Spay/Neuter at 6 weeks old

[Vetgirl231]

My roommate adopted a 6 week old puppy from the humane society, this past week, and she was already spayed. I've always been taught that you are suppose to wait until they are 5-6 months old. I wonder what kind of impact spaying her at 6 weeks old will have on her now and in the future. What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Marsala]

I would think a 6 week-old puppy would have an easier recovery than an older dog, as they usually aren't as active and sleep a ton anyway. Just my thought. I had one of mine done when she was about that age (and a hernia repair to boot!) and she recovered really quickly, and didn't seem to be bothered a bit.

 

[VeganSoprano]

They do recover amazingly quickly at a young age. I make every effort to get female cats spayed by 20 weeks for that reason. When they're that young they don't even seem to notice anything happened!

There is some evidence that there may be some increased risk of certain cancers from s/n large and giant breed dogs at a young age (but the risks would be about the same at 6 months or 6 weeks and intact dogs have increased risk of other problems), but from the standpoint of the HS it's more than outweighed by the population health benefits of s/n every single animal before it adopts them out.

The 6 month age is one that was kind of arbitrarily set ages and ages ago. Now that we know we can safely do sx on tiny pediatric patients, the age to s/n a shelter/rescue owned dog is before adoption and for a privately owned animal, it's at an age where the benefits and risks of s/n are best balanced for that individual patient. That might mean 3 months of age or it might mean 2-3 years.

 

[chii chan]

The shelter in my area does them at any age as long as they are over 2 pounds.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

My only concern would be if it was a large or giant breed dog, or a mix including large or giant breed, due to growth anomalies.

 

[CanadianGolden]

This thread may interest you.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=718294

 

[DogTyred]

Immature vulva = possibility of chronic urinary tract infections

 

[VeganSoprano]

Do you have any references for that? I haven't heard that one before.

 

[Vet Engineer]

One of the vets at the clinic where I work says that females spayed before 8 weeks are at higher risk for incontinence when they reach a geriatric age. Unfortunately, I do not know where she got this information.

 

[WhippetsRule]

From my own observations, I can say that dogs that I have bred that are spayed/neutered before they are physically mature are taller/longer on bone than their siblings and just never seem to 'fill out' properly.

I've also recently heard of a study supposedly being conducted by someone at Purdue Vet School where they are purportedly looking at longevity in dogs. According to what I have heard, the researcher(s) have been interviewing folks that own long-lived rotties and the preliminary findings are that the older rotties were spayed/neutered at 4years old or older, if at all. Interesting correlation, if my information is accurate.

I can certainly understand the 'public policy' reasons behind early spay/neuter, but I'm just not sure that ultimately it is in the best health interests of the dog...

 

[PrimalMU]

As has been mentioned here before, shelter medicine is more akin to herd medicine than individual pet care. Rampant pet overpopulation is a much more serious problem for animal health than any issues that early spay/neuter would cause. Think of it this way, it would be better for a few animals to be not quite as healthy as they may have been if spayed/neutered later in life than it would for many more animals roaming the streets, wasting away from heartworm infection, flea anemia, intestinal parasites, distemper, etc etc.

Therefore, between the two options, early spay/neuter is indeed better for the health of the population in general.

 

[CanadianGolden]

As has been mentioned here before, shelter medicine is more akin to herd medicine than individual pet care. Rampant pet overpopulation is a much more serious problem for animal health than any issues that early spay/neuter would cause. Think of it this way, it would be better for a few animals to be not quite as healthy as they may have been if spayed/neutered later in life than it would for many more animals roaming the streets, wasting away from heartworm infection, flea anemia, intestinal parasites, distemper, etc etc.

Therefore, between the two options, early spay/neuter is indeed better for the health of the population in general.

We need to get away from S/N as the means of population control and consider alternatives like vasectomy and tubal ligation.

 

[Angelus9]

There is some evidence that there may be some increased risk of certain cancers from s/n large and giant breed dogs at a young age (but the risks would be about the same at 6 months or 6 weeks and intact dogs have increased risk of other problems), but from the standpoint of the HS it's more than outweighed by the population health benefits of s/n every single animal before it adopts them out.

