whp is a good breeder, and could be exempted, and who was a bad breeder and could not? A panel? One person? The debating will be endless and no one will get anywhere, people will be suing because the feel they deserve intact dogs, blah blah blah....

If the difference is a license I doubt that some of the low quality backyard types will want to go through the trouble of time and money to get licensed and again wont fall under exemption

You bet they will - because selling those puppies for ridiculous prices, pumping out tons of litters and running their poor b-tches into the ground, makes them a ton of money. They'd looove a license - talk about a get out of jail free card for them.

It's just a completely unenforceable law that good breeders are going to obey and be stuck for in terms of $, puppy miller and volume BYBsers will profit from because they will get a sort of validation, and everyone else is going to ignore.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I personally want to know how it's going to be funded and enforced.

I'm not opposed to mandatory spay/neuter laws, but I fear that the government will then have the attitude of "we've passed the law, what more do you want?". The bottom line is that spay/neuter must be affordable and accessible. And it cannot focus on just pets - feral cats *must* be included in the equation, or else no effect will be seen on the cat population.

What I do support wholeheartedly is a law that mandates that no pet can be sold or transferred without being sterilized previously. Obviously this is going to be unenforceable at the level of individuals transferring ownership of an animal, but that's okay. What is important is that shelters, pet stores, breeders, rescue organization, etc. are not adopting/selling unaltered animals. It is well established that puppies and kittens can be safely sterilized at 8 weeks/2 pounds. Too young/small to be sterilized means too young/small to be adopted/sold.

 

[akitavet]

I will never sterilize a large breed dog before 18 months. The stress on the bones and structure is tremendous. I have two friends who own Rhodesian ridgebacks. One dog is the uncle to the other, so they are from the same lines. I show the younger dog whi is coming up on two years old next month. He's structurally beautiful. He's 25 inches tall with excellent front and rear angulation. His structure gives him strength and power and speed. His uncle was neutered at 6 months old. He is 29 inches tall (!!!!) which aside from making him 2 inches over standard, he's become stick straight in the front and rear giving him no means to cover ground at all. As a puppy, he had beautiful angulation. Early neuter has ruined his structure, performance ability, and even type. There was a study done several years ago about how the testosterone down-regulates the growth hormone in dogs and dogs that were not neutered grew appropriate length of bone while early neutered dogs grew much larger. Pair that with a poorly bred dog that may have orthopedic problems and you have a real mess on your hands.


Oh, additionally, just like BSL, this law hurts the law abiding citizens whild doing absolutely nothing to curb the people who dont obey the law. All you have to do is show and anyone with a dog with papers can enter a show, so guess what we will be seeing....hugely inflated entries by puppymillers just trying to exempt their dogs. Then they will claim to have show dogs and the public will have an even harder time determining which breeders are good and which are backyard.

 

[CanadianGolden]

akitavet--I have those studies if anyone wants me to post them. 🙂

In fact, really no reason to neuter a male at all...testicular cancer is a small risk and does not metastasize--if a dog gets it, he can be neutered then. Neutering has been shown to increase, rather than decrease, aggression. And nearly all behavioral problems supposedly associated with intact males (marking, roaming, humping) are actually training problems, not hormone problems. Neutered early, males actually exhibit more unwanted sexual behavior than intact males. With females, there is an increased risk of mammary cancer with each heat, so in that case I would say spaying at 24 months is reasonable. Waiting allows proper growth, reduces the risk of fear issues, and decreases the risk of osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma. The increased risk of mammary cancer is there, true, but far more dogs die of hemagiosarcoma than of mammary tumors.

 

[bakaduin]

Bakaduin, I'm more talking about puppy mills and the majority of BYBs who usually have three or more breeds they are selling, huge numbers of litters, etc. They will absolutely push to get licensed, because they want to keep making money. Not so much the occasional joe schmo

would doubt joe smo in his back yard with two unsterilized pets who constantly get it on with him selling the puppies will be included in that.

Of course not, but how would we legally define a good breeder? Who would decide whp is a good breeder, and could be exempted, and who was a bad breeder and could not? A panel? One person? The debating will be endless and no one will get anywhere, people will be suing because the feel they deserve intact dogs, blah blah blah....

Thats my point, you cant tell the difference between a good BY small time breeder and a bad one. But whether someones breeding to show their kids the gift of life, for fun, or because they are money hungry, really doesnt matter. They are all unnecessary. So certainly a few people who are being good breeders, and good to their animals, will be cut out by the law, but it will be worth it. There will be no debating because you dont have to distinguish between a good and bad breeder, thats the benefit of a blanket law. To note this doesnt include people who are breeding show animals because they will be exempt.

You bet they will - because selling those puppies for ridiculous prices, pumping out tons of litters and running their poor b-tches into the ground, makes them a ton of money. They'd looove a license - talk about a get out of jail free card for them.

Not the breeders in my area. The trashy backyard breeders who sell their puppies in classified ads are the ones getting 250-300 bucks for a puppy. Not the quality breeders you find with the 2000k puppies from show lines. They arent going to go through the trouble to get licensed for a that low amount of cash. So they will either break the law and hopefully get caught or certainly the more responsible ones will just stop.

It's just a completely unenforceable law that good breeders are going to obey and be stuck for in terms of $, puppy miller and volume BYBsers will profit from because they will get a sort of validation, and everyone else is going to ignore.

It is going to be hard to enforce because you certainly cant knock on every door but I think you underestimate the power of neighbors who certainly would call and report unsterilized animals, especially if they thought them to be a nuisance. You also have the possibility that someone else mentioned on this thread that any dogs that were lost and pulled in by animal control would have to be sterilized if you wanted the dog back. Then of course Im sure we all see animal control going around to check on abused animals and would find plenty of lawbreakers.

I think you have a skewed view on this law in the fact that you have an "all or nothing" policy.That is to say if the feeling I get from your last quote is that if the law isnt going to prevent all the types of overpopulation breeders like mills than their is no point in having it. This law isnt going to stop puppy mills or high volume BYBsers and thats ok, its just a start. But if it prevents even a few 1000 unwanted dogs from being born each year, which is well more than a feasible estimate, than it is a success. Any amount is a success because your preventing suffering.

 

[StealthDog]

The trashy backyard breeders who sell their puppies in classified ads are the ones getting 250-300 bucks for a puppy.

Right, but how much money is going back into the pups/dogs? GOOD breeders charge more money because it costs a lot to do health testing of the parents, getting championships, paying AKC registration fees, etc. Bad breeders pay for the food that it takes to keep the dam alive long enough to make puppies. The net profit on a $200 pup from a bad BYB is more than the net profit on someone who breeds quality purebreds and sells them for more money.

This law isnt going to stop puppy mills or high volume BYBsers and thats ok, its just a start.

That's not okay... since the millers selling to pet stores are the ones primarily responsible for bringing poorly-bred, unhealthy pups into the world and available for people to purchase. I'd rather take out large-volume breeders than the relatively low-impact BYBs/hobby breeders.