Not to the individual owner. There's a disconnect here. If you are a shelter vet I can understand this view, but if you are the average pet owner who wants a long and healthy life with their pet, this is not good news. Shelter adoptions with early S/N because of the owners who otherwise would never get it done, that I understand. The problem comes when vets push early S/N on non-shelter animals and pretend that it's wonderful with no consequences. People know this isn't true and it just adds to the image of money-grubbing vets who want to book sx now regardless of adverse long-term effects.

for a privately owned animal, it's at an age where the benefits and risks of s/n are best balanced for that individual patient. That might mean 3 months of age or it might mean 2-3 years.

Absolutely, however, all you have to do is take a young puppy to the veterinarian and see for yourself how early S/N is pushed pretty hard by a lot of doctors, who are not bringing up any adverse effects.

 

[WhippetsRule]

Rampant pet overpopulation is a much more serious problem for animal health than any issues that early spay/neuter would cause. Think of it this way, it would be better for a few animals to be not quite as healthy as they may have been if spayed/neutered later in life than it would for many more animals roaming the streets, wasting away from heartworm infection, flea anemia, intestinal parasites, distemper, etc etc.

Therefore, between the two options, early spay/neuter is indeed better for the health of the population in general.

Try telling that to the pet owner whose beloved pet develops osteosarcoma as a direct result of early S/N.

That being said, your points regarding shelter medicine being akin to herd medicine and pet overpopulation are well-taken. But, IMO there is a huge difference between someone making a choice to adopt a pet from a shelter knowing that the pet has been spayed/neutered and may have the attendant risks if they are a young animal vs. early S/N being pushed on all pet owners, particularly if all of those potential risks and benefits are not thoroughly explained to the client so that they can make an informed decision.

 

[DogTyred]

Immature vulva = possibility of chronic urinary tract infections

Do you have any references for that? I haven't heard that one before.

Naw, just personal experience, both mine and the vet I work with. An immature vulva provides a receptacle for urine to pool and bacteria to grow. Now I am not saying that this happens to every dog but there is a significant number that will develop chronic urinary tract infections. Especially those of advanced age who have lost bladder tone and cannot evacuate the bladder as well as they used to as well as those who are over weight. This is all purely anecdotal but there is something to be said for personal experience and observations.

 

[nyanko]

Try telling that to the pet owner whose beloved pet develops osteosarcoma as a direct result of early S/N.

That being said, your points regarding shelter medicine being akin to herd medicine and pet overpopulation are well-taken. But, IMO there is a huge difference between someone making a choice to adopt a pet from a shelter knowing that the pet has been spayed/neutered and may have the attendant risks if they are a young animal vs. early S/N being pushed on all pet owners, particularly if all of those potential risks and benefits are not thoroughly explained to the client so that they can make an informed decision.

If the animal was neutered before it left the shelter, the shelter was the owner when the neuter was done and thus is responsible for the informed decision-making, not the potential owner.

I also think it's disingenuous to say that any animal developed osteosarcoma directly as a result of being neutered early.

 

[MSUspartan]

I also think it's disingenuous to say that any animal developed osteosarcoma directly as a result of being neutered early.

👍

This.

 

[WhippetsRule]

If the animal was neutered before it left the shelter, the shelter was the owner when the neuter was done and thus is responsible for the informed decision-making, not the potential owner.

Agreed. No question. But you missed my point. What I was trying to say was that if a young animal is S/N at a shelter, then the prospective owner should take them knowing: a) that the animal was S/N at a young age; and 2) that there are potential health risks that could and have been linked, in some cases, to early S/N. In other words the prospective owner should be able to make an informed decision.

I also think it's disingenuous to say that any animal developed osteosarcoma directly as a result of being neutered early.

Refer to my clarification, above. Again, my point is all about 'informing the client' so that they have all of the information, pro and con, on which to base their decision, instead of dictating (or trying to) to the client what is best for their pet. Frankly, I think it is disingenuous to take the position that early S/N cures a host of ills in the animal world without even acknowledging that there are risks involved and that it may not be appropriate (or warranted) in all cases. On a personal note, let me also point out that I am not anti-S/N and S/N my own dogs--just not at 6 wks or even 6 mos of age.

Additionally, there are significant changes contemplated/taking place in the laws affecting animals, and thus veterinarians, in many states in the US. Unfortunately, IMO these changes in the law, well-intentioned though they may purport to be, may well put the veterinary profession on the same path as MDs with higher malpractice insurance premiums and the underlying reasons therefore, etc. So, particularly for those of you who plan to go into private practice, you may want to start practicing the mantra "informed consent" now.

 

[david594]

Naw, just personal experience, both mine and the vet I work with. An immature vulva provides a receptacle for urine to pool and bacteria to grow. Now I am not saying that this happens to every dog but there is a significant number that will develop chronic urinary tract infections. Especially those of advanced age who have lost bladder tone and cannot evacuate the bladder as well as they used to as well as those who are over weight. This is all purely anecdotal but there is something to be said for personal experience and observations.

Isn't the thing to be said that correlation does not equal causation? And hence the need for the scientific process in evaluating issues like this?

 

[PrimalMU]

We need to get away from S/N as the means of population control and consider alternatives like vasectomy and tubal ligation.

Fair enough, but that'll take awhile. Finding a vet that would be willing to do these procedures (simple though they are) would be difficult.

 

[sunshinevet]

Isn't the thing to be said that correlation does not equal causation? And hence the need for the scientific process in evaluating issues like this?

+ like, 1,000,000 👍

I would be extremely interested to read any articles that that manage to link early s/n as causative with health problems. I mean, obviously, im sure it has some sort of biological effect - especially in large breed dogs, with their joints etc - but large breed dogs have joint problems anyway. It would be EXTREMELY hard to prove.

I think the biggest problem I have with later s/n, a while after they have reached sexual maturity, is the intense lack of responsible owners I see. I honestly believe (and this is just where I am, I'm sure there are communities elsewhere that may not have this problem) that if we advocated s/n at the age of 1.5-2yo, we would see a large increase in the amount of unplanned pregnancies in my area. And you know, I just really dont want that.

Not only that, if I tell most responsible owners "we can do it at six months and there may be some small risk of developing some problems we have no proof to back up, or we can wait til their 2 and have an some small, increased risk of diseases we do have proof for, PLUS there is the additional risk of it escaping and getting pregnant/making something else pregnant" - I think i know what I would pick?

 

[nyanko]

Agreed. No question. But you missed my point. What I was trying to say was that if a young animal is S/N at a shelter, then the prospective owner should take them knowing: a) that the animal was S/N at a young age; and 2) that there are potential health risks that could and have been linked, in some cases, to early S/N. In other words the prospective owner should be able to make an informed decision.
.

I didn't miss your point. The only decision the prospective owner is making is whether or not to adopt an animal at all. I don't really know that any person is going to decide not to adopt an animal based on the fact that they were neutered early and there are risks - hell, look at all the people who still buy cigarettes and smoke even with the GIANT WARNING on every single box. Also, fair is fair, so if the shelter is going to warn potential adopters of risks when dogs are neutered early, they need to warn potential adopters of the risks (mammary tumors, for females..) when dogs are neutered late too.

I don't really think anyone should be adopting out or selling 6 week old dogs to begin with, but that's a whole other hijack.

 

[CanadianGolden]

I didn't miss your point. The only decision the prospective owner is making is whether or not to adopt an animal at all. I don't really know that any person is going to decide not to adopt an animal based on the fact that they were neutered early and there are risks

Actually, I would never get a dog that was neutered that early, and do not get dogs from shelters in part because they will not be left intact.

 

[nyanko]

Actually, I would never get a dog that was neutered that early, and do not get dogs from shelters in part because they will not be left intact.

Okay, I meant any person who was going to take an animal from a shelter anyway, and already has the animal picked out. Should have been more specific.

 

[Vet Engineer]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a link to the article(s) that demonstrate a correlation between early spay/neuter with the various problems discussed above?