 

[nyanko]

In fact, really no reason to neuter a male at all...testicular cancer is a small risk and does not metastasize--if a dog gets it, he can be neutered then. Neutering has been shown to increase, rather than decrease, aggression. And nearly all behavioral problems supposedly associated with intact males (marking, roaming, humping) are actually training problems, not hormone problems. Neutered early, males actually exhibit more unwanted sexual behavior than intact males.

I think what you mean is "no health reasons" to neuter a male at all. The vast majority of pet owners cannot be trusted with an intact male dog. Which is the reason for laws like this in the first place. I'm no advocate for mandatory spay/neuter but a world where nobody neutered male dogs would not be good at all.

I also don't buy your behavioral arguments until I see a reputable study. Do you have a link to one? My (anecdotal) experience has not supported your arguments at all and you're making quite the claim that neutering increases aggression and that males exhibit more unwanted sexual behaviors when neutered than intact.

 

[bakaduin]

Right, but how much money is going back into the pups/dogs? GOOD breeders charge more money because it costs a lot to do health testing of the parents, getting championships, paying AKC registration fees, etc. Bad breeders pay for the food that it takes to keep the dam alive long enough to make puppies. The net profit on a $200 pup from a bad BYB is more than the net profit on someone who breeds quality purebreds and sells them for more money.



That's not okay... since the millers selling to pet stores are the ones primarily responsible for bringing poorly-bred, unhealthy pups into the world and available for people to purchase. I'd rather take out large-volume breeders than the relatively low-impact BYBs/hobby breeders.

Id rather take out large-volume puppy mills too. Trust me if I was a politician it would be the first thing I fought for, but thats not on the table here. The question isnt would you rather take out the large volume or small volume poor breeders. Its would you rather take out the small volume poor breeders or none at all. Its like if someone says "Hey, Ive got a 100 dollar bill and a 20 dollar bill. Ill give you the 20 or ill keep them both myself." You say I want the 100 or dont want any at all. Its always better to take whats offered for you to get your foot in the door and then fight for more, like a ban on puppy mills, but dont look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

[banditalfi]

In fact, really no reason to neuter a male at all...testicular cancer is a small risk and does not metastasize--if a dog gets it, he can be neutered then. Neutering has been shown to increase, rather than decrease, aggression. And nearly all behavioral problems supposedly associated with intact males (marking, roaming, humping) are actually training problems, not hormone problems. Neutered early, males actually exhibit more unwanted sexual behavior than intact males. With females, there is an increased risk of mammary cancer with each heat, so in that case I would say spaying at 24 months is reasonable. Waiting allows proper growth, reduces the risk of fear issues, and decreases the risk of osteosarcoma and hemangiosarcoma. The increased risk of mammary cancer is there, true, but far more dogs die of hemagiosarcoma than of mammary tumors.

While I agree with you on the health/behavioral benefits of neutering late/not neutering I disagree that there is no reason. An unneutered male could impregnante a TON of females over the course of a year. Of course, if we're talking about a house pet the odds are much more unlikely, but by the same token unfixed animals can't go to dog runs and other public areas (legally, I'm sure they can, but that just looks like babymaking waiting to happen).

On a side note: I don't think it's surprising that we're starting to see all these problems about neutering animals too early. If you did similar things to a human all sorts of developmental problems would occur. Does that mean I'm against fixing animals? Of course not. But by the same token I think a lot more information is going to come out over the next few years that will maybe change our opinion on the ideal time to neuter an animal.

 

[Starwrecker]

akitavet--I have those studies if anyone wants me to post them. 🙂

I would love to read those studies if you'll share them. 😀

 

[pupsforseeing]

I also don't buy your behavioral arguments until I see a reputable study. Do you have a link to one? My (anecdotal) experience has not supported your arguments at all and you're making quite the claim that neutering increases aggression and that males exhibit more unwanted sexual behaviors when neutered than intact.

Ditto. I'd really be interested if this is actually true, but I have a hard time believing it. Like Nyanko, I only have anecdotal experience on which to base these claims, but just from the dogs I've raised and been involved in raising, the ones who are neutered early are (generally speaking) *much* easier to handle come puberty age and you miss out on having to train out alot of the unwanted behavior associated with hormonal changes.

 

[SweeTeaPie]

if your pet is lost and turns up at the local shelter, you must get them altered in order to reclaim them. Thoughts?

Yeah, but how many people loose their animals and have to go to the shelter to reclaim them?

And think how mad you would be if you (as a responsible professional breeder) lost your top bitch who ended up at a shelter, and they had her spayed? I think that's an awful idea, actually.

If it's a stray; maybe. If it's owned; no way

 

[doubled1st10]

Sorry I must have missed it, the thread was getting to long to read it all.

 

[banditalfi]

Yeah, but how many people loose their animals and have to go to the shelter to reclaim them?

And think how mad you would be if you (as a responsible professional breeder) lost your top bitch who ended up at a shelter, and they had her spayed? I think that's an awful idea, actually.

If it's a stray; maybe. If it's owned; no way

There was actually a case in NYC when some guy was visiting his friend in Queens (I believe) from NJ. If I remember the story correctly there was some sort of break in/criminal activity (not on his part) that resulted in his dog getting loose. He went to the shelter to pick the dog up and they told him they wouldn't release it unless it was neutered, but the owner didn't want it done. The last time I got an update on this story was over the summer and it had already been going on for a few months.

Found the artcile: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/06/25/2007-06-25_snip_law_not_cut_out_for_nj_dog_sez_pol.html
There are a few fishy thing about it, namely why the dog was in the truck, but there it is...

Edit: http://www.nj.com/news/expresstimes/nj/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1203829627184230.xml&coll=2
New article from this past weekend... apparently this still isn't taken care of...

 

[zpinkpanther]

I haven't really decided how I feel about this bill. But, on the subject of health reasons to neuter a dog, I thought I heard one vet mention that keeping male dogs intact can lead to prostate issues? I thought I heard that, but I could have misunderstood. Anyway, I'm also not sure I buy the statement that it doesn't affect behavior, either. I dogsit for a guy who has two intact males and they're overly obnoxious. 🙄

 

[ylrebmik]

"The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.
The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered pets and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law. First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service."

I like the idea of the law but the offense is ridiculous I think. The first time all they get is a warning.... and then a whole 100$ and omg 8 hours of community service the second? give me a break. If they are going to start cracking down on sterilizations... 100 dollars and community service for eight hours isn't going to do the trick. However, it is a good start.

 

[VeganSoprano]

Yeah, but how many people loose their animals and have to go to the shelter to reclaim them?

And think how mad you would be if you (as a responsible professional breeder) lost your top bitch who ended up at a shelter, and they had her spayed? I think that's an awful idea, actually.

If it's a stray; maybe. If it's owned; no way

Anyone whose unaltered animal is running at large is by definition contributing to the pet overpopulation crisis. A "responsible, professional breeder" whose dog is at large long enough to come to the attention of animal control has failed in their responsibility to control their dog's reproduction. Accident or no, it is irresponsible. Tough noogies that it's your top breeding dog - you failed in your responsibility. Besides, s/he was running at large - the dog could have easily been hit by a car or met some equally awful fate!