I've been told repeatedly by different veterinarians that waiting too long (ex. waiting till after a female's first estrus) to spay/neuter increases the risk of a variety of cancers. I've never been told that spaying/neutering a dog at 6 months poses potential risks. (besides surgical complications)

 

[Minnerbelle]

Agreed. No question. But you missed my point. What I was trying to say was that if a young animal is S/N at a shelter, then the prospective owner should take them knowing: a) that the animal was S/N at a young age; and 2) that there are potential health risks that could and have been linked, in some cases, to early S/N. In other words the prospective owner should be able to make an informed decision.

a.) If a potential adopter sees a 12 week old puppy that's already been S/N at the shelter... don't they automatically know that puppy was S/N at a young age? 😕

b.) should ALL shelter animals also get warnings about injection site sarcomas from the microchips injected? Or from some of the elective vaccinations that shelter animals get that most household animals don't? Should all large dogs come with the warning that there's a high risk they won't live as long as the little ones?

Plus, I feel like saying "this animal has the potential risk for..." is kind of misleading, unless you can specifically say "studies have shown that __% of puppies s/n before 10 weeks of age develop __________" or something like that. But also balance that with risks that an animal will develop health problems without s/n.

and really... what's the point in telling people this if it's shelter policy that it has to be done? I mean, does a shelter need to list EVERYTHING that it does for every animal and write potential risks associated with each one??? It's not like they're hiding the fact that the animals come S/N, or that they're microchipped, or vaccinated with ____,_____, and ______.

an adoption counselor only has so much time to spend with each adopter, and i feel like their time is so much better spent talking about the importance of taking the animal to the vet regularly for wellness visits and vaccinations, the importance of training/socializing, etc... their job is to make sure that you are compatible with the animal you're adopting, and that you're off on a good footing. their job is not to list every possible thing that can happen to that animal because of regular shelter protocols.

 

[Wolphcats]

We need to get away from S/N as the means of population control and consider alternatives like vasectomy and tubal ligation.

Many people do not want the behaviors that come with extra testosterone.

 

[david594]

Many people do not want the behaviors that come with extra testosterone.

Or the associated health problems. The prevalence of BPH is huge in intact males. And pyometra is more common than any of the other diseases that could be attributed to spaying.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Clearly you have not read the studies cited in the link I posted. Many more undesirable behaviors are correlated with spayed and neutered dogs, as are health problems. BPH is rarely an issue in male dogs, and if it is, they can be neutered then. We don't remove the eyes because a dog could injure one in the future...

Check out the link to the other S/N thread. It has several links to papers, reviews, and other information about the potential adverse effects of spay/neuter.

 

[WhippetsRule]

http://www.therio.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=193

The above link is to the Society's mandatory spay-neuter position statement but the second paragraph gives a summary of the pros and cons of s/n generally and says that it should be done on a case-by-case basis.

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

These are the findings of a N. American study done on Rotties which found a very significant positive correlation between early s/n and bone sarcoma

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

This article also discusses pros and cons of s/n and evaluates some of the potential health risks associated with same.

 

[NStarz]

This is just anecdotal (there are studies out there, I just don't have links atm) but most dog bites are inflicted by unneutered male dogs.

 

[CanadianGolden]

I suspect that because it's ingrained into US culture that "responsible owners spay and neuter their dogs" that intact males tend to be owned by people who are more likely to encourage aggression, thus the higher incidence of bites. In fact, studies have shown more aggression in neutered dogs than in intact dogs--the study of this will be published soon.

Also see the links posted. Also, as per one of our classes, compared to Penn's medicine service, the behavior service had more castrated males (71% vs. 35%). Rather interesting. Several studies have shown more behavior problems in sterilized than intact dogs.

 

[sunshinevet]

I suspect that because it's ingrained into US culture that "responsible owners spay and neuter their dogs" that intact males tend to be owned by people who are more likely to encourage aggression, thus the higher incidence of bites. In fact, studies have shown more aggression in neutered dogs than in intact dogs--the study of this will be published soon (it's being done as a Master's thesis in behavior).

Also see the links posted. Also, as per one of our classes, compared to Penn's medicine service, the behavior service had more castrated males (71% vs. 35%). Rather interesting. Several studies have shown more behavior problems in sterilized than intact dogs.

But do these studies take into account the population proportions? I don't know about the US, but here in Aus, entire is very much the minority - certainly not 35%! So entire animals would actually be over-represented, despite accounting for less cases than neutered animals.