To fail to support a law that will result in hundreds of high-risk pets (free-roaming or otherwise poorly controlled) being sterilized, therefore resulting in thousands fewer puppies and kittens being born into a community that is already facing an overpopulation crisis, on the grounds that it *might* result in one or two top breeding dogs being sterilized because they got out by accident, just doesn't make sense.

To me, as someone with experience both in public policy and veterinary medicine, it comes down to two key points:

1. Overpopulation kills more cats and dogs than any disease, and it's a problem that is solvable by proper legislation, funding, and the will to do the work. Imagine how happy we'd all be if we could cure cancer this easily!

2. The pets that are seen in the average upscale veterinary hospital (like the one where I work) represent a tiny, tiny subset of the animals in the community. Yes, for the most part the clients where I work either have their pets altered or control their reproduction. But the hospital where I work is also the only after-hours emergency facility for the whole city. It's the animals we see after the other hospitals are closed - the unneutered tomcat with multiple festering abscesses, the pit bull with fight wounds, the 6-month-old unvaccinated dog with parvo, the dog with dystocia whose owners can't afford a c-section - who truly represent the majority of animals in this city, whose reproduction is not controlled and who get minimal if any veterinary care during their lives. These are the animals that must be the target of legislation, funding, and programs. The animals who will be most helped are the ones the average veterinarian in private practice will never see.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I haven't really decided how I feel about this bill. But, on the subject of health reasons to neuter a dog, I thought I heard one vet mention that keeping male dogs intact can lead to prostate issues? I thought I heard that, but I could have misunderstood. Anyway, I'm also not sure I buy the statement that it doesn't affect behavior, either. I dogsit for a guy who has two intact males and they're overly obnoxious. 🙄

Yup, I've seen prostate hyperplasia lots of times in older males who are either intact or who were neutered later in life. We euthanized one particular favorite patient at the hospital where I work for just that problem. He was doing fine in every other way but he was neutered late enough that he developed severe prostate hyperplasia. He was euthanized because he absolutely could not urinate on his own anymore.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

To fail to support a law that will result in hundreds of high-risk pets (free-roaming or otherwise poorly controlled) being sterilized, therefore resulting in thousands fewer puppies and kittens being born into a community that is already facing an overpopulation crisis, on the grounds that it *might* result in one or two top breeding dogs being sterilized because they got out by accident, just doesn't make sense.

That's not a major, or even a minor, reason people who do not support this bill give. I've already stated my arguement.

Here's a bit of info on the TPA and large breeds and early neutering

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.11.1688

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
December 1, 2007, Vol. 231, No. 11, Pages 1688-1691
doi: 10.2460/javma.231.11.1688



Risk factors for excessive tibial plateau angle in large-breed dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease

Felix M. Duerr, Dr med vet; Colleen G. Duncan, DVM, MSc; Roman S. Savicky, DVM; Richard D. Park, DVM, DACVR; Erick L. Egger, DVM, DACVS; Ross H. Palmer, DVM, MS, DACVS
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. (Duerr, Savicky, Egger, Palmer); Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. (Duncan); Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. (Park)
Dr. Duerr's present address is Oakland Veterinary Referral Services, 1400 S Telegraph Rd, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302. Dr. Savicky's present address is Michigan Veterinary Specialists, 3412 E Walton Blvd, Auburn Hills, MI 48326.

Supported by Synthes Vet and Sound Technologies.

Address correspondence to Dr. Palmer.
Objective—To identify risk factors for development of excessive tibial plateau angle (TPA) in large-breed dogs with cranial cruciate ligament disease (CCLD).

Design—Case-control study.

Animals—58 dogs with excessive TPAs (ie, TPA ≥ 35°; case dogs) and 58 dogs with normal TPAs (ie, TPA ≤ 30°; control dogs).

Procedures—Medical records and radiographs were reviewed and owners were interviewed to identify potential risk factors for excessive TPA.

Results—Case dogs were 3 times (95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 8.0) as likely to have been neutered before 6 months of age as were control dogs. Case dogs with TPA ≥ 35° in both limbs were 13.6 times (95% confidence interval, 2.72 to 68.1) as likely to have been neutered before 6 months of age as were control dogs with TPA ≤ 30° in both limbs. Case dogs were significantly younger at the onset of hind limb lameness than were control dogs.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results suggested that early neutering was a significant risk factor for development of excessive TPA in large-breed dogs with CCLD. Further research into the effects of early neutering on TPA and the pathophysiology of CCLD is warranted.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Also regarding Rotts, another large breed, and osteosarcoma

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/11/1434

There are many other links within that article explaining the effect of endogenous sex hormones on proper skeletal development/homeostasis, also.

Such an early spay/neuter might be fine for the majority of pets, but there are DEFINITLY more risk factors in certain groups. How would we go about exemptions or extensions for these guys? Who will decide this? Again, it's a mess.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

oops double post

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Basically, dogs who have been fixed early tend to be taller/have longer bones than later-fixed or intact dogs. This isn't a problem in most breeds, BUT for giant/large breeds, whose skeletons are very dependent upon proper weight to length ratios and things like that, it can be a problem. For example, the tibia usually stops growing at 12 to 14 mo. If there are no sex hormones to properly signal it to stop (sex hormones influence growth plate closures, proper developmental speeds and planes, etc), it will continue to grow ever so slightly and change the TPA. Again, not a problem in most breeds. But, in larger ones, it can predispose them to instabilities. I know a few Dane breeders and none of them neuter before 14-16 mo. Maybe it's unfounded, but the more research I see, the more I'm starting to believe.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

And about behavior: a few behavioral anomalies appear to be increased in early-age spayed/neutered dogs. But overall, behavior improves.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.224.380?journalCode=javma

Among male and female dogs with early-age gonadectomy, hip dysplasia, noise phobias, and sexual behaviors were increased, whereas obesity, separation anxiety, escaping behaviors, inappropriate elimination when frightened, and relinquishment for any reason were decreased.

By the way, I'm DEFINITELY not saying that the risks outweight the benefits for the majority of dogs - quite to opposite. In general, I am in favor of early gonadectomy. I'm saying that for certain breeds and in certain situation, such a early mandate could be detrimental. I can see the lawsuits flying.

Whew, sorry! Done posting for today 🙂

 

[StealthDog]

Has anyone read Nathan Winograd's Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America?

 

[CanadianGolden]

Yes, Stealth, and while I am not pro-No-Kill, his book brings up some very interesting stats.

Here are the article on S/N.

Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete
© 2005 Chris Zink DVM, PhD
www.caninesports.com

There are a number of studies that suggest that those of us with canine athletes should be carefully considering our current recommendations to spay or neuter all dogs at 6 months of age or earlier. A study by Salmeri et al in 1991 (Salmeri et al JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203) found that bitches spayed at 7 weeks were significantly taller than those spayed at 7 months, and that those spayed at at 7 months had significantly delayed closure of the growth plates than those not spayed (or presumably spayed after the growth plates had closed). The sex hormones close the growth plates, so the bones of dogs or bitches neutered or spayed before puberty continue to grow. This growth frequently results in a dog that does not have the same body proportions as he/she was genetically meant to. For example, if the femur is normal length at 8 months when a dog gets spayed or neutered, but the tibia, which normally stops growing at 12 to 14 months of age continues to grow, then an abnormal angle may develop at the stifle. In addition, with the extra growth, the lower leg below the stifle becomes heavier (because it is longer), causing increased stresses on the cranial cruciate ligament. This is confirmed by a recent study showing that spayed and neutered dogs have a higher incidence of CCL rupture (Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5).

In addition, a study in 2004 in JAVMA (Spain et al. JAVMA 2004;224

-387) showed that dogs spayed or neutered before 5 1/2 months had a significantly higher incidence of hip dysplasia than dogs spayed or neutered after 5 1/2 months of age. If I were a breeder, I would be very concerned about this, because it would mean that I might be making incorrect breeding decisions if I were considering the hip status of pups I sold that were spayed or neutered early. Interestingly, this same author also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.

A number of studies, including the one by Spain referenced above, have shown that there is an increase in the incidence of female urinary incontinence in dogs spayed early. This problem is an inconvenience, and not usually life-threatening, but nonetheless one that requires the dog to be medicated for life.

Yes, there is the concern that there is an increased risk of mammary cancer if a dog has a heat cycle. But it is my observation that fewer canine athletes develop mammary cancer as compared to the number that damage their cranial cruciate ligaments. In addition, only about 50 % of mammary cancers are malignant, and those that are malignant don't metastasize very often, particularly in these days when there is early identification and removal of lumps found on our dogs.

In addition, when considering cancer, there is another study of 3218 dogs that showed that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer (Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40), a cancer that is much more life-threatening than mammary cancer, and which affects both genders.

Finally, in another study, unneutered males were significantly less likely than neutered males to suffer cognitive impairment when they were older (Hart BL. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jul 1;219(1):51-6). Females were not evaluated in that study.

For these reasons, I have significant concerns with spaying or neutering dogs before puberty, particularly for the canine athlete. And frankly, if something is more healthy for the canine athlete, would we not also want that for pet dogs as well? I think it is important, therefore, that we assess each situation individually. If a pet dog is going to live with an intelligent, well-informed family that understands the problem of pet overpopulation and can be trusted to keep their dogs under their control at all times and to not breed them, I do not recommend spaying or neutering before 14 months of age.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Page 1 of 11
The Long-Term Health Effects of Spay / Neuter in Dogs
Laura J. Sanborn MS
March 27, 2007


INTRODUCTION

Dog owners in America are frequently advised to spay/neuter their dogs for health reasons. A number of
health benefits are cited, and dog owners are told that “responsible owners spay/neuter their pets”. Yet
evidence is rarely cited to support the alleged health benefits.

When discussing the health impacts of spay/neuter, the adverse health effects are often not mentioned. At
times, some adverse effects are mentioned, but the most severe effects usually are not.

This article is an attempt to summarize the long-term health effects associated with spay/neuter in dogs,
both positive and negative, that can be found in the veterinary medical literature. This article will not discuss
the impact of spay/neuter on population control, or the impact of spay/neuter on behavior.

Nearly all of the health effects summarized in this article are findings from retrospective epidemiological
studies of dogs, which examine potential associations by looking backwards in time. A few are from
prospective research studies, which examine potential associations by looking forward in time.


SUMMARY

An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the long-
term health impacts of spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter correlates with both
positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do not yet understand
about this subject.

On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially
immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated
with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.

On the positive side, neutering male dogs
• eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
• reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)

On the negative side, neutering male dogs
• if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) by a factor of 3.8; this is a
common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
• increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6; this is a common cancer and
major cause of death in some breeds
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of geriatric cognitive impairment
• triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with it the many associated health
problems associated with obesity
• quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may
exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the
Page 2 of 11
odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the
relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.

On the positive side, spaying female dogs
• if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common
malignant tumors in female dogs
• nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female
dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs
• reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
• removes the very small risk (&#8804;0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors

On the negative side, spaying female dogs
• if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma by a factor of 3.1; this is a common
cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis
• increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by
a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
• triples the risk of hypothyroidism
• increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many
associated health problems
• causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
• increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
• increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs
spayed before puberty
• doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumors
• increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
• increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and
contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet
owners, much of this has contributed to common misunderstandings about the long-term health impacts of
spay/neuter in dogs.

The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear
to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically
mature, or (perhaps in the case of many male dogs) foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary.

The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next.
Across-the-board recommendations for all pet dogs do not appear to be supportable from findings in the
veterinary medical literature.


FINDINGS FROM STUDIES

This section summarizes the diseases or conditions that have been studied with respect to spay/neuter in
dogs.

Complications from Spay/Neuter Surgery

All surgery incurs some risk of complications, including adverse reactions to anesthesia, hemorrhage,
inflammation, infection, etc. Complications include only immediate and near term impacts that are clearly
linked to the surgery, not to longer term impacts that can only be assessed by research studies.

At one veterinary teaching hospital where complications were tracked, the rates of intraoperative,
postoperative and total complications were 6.3%, 14.1% and 20.6%, respectively as a result of spaying
female dogs1. Other studies found a rate of total complications from spaying of 17.7%2 and 23%3. A study
Page 3 of 11
of Canadian veterinary private practitioners found complication rates of 22% and 19% for spaying female
dogs and neutering male dogs, respectively4.

Serious complications such as infections, abscesses, rupture of the surgical wound, and chewed out sutures
were reported at a 1- 4% frequency, with spay and castration surgeries accounting for 90% and 10% of
these complications, respectively.4

The death rate due to complications from spay/neuter is low, at around 0.1%5.


Prostate Cancer

Much of the spay/neuter information available to the public asserts that neutering will reduce or eliminate the
risk that male dogs develop prostate cancer. This would not be an unreasonable assumption, given that
prostate cancer in humans is linked to testosterone. But the evidence in dogs does not support this claim.
In fact, the strongest evidence suggests just the opposite.

There have been several conflicting epidemiological studies over the years that found either an increased
risk or a decreased risk of prostate cancer in neutered dogs. These studies did not utilize control
populations, rendering these results at best difficult to interpret. This may partially explain the conflicting
results.

More recently, two retrospective studies were conducted that did utilize control populations. One of these
studies involved a dog population in Europe6 and the other involved a dog population in America7. Both
studies found that neutered male dogs have a four times higher risk of prostate cancer than intact dogs.

Based on their results, the researchers suggest a cause and effect relationship: “this suggests that
castration does not initiate the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog, but does favor tumor
progression”6 and also “Our study found that most canine prostate cancers are of ductal/urothelial
origin....The relatively low incidence of prostate cancer in intact dogs may suggest that testicular hormones
are in fact protective against ductal/urothelial prostatic carcinoma, or may have indirect effects on cancer
development by changing the environment in the prostate.”7

This needs to be put in perspective. Unlike the situation in humans, prostate cancer is uncommon in dogs.
Given an incidence of prostate cancer in dogs of less than 0.6% from necropsy studies8, it is difficult to see
that the risk of prostate cancer should factor heavily into most neutering decisions. There is evidence for an
increased risk of prostate cancer in at least one breed (Bouviers)6, though very little data so far to guide us
in regards to other breeds.