 

[MSUspartan]

Also see the links posted. Also, as per one of our classes, compared to Penn's medicine service, the behavior service had more castrated males (71% vs. 35%). Rather interesting.

Perhaps that's because there are more castrated males owned as pets than intact males?

 

[nyanko]

Do any of these studies take into account that traditional practice (perhaps prior to referral to a veterinary school's behavior service) for dogs who have behavior problems usually includes sterilization? It seems like that could introduce some bias into the sample.

 

[twelvetigers]

I suspect that because it's ingrained into US culture that "responsible owners spay and neuter their dogs" ....

Bob Barker made sure of that.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Perhaps that's because there are more castrated males owned as pets than intact males?

This is a comparison between the medicine service and behavior service, so all of these dogs are pets. And these are percentages.

 

[CanadianGolden]

But do these studies take into account the population proportions? I don't know about the US, but here in Aus, entire is very much the minority - certainly not 35%! So entire animals would actually be over-represented, despite accounting for less cases than neutered animals.

It's not relevant. 71% of animals presented to behavior were castrated, versus 35% presented to medicine.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Do any of these studies take into account that traditional practice (perhaps prior to referral to a veterinary school's behavior service) for dogs who have behavior problems usually includes sterilization? It seems like that could introduce some bias into the sample.

Yes. Some looked at when the dogs were spayed and neutered and why (eg to prevent breeding, to fix behavior problems). Also, most dogs are neutered at 6 months regardless, and the majority of those are not having behavior problems at the time, so while it might affect the behavior dept stats it would not affect most studies that see a higher incidence of behavior problems among the average population of neutered dogs.

 

[nyanko]

^^I'd like to see the studies that controlled for age of and reason for castration...I feel like that would really help the case.

It's not relevant. 71% of animals presented to behavior were castrated, versus 35% presented to medicine.

So you're saying that 65% of the male dogs presented to medicine are intact? That's a fairly interesting fact in itself....

 

[StartingoverVet]

There is a lot of garbage science going on in this thread. I shouldn't bother but I can't help but to pipe in...

1st, Penn's experience is hardly a good choice to use to generalize with. Penn is a referral hospital and emergency hospital. That will see a very different population of dogs than in behavior. The meaning of those statistics probably (although we cannot know without way more info) has more to do with population bias.

2nd, same issue with the population of dogs that are neutered vs un-neutered. Vast majority of neutered dogs fall into the "typical owner" pot. Can't say the same for unneutered dogs. I think the vast majority of us who have worked at U.S. clinics can say that the majority of unneutered dogs come from breeders or from "less concerned" owners. Of course there are many many exceptions but we are talking large numbers.

Good luck finding a study that rigorously controlled for bias in the groups looked at.

You can pick and choose whatever statistics you want for your case, but you are not going to convince me, or behaviorists, that neutering leads to behavior problems, experience says otherwise. It is much, much more likely to think that people who neuter their dogs, are the type of people to seek help for behavioral issues.

 

[CanadianGolden]

You can pick and choose whatever statistics you want for your case, but you are not going to convince me, or behaviorists, that neutering leads to behavior problems, experience says otherwise.

Most of the studies that I cited (Duffy et al, Guy et al 2001, the new study I mentioned) are either conducted by behaviorists, people working with behaviorists, or published in peer-reviewed behavior journals (eg Applied Animal Behaviour Science). The info I cited above about the statistics of dogs coming to the behavior service was presented to our class by a boarded behaviorist. We were also taught in class that the incidence of aggression is higher in neutered dogs (and yes this is done by an odds ratio, not by counting cases). I'm not sure why you think behaviorists are against the idea that neutering may have adverse effects on behavior. The original study that "proved" this has many design flaws and did not even show a statistically significant difference in most types of aggression between neutered and unneutered dogs.