Testicular Cancer

Since the testicles are removed with neutering, castration removes any risk of testicular cancer (assuming
the castration is done before cancer develops). This needs to be compared to the risk of testicular cancer in
intact dogs.

Testicular tumors are not uncommon in older intact dogs, with a reported incidence of 7%9. However, the
prognosis for treating testicular tumors is very good owing to a low rate of metastasis, so testicular cancer is
an uncommon cause of death in intact dogs. For example, in a Purdue University breed health survey of
Golden Retrievers10, deaths due to testicular cancer were sufficiently infrequent that they did not appear on
list of significant causes of "Years of Potential Life Lost for Veterinary Confirmed Cause of Death” even
though 40% of GR males were intact. Furthermore, the GRs who were treated for testicular tumors had a
90.9% cure rate. This agrees well with other work that found 6-14% rates of metastasis for testicular tumors
in dogs11.

The high cure rate of testicular tumors combined with their frequency suggests that fewer than 1% of intact
male dogs will die of testicular cancer.
Page 4 of 11

In summary, though it may be the most common reason why many advocate neutering young male dogs,
the risk from life threatening testicular cancer is sufficiently low that neutering most male dogs to prevent it is
difficult to justify.

An exception might be bilateral or unilateral cryptorchids, as testicles that are retained in the abdomen are
13.6 times more likely to develop tumors than descended testicles12 and it is also more difficult to detect
retained tumors by routine physical examination.


Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)

A multi-breed case-control study of the risk factors for osteosarcoma found that spay/neutered dogs (males
or females) had twice the risk of developing osteosarcoma as did intact dogs13.

This risk was further studied in Rottweilers, a breed with a relatively high risk of osteosarcoma. This
retrospective cohort study broke the risk down by age at spay/neuter, and found that the elevated risk of
osteosarcoma is associated with spay/neuter of young dogs14. Rottweilers spayed/neutered before one
year of age were 3.8 (males) or 3.1 (females) times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than intact dogs.
Indeed, the combination of breed risk and early spay/neuter meant that Rottweilers spayed/neutered before
one year of age had a 28.4% (males) and 25.1% (females) risk of developing osteosarcoma. These results
are consistent with the earlier multi-breed study13 but have an advantage of assessing risk as a function of
age at neuter.

The researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, as sex hormones are known to influence the
maintenance of skeletal structure and mass, and also because their findings showed an inverse relationship
between time of exposure to sex hormones and risk of osteosarcoma.14

The risk of osteosarcoma increases with increasing breed size and especially height13. It is a common
cause of death in medium/large, large, and giant breeds. Osteosarcoma is the third most common cause of
death in Golden Retrievers10 and is even more common in larger breeds13.

Given the poor prognosis of osteosarcoma and its frequency in many breeds, spay/neuter of immature dogs
in the medium/large, large, and giant breeds is apparently associated with a significant and elevated risk of
death due to osteosarcoma.


Mammary Cancer (Breast Cancer)

Mammary tumors are by far the most common tumors in intact female dogs, constituting some 53% of all
malignant tumors in female dogs in a study of dogs in Norway15 where spaying is much less common than in
the USA.

50-60% of mammary tumors are malignant, for which there is a significant risk of metastasis16. Mammary
tumors in dogs have been found to have estrogen receptors17, and the published research18 shows that the
relative risk (odds ratio) that females will develop mammary cancer compared to the risk in intact females is
dependent on how many estrus cycles she experiences:

# of estrus cycles before spay Odds Ratio
None 0.005
1 0.08
2 or more 0.26
Intact 1.00
Page 5 of 11

The same data when categorized differently showed that the relative risk (odds ratio) that females will
develop mammary cancer compared to the risk in intact females is indicated that:

Age at Spaying Odds Ratio
&#8804; 29 months 0.06
&#8805; 30 months 0.40 (not statistically significant at the P<0.05 level)
Intact 1.00

Please note that these are RELATIVE risks. This study has been referenced elsewhere many times but the
results have often been misrepresented as absolute risks.

A similar reduction in breast cancer risk was found for women under the age of 40 who lost their estrogen
production due to “artificial menopause”19 and breast cancer in humans is known to be estrogen activated.

Mammary cancer was found to be the 10th most common cause of years of lost life in Golden Retrievers,
even though 86% of female GRs were spayed, at a median age of 3.4 yrs10. Considering that the female
subset accounts for almost all mammary cancer cases, it probably would rank at about the 5th most common
cause of years of lost life in female GRs. It would rank higher still if more female GRs had been kept intact
up to 30 months of age.

Boxers, cocker spaniels, English springer spaniels, and dachshunds are breeds at high risk of mammary
tumors15. A population of mostly intact female Boxers was found to have a 40% chance of developing
mammary cancer between the ages of 6-12 years of age15. Purebred dogs are at higher risk than mixed
breed dogs, and purebred dogs with high inbreeding coefficients are at higher risk than those with low
inbreeding coefficients.20

In summary, spaying female dogs significantly reduces the risk of mammary cancer (a common cancer),
and the fewer estrus cycles experienced at least up to 30 months of age, the lower the risk will be.


Reproductive Tract Cancer (Uterine, Cervical, and Ovarian Cancers)

Uterine/cervical tumors are rare in dogs, constituting just 0.3% of tumors in dogs21.

Spaying will remove the risk of ovarian tumors, but the risk is only 0.5%22.

While spaying will remove the risk of reproductive tract tumors, it is unlikely that surgery can be justified to
prevent the risks of uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as the risks are so low.


Urinary Tract Cancer (Bladder and Urethra Cancers)

An age-matched retrospective study found that spay/neuter dogs were two times more likely to develop
lower urinary tract tumors (bladder or urethra) compared to intact dogs23. These tumors are nearly always
malignant, but are infrequent, accounting for less than 1% of canine tumors. So this risk is unlikely to weigh
heavily on spay/neuter decisions.

Airedales, Beagles, and Scottish Terriers are at elevated risk for urinary tract cancer while German
Shepherds have a lower than average risk23.


Hemangiosarcoma

Hemangiosarcoma is a common cancer in dogs. It is a major cause of death in some breeds, such as
Salukis, French Bulldogs, Irish Water Spaniels, Flat Coated Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, Boxers, Afghan
Hounds, English Setter, Scottish Terrier, Boston Terrier, Bulldogs, and German Shepherd Dogs24.
Page 6 of 11

In an aged-matched case controlled study, spayed females were found to have a 2.2 times higher risk of
splenic hemangiosarcoma compared to intact females24.

A retrospective study of cardiac hemangiosarcoma risk factors found a >5 times greater risk in spayed
female dogs compared to intact female dogs and a 1.6 times higher risk in neutered male dogs compared to
intact male dogs.25 The authors suggest a protective effect of sex hormones against hemangiosarcoma,
especially in females.

In breeds where hermangiosarcoma is an important cause of death, the increased risk associated with
spay/neuter is likely one that should factor into decisions on whether or when to sterilize a dog.


Hypothyroidism

Spay/neuter in dogs was found to be correlated with a three fold increased risk of hypothyroidism compared
to intact dogs.

The researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship26. They wrote: “More important [than the mild
direct impact on thyroid function] in the association between [spaying and] neutering and hypothyroidism
may be the effect of sex hormones on the immune system. Castration increases the severity of autoimmune
thyroiditis in mice” which may explain the link between spay/neuter and hypothyroidism in dogs.

Hypothyroidism in dogs causes obesity, lethargy, hair loss, and reproductive abnormalities.27


Obesity

Owing to changes in metabolism, spay/neuter dogs are more likely to be overweight or obese than intact
dogs. One study found a two fold increased risk of obesity in spayed females compared to intact females28.
Another study found that spay/neuter dogs were 1.6 (females) or 3.0 (males) times more likely to be obese
than intact dogs, and 1.2 (females) or 1.5 (males) times more likely to be overweight than intact dogs29.

A survey study of veterinary practices in the UK found that 21% of dogs were obese.28

Being obese and/or overweight is associated with a host of health problems in dogs. Overweight dogs are
more likely to be diagnosed with hyperadrenocorticism, ruptured cruciate ligament, hypothyroidism, lower
urinary tract disease, and oral disease30. Obese dogs are more likely to be diagnosed with hypothyroidism,
diabetes mellitus, pancreatitis, ruptured cruciate ligament, and neoplasia (tumors)30.


Diabetes

Some data indicate that neutering doubles the risk of diabetes in male dogs, but other data showed no
significant change in diabetes risk with neutering31. In the same studies, no association was found between
spaying and the risk of diabetes.


Adverse Vaccine Reactions

A retrospective cohort study of adverse vaccine reactions in dogs was conducted, which included allergic
reactions, hives, anaphylaxis, cardiac arrest, cardiovascular shock, and sudden death. Adverse reactions
were 30% more likely in spayed females than intact females, and 27% more likely in neutered males than
intact males32.

The investigators discuss possible cause-and-effect mechanisms for this finding, including the roles that sex
hormones play in body’s ability to mount an immune response to vaccination.32
Page 7 of 11

Toy breeds and smaller breeds are at elevated risk of adverse vaccine reactions, as are Boxers, English
Bulldogs, Lhasa Apsos, Weimaraners, American Eskimo Dogs, Golden Retrievers, Basset Hounds, Welsh
Corgis, Siberian Huskies, Great Danes, Labrador Retrievers, Doberman Pinchers, American Pit Bull
Terriers, and Akitas.32 Mixed breed dogs were found to be at lower risk, and the authors suggest genetic
hetereogeneity (hybrid vigor) as the cause.


Urogenital Disorders

Urinary incontinence is common in spayed female dogs, which can occur soon after spay surgery or after a
delay of up to several years. The incidence rate in various studies is 4-20% 33,34,35 for spayed females
compared to only 0.3% in intact females36. Urinary incontinence is so strongly linked to spaying that it is
commonly called “spay incontinence” and is caused by urethral sphincter incompetence37, though the
biological mechanism is unknown. Most (but not all) cases of urinary incontinence respond to medical
treatment, and in many cases this treatment needs to be continued for the duration of the dog’s life.38

A retrospective study found that persistent or recurring urinary tract (bladder) infections (UTIs) were 3-4
times more likely in spayed females dogs than in intact females39. Another retrospective study found that
female dogs spayed before 5 1&#8260;2 months of age were 2.76 times more likely to develop UTIs compared to
those spayed after 5 1&#8260;2 months of age.40

Depending on the age of surgery, spaying causes abnormal development of the external genitalia. Spayed
females were found to have an increased risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, vaginitis, and UTIs.41
The risk is higher still for female dogs spayed before puberty.41


Pyometra (Infection of the Uterus)

Pet insurance data in Sweden (where spaying is very uncommon) found that 23% of all female dogs
developed pyometra before 10 years of age42. Bernese Mountain dogs, Rottweilers, rough-haired Collies,
Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and Golden Retrievers were found to be high risk breeds42. Female dogs
that have not whelped puppies are at elevated risk for pyometra43. Rarely, spayed female dogs can
develop “stump pyometra” related to incomplete removal of the uterus.

Pyometra can usually be treated surgically or medically, but 4% of pyometra cases led to death42.
Combined with the incidence of pyometra, this suggests that about 1% of intact female dogs will die from
pyometra.


Perianal Fistulas

Male dogs are twice as likely to develop perianal fistulas as females, and spay/neutered dogs have a
decreased risk compared to intact dogs44.

German Shepherd Dogs and Irish Setters are more likely to develop perianal fistulas than are other
breeds.44


Non-cancerous Disorders of the Prostate Gland

The incidence of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH, enlarged prostate) increases with age in intact male
dogs, and occurs in more than 80% of intact male dogs older than the age of 5 years45. Most cases of BPH
cause no problems, but in some cases the dog will have difficulty defecating or urinating.

Neutering will prevent BPH. If neutering is done after the prostate has become enlarged, the enlarged
prostate will shrink relatively quickly.
Page 8 of 11

BPH is linked to other problems of the prostate gland, including infections, abscesses, and cysts, which can
sometimes have serious consequences.


Orthopedic Disorders

In a study of beagles, surgical removal of the ovaries (as happens in spaying) caused an increase in the rate
of remodeling of the ilium (pelvic bone)46, suggesting an increased risk of hip dysplasia with spaying.
Spaying was also found to cause a net loss of bone mass in the spine 47.

Spay/neuter of immature dogs delays the closure of the growth plates in bones that are still growing,
causing those bones to end up significantly longer than in intact dogs or those spay/neutered after
maturity48. Since the growth plates in various bones close at different times, spay/neuter that is done after
some growth plates have closed but before other growth plates have closed can result in a dog with
unnatural proportions, possibly impacting performance and long term durability of the joints.

Spay/neuter is associated with a two fold increased risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture49. Perhaps this
is associated with the increased risk of obesity28 or to changes in body proportions in dogs spay/neutered
before the growth plates in the bones have closed48.

Spay/neuter before 5 1&#8260;2 months of age is associated with a 70% increased aged-adjusted risk of hip
dysplasia compared to dogs spayed/neutered after 5 1&#8260;2 months of age40. The researchers suggest “it is
possible that the increase in bone length that results from early-age gonadectomy results in changes in joint
conformation, which could lead to a diagnosis of hip dysplasia”.

In a breed health survey study of Airedales, spay/neuter dogs were significantly more likely to suffer hip
dysplasia as well as “any musculoskeletal disorder”, compared to intact dogs50, however possible
confounding factors were not controlled for, such as the possibility that some dogs might have been
spayed/neutered because they had hip dysplasia or other musculoskeletal disorders.

Compared to intact dogs, another study found that dogs neutered six months prior to a diagnosis of hip
dysplasia were 1.5 times as likely to develop clinical hip dysplasia.51


Geriatric Cognitive Impairment

Neutered male dogs and spayed female dogs are at increased risk of geriatric cognitive impairment
compared to intact male dogs52. There weren’t enough intact geriatric females available for the study to
determine their risk.

Geriatric cognitive impairment includes disorientation in the house or outdoors, changes in social
interactions with human family members, loss of house training, and changes in the sleep-wake cycle52.

The investigators state “This finding is in line with current research on the neuro-protective roles of
testosterone and estrogen at the cellular level and the role of estrogen in preventing Alzheimer’s disease in
human females. One would predict that estrogens would have a similar protective role in the sexually intact
female dogs; unfortunately too few sexually intact female dogs were available for inclusion in the present
study to test the hypothesis”52


CONCLUSIONS

An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the long-
term health impacts of spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter correlates with both
positive AND adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do not yet understand
about this subject.
Page 9 of 11

On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs to prevent future
health problems, especially immature male dogs. The number of health problems associated with neutering
may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.

For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may
exceed the associated health problems in many (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the
odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the dog and the relative risk
of various diseases in the different breeds.

The traditional spay/neuter age of six months as well as the modern practice of pediatric spay/neuter appear
to predispose dogs to health risks that could otherwise be avoided by waiting until the dog is physically
mature, or (perhaps in the case of many male dogs) foregoing it altogether unless medically necessary.

The balance of long-term health risks and benefits of spay/neuter will vary from one dog to the next.
Across-the-board recommendations for all dogs do not appear to be supportable from findings in the
veterinary medical literature.

 

[CanadianGolden]

References for the above review, which I could not post with it because it was over the 32,000 max character limit:





REFERENCES

1
Burrow R, Batchelor D, Cripps P. Complications observed during and after ovariohysterectomy of 142
bitches at a veterinary teaching hospital.Vet Rec. 2005 Dec 24-31;157(26):829-33.
2
Pollari FL, Bonnett BN, Bamsey, SC, Meek, AH, Allen, DG (1996) Postoperative complications of elective
surgeries in dogs and cats determined by examining electronic and medical records. Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association 208, 1882-1886
3
Dorn AS, Swist RA. (1977) Complications of canine ovariohysterectomy. Journal of the American Animal
Hospital Association 13, 720-724
4
Can Vet J. 1996 November; 37(11): 672–678. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective
surgeries of dogs and cats at private practices using computer records, Pollari FL, Bonnett BN
5
Pollari FL, Bonnett BN, Bamsey SC, Meek AH, Allen DG. Postoperative complications of elective
surgeries in dogs and cats determined by examining electronic and paper medical records. J Am Vet Med
Assoc. 1996 Jun 1;208(11):1882-6
6
Teske E, Naan EC, van Dijk EM, van Garderen E, Schalken JA. Canine prostate carcinoma:
epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2002 Nov 29;197(1-
2):251-5.
7
Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, Ferrocone J. Immunohistochemical characterization of canine
prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status and castration time. Vet Comparative Oncology.
2003 Mar; 1 (1): 48
8
Weaver, AD. Vet Rec. 1981; 109, 71-75.
9
Cohen D, Reif JS, Brodey RS, et al: Epidemiological analysis of the most prevalent sites and types of
canine neoplasia observed in a veterinary hospital. Cancer Res 34:2859-2868, 1974
10
http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/gold...ver_final22.pdf
11
Handbook of Small Animal Practice, 3rd ed
12
Hayes HM Jr, Pendergrass TW. Canine testicular tumors: epidemiologic features of 410 dogs. Int J
Cancer 1976 Oct 15;18(4):482-7
13
Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Vet J 1998 Jul; 156(1):31-9
Page 10 of 11

14
Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ. Endogenous gonadal
hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40.
15
Moe L. Population-based incidence of mammary tumours in some dog breeds. J of Reproduction and
Fertility Supplment 57, 439-443.
16
Ferguson HR; Vet Clinics of N Amer: Small Animal Practice; Vol 15, No 3, May 1985
17
MacEwen EG, Patnaik AK, Harvey HJ Estrogen receptors in canine mammary tumors. Cancer Res., 42:
2255-2259, 1982.
18
Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON, J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969
19
Feinleib M: Breast cancer and artificial menopause: A cohort study. J Nat Cancer Inst 41: 315-329, 1968.
20
Dorn CR and Schneider R. Inbreeding and canine mammary cancer. A retrospective study. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 57: 545-548, 1976.
21
Brodey RS: Canine and feline neoplasia. Adv Vet Sci Comp Med 14:309-354, 1970
22
Hayes A, Harvey H J: Treatment of metastatic granulosa cell tumor in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc
174:1304-1306, 1979
23
Norris AM, Laing EJ, Valli VE, Withrow SJ. J Vet Intern Med 1992 May; 6(3):145-53
24
Prymak C, McKee LJ, Goldschmidt MH, Glickman LT. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1988 Sep; 193(6):706-12
25
Ware WA, Hopper, DL. Cardiac Tumors inDogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999;13:95–103.
26
Panciera DL. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1994 Mar 1;204(5):761-7 Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-
1992).
27
Panciera DL. Canine hypothyroidism. Part I. Clinical findings and control of thyroid hormone secretion and
metabolism. Compend Contin Pract Vet 1990: 12: 689-701.
28
Edney AT, Smith PM. Study of obesity in dogs visiting veterinary practices in the United Kingdom. .Vet
Rec. 1986 Apr 5;118(14):391-6.
29
McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Pride C, Fawcett A, Grassi T, Jones B. Prevalence of obesity in dogs
examined by Australian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec. 2005 May
28;156(22):695-702.
30
Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk, CA, Klausner, JS. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Obesity in Adult Dogs
from Private US Veterinary Practices. Intern J Appl Res Vet Med • Vol. 4, No. 2, 2006.

31
Marmor M, Willeberg P, Glickman LT, Priester WA, Cypess RH, Hurvitz AI. Epizootiologic patterns of
diabetes mellitus in dogs Am J Vet Res. 1982 Mar;43(3):465-70. ..
32
Moore GE, Guptill LF, Ward MP, Glickman NW, Faunt KF, Lewis HB, Glickman LT. Adverse events
diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. JAVMA Vol 227, No 7, Oct 1, 2005
33
Thrusfield MV, Holt PE, Muirhead RH. Acquired urinary incontinence in bitches: its incidence and
relationship to neutering practices.. J Small Anim Pract. 1998. Dec;39(12):559-66.
34
Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary
incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 2001;57:233-6...
35
Arnold S, Arnold P, Hubler M, Casal M, and Ru&#776;sch P. Urinary Incontinence in spayed bitches: prevalence
and breed disposition. European Journal of Campanion Animal Practice. 131, 259-263.
36
Thrusfield MV 1985 Association between urinary incontinence and spaying in bitches Vet Rec 116 695
37
Richter KP, Ling V. Clinical response and urethral pressure profile changes after phenypropanolamine in
dogs with primary sphincter incompetence. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985: 187: 605-611.
38
Holt PE. Urinary incontinence in dogs and cats. Vet Rec 1990: 127: 347-350.

39
Seguin MA, Vaden SL, Altier C, Stone E, Levine JF (2003) Persistent Urinary Tract Infections and
Reinfections in 100 Dogs (1989–1999). Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine: Vol. 17, No. 5 pp. 622–631.
40
Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs.
JAVMA 2004;224

-387.
41
Verstegen-Onclin K, Verstegen J. Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering: Effects on the
Urogenital System http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposi...Session%20I.pdf
42
Hagman R: New aspects of canine pyometra. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, 2004.
43
Chastain CB, Panciera D, Waters C: Associations between age, parity, hormonal therapy and breed, and
pyometra in Finnish dogs. Small Anim Endocrinol 1999; 9: 8.
44
Killingsworth CR, Walshaw R, Dunstan RW, Rosser, EJ. Am J Vet Res, Vol 49, No. 10, Oct 1988.
45
Johnston SD, Kamolpatana K, Root-Kustritz MV, Johnston GR, Animal Reproductive Science 60-61
(2000) 405-

.
46
Dannuccia GA, Martin RB., Patterson-Buckendahl P Ovariectomy and trabecular bone remodeling in the
dog. Calcif Tissue Int 1986; 40: 194-199.
47
Martin RB, Butcher RL, Sherwood L,L Buckendahl P, Boyd RD, Farris D, Sharkey N, Dannucci G. Effects
of ovariectomy in beagle dogs. Bone 1987; 8:23-31
48
Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: Effects on skeletal,
physical, and behavioral development, JAVMA, Vol 198, No. 7, April 1991.
49
Whitehair JG, Vasseur PB, Willits NH. Epidemiology of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs. J Am
Vet Med Assoc. 1993 Oct 1;203(7):1016-9.
50
http://www.vet.purdue.edu//epi/Aire...ort_revised.pdf
51
van Hagen MA, Ducro BJ, van den Broek J, Knol BW. Incidence, risk factors, and heritability estimates of
hind limb lameness caused by hip dysplasia in a birth cohort of boxers. Am J Vet Res. 2005 Feb;66(2):307-
12.
52
Hart BL. Effect of gonadectomy on subsequent development of age-related cognitive impairment in dogs.
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jul 1;219(1):51-6.

 

[nyanko]

CanadianGolden: I didn't doubt the health impacts of early spay/neuter. A lot of research has gone into that and I think that in some cases the health risks have to be weighed against the "owner's responsibility" factor, such as in small/sedentary dogs. I do agree in cases of large/active dogs though.

I was only talking about the behavioral impacts that you claimed. Neither of those articles seems to discuss those. Thanks for the read though, about the health issues.

 

[CanadianGolden]

"In addition, a study in 2004 in JAVMA (Spain et al. JAVMA 2004;224

-387) ...Interestingly, this same author also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early."

The information regarding aggression and fear behaviors was cited in a 2008 seminar presentation by M. Christine Zink DVM PhD, which I attended in January. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[StealthDog]

Dr. Peggy Root (from the U of MN, yay!) published an article about determining the optimal age for spay/neuter in JAVMA in December. You can see the full thing here:

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

Her conclusion was that shelter animals need to be managed more like a herd- do what's best for the population, and spay/neuter as soon as you can. Owned animals should be managed as individuals, and the decision should be made between a vet and client with the patient's best interest in mind.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Owned animals should be managed as individuals, and the decision should be made between a vet and client with the patient's best interest in mind.

Exactly. Not made by a governing body that makes blanket laws and knows jack about animal health 😉

Provide affordable spaying and neutering. Offer incentives to spay/neuter. Place limits on numbers of litter and numbers of breeding dogs. Require licensure (low cost or free) of dogs and cats, or provide incentives to do so. Do more frequent and stringent inspections of puppy mills and brokers (under the USDA, they are subject to them - the average citizen is not)

There are SO many more effective things they could be doing. Sigh.

 

[cwazy cat lady]

Dr. Peggy Root (from the U of MN, yay!) published an article about determining the optimal age for spay/neuter in JAVMA in December. You can see the full thing here:

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.11.1665

Her conclusion was that shelter animals need to be managed more like a herd- do what's best for the population, and spay/neuter as soon as you can. Owned animals should be managed as individuals, and the decision should be made between a vet and client with the patient's best interest in mind.

I was going to say that for practical management of pet overpopulation and health, early spay and neuter is the lesser of two evils.

At the shelters I work with kittens are altered at 8 weeks+ and 2 pounds, assuming there aren't any other health conditions (URI).

Puppies are spayed/neutered early, too... but I don't work with then and am not sure on age/weight...

 

[Pandacinny]

Yes, I've read Redemption. I thought Winograd had a few good points, stuck in among the vitriol.

My major problems with it:
*He claims that shelter workers don't want to save more animals' lives. Why? Because they don't care enough about the animals! He actually says that. Many times. I'm not sure what sadistic shelter people he's worked with, but that has not been my experience.

And the biggest one:
*He claims that the San Francisco SPCA "saved thousands of lives" with their "revolutionary" new protocols, but he cites no sources and gives no statistics. If you're talking thousands of dogs and cats, I want to see your statistics. Many shelters keep abysmal statistics, or have in the past (before Asilomar, especially.)

Winograd doesn't even cite *any* sources in his book, despite using all sorts of quotes and telling all kinds of stories. He simply includes a short, general bibliography at the end and chalks most of it up to "personal conversations" (which can still be cited.) Maybe I'm too nit-picky, but if you're going to make huge claims about sheltering (good or bad), you'd better have something to support them besides "I was there - it's totally true!"

 

[Pandacinny]

I'm not saying whether I'm for or against mandatory S/N - I haven't considered it much. I just wanted to point out that people griping about the cost of enforcement are a little misguided. This probably won't be the type of law where an animal control officer goes door to door and says "'Scuse me ma'am, can I see your dog? I'm just gonna feel him up a little to see if there's testicles in that scrotum."

Of course that would take massive man-power - going out and actively looking for unaltered pets. It's much more likely that enforcement costs will be low because owners won't be cited unless they come against animal control for some other reason. (Say, a neighbor complains because your dog is regularly out barking at 3 am, or your dog is running loose and is picked up by animal control, or your pet bites someone.)

You know, sort of the same way dog licensing, rabies vaccination status, and cat leash laws are handled. If my (hypothetical) unneutered, unvaccinated cat is brought in to animal control because some poor soul happened to find it outside, I don't see how the city's costs will be drastically increased if they charge me for one more thing when they're already charging me for having an unlicensed cat with no rabies vaccine running around at large.

 

[VAgirl]

It seems to me that the major arguments against this law are:
1) The exemptions people can get are based on paying a fee, and
2) S/N at 4 mo. is not appropriate for all animals.

It seems to me that these issues could be fixed by:
1) A modified version of the legislation that makes exemptions based upon something other than fees (like a petition to the state vet med association or a panel of vets that volunteer their time or something--maybe a tad idealistic, but possible), and
2) Altering the age requirement. Perhaps they could build in a grace period beyond 4mo. for large/giant breed dogs. Best way to do that would probably be to get a vet to agree that your animal is indeed a large/giant breed or mix and that this exemption should apply. That way people would need to have their animal seen by a vet before they could argue the law doesn't apply to them. Part of routine care and shouldn't put any additional burden on pet owners and seems a reasonable expectation of vets.

I agree that this law isn't going to fix the problem by itself. Of course low cost spay and neuter programs are another essential piece of the puzzle. But a law like this could help. I think some people are too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A law like this could be tweaked and we could end up with something that would really do some good. I'm absolutely for laws like this, but people have made some good points and it sounds like the legislation needs some tweaking to accommodate these valid concerns.