 

[NStarz]

Most of the studies that I cited (Duffy et al, Guy et al 2001, the new study I mentioned) are either conducted by behaviorists, people working with behaviorists, or published in peer-reviewed behavior journals (eg Applied Animal Behaviour Science). The info I cited above about the statistics of dogs coming to the behavior service was presented to our class by a boarded behaviorist. We were also taught in class that the incidence of aggression is higher in neutered dogs (and yes this is done by an odds ratio, not by counting cases). I'm not sure why you think behaviorists are against the idea that neutering may have adverse effects on behavior. original study that "proved" this has many design flaws and did not even show a statistically significant difference in most types of aggression between neutered and unneutered dogs.

Karen Delise, founder of the National Canine Research Council:

'Reproductive Status of the Dog-
89% of all the dogs involved in fatal attacks during 2005 were intact (not neutered or spayed).
Statistics that deal exclusively with the number of fatal dog attacks on humans by breed of dog
offer little insight into canine behavior/aggression and cannot offer effective preventive measures. '

Also:

"
Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.
Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined)."


Source: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/



PS. Advisory board on the NCRC includes 2 DVM advisors, both certified by the board in animal behavior.

 

[bunnity]

As far as the Penn thing, I feel like I can comment on that because I work at a place that refers to Penn. Most of our clients struggle with finances, and the cost of a spay/neuter is very significant to them. So is a referral to Penn. Accordingly, it is rare for our clients to go to Penn for something elective - the only time they go is a life or death medical situation.

I would think that the minority of Philadelphians that can actually afford an elective behavior consult would also find it much easier to afford an elective surgery, thus skewing the population of Penn's behavior patients.

Also, this entire discussion took place like 3 weeks ago on the other thread.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Fatal dog attacks are very different from dog bites, really. Again I suspect these are related to the ownership, socioeconomic status, and other confounding factors. Until we eliminate these factors, there will continue to be debate. Most biting (not fatal bites, just bites) is fear related. The studies I've seen have all shown more fear related behavior in neutered dogs. Perhaps that is where the difference lies between neutered and intact dogs--dogs that attack out of true/primary aggression (which are quite rare) versus fear aggression.

My question, really, is why is an elective surgery recommended across the board for animals at a young age when there is obviously a lack of consensus on the potential risks and benefits? Clearly each side has some points.

 

[NStarz]

Fatal dog attacks are very different from dog bites, really. Again I suspect these are related to the ownership, socioeconomic status, and other confounding factors. Until we eliminate these factors, there will continue to be debate. Most biting (not fatal bites, just bites) is fear related. The studies I've seen have all shown more fear related behavior in neutered dogs. Perhaps that is where the difference lies between neutered and intact dogs--dogs that attack out of true/primary aggression (which are quite rare) versus fear aggression.

My question, really, is why is an elective surgery recommended across the board for animals at a young age when there is obviously a lack of consensus on the potential risks and benefits? Clearly each side has some points.

I think fatal dog bites should be the entire discussion, actually (IMO). Most people that get bit by dogs work with dogs (most others are children). The people getting killed by dogs is a bigger issue to me than people getting bitten by dogs. One is lethal, the other may require antibiotics or a couple of stitches here and there.

Also, in most cases, fear aggression can be managed. It is the aggression that "comes out of nowhere" that is more dangerous. If you know what sets your dog off (motorcycles, men with canes, large purses, whatever) than you can manage the behavior and work on conditioning to allow the dog to become less fearful. True aggression is worrisome (where there is seemingly no basis for the attack that can be detected). There are other factors that Delise stated, including:

Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances
Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack
Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old


However, these are less important, clearly, than the overwhelming majority of intact dogs afflicting fatal bites (89% of all fatalities, as demonstrated previously).

I don't see the "many angles" that you are talking about. There is a small risk of health problems later in life for early neutering or neutering at all. But the benefits FAR outweigh the risks, IMO.

 

[nyanko]

In this discussion, people keep saying "animals" when they mean dogs. I can tell you quite easily why cats are altered early pretty much across the board (even to the point where cat shows have neuter divisions) - the intact ones are a major pain in the butt. Intact toms almost invariably spray, their urine always has a much more pungent odor than castrated males, and they do have a tendency towards territoriality and fighting. Intact queens go into estrus much more often than do dogs, pretty much remaining in this state (repeating every 2 weeks or so) until bred (or um, stimulated), since cats are induced ovulators. Queens in heat are incessantly annoying and very prone to escaping and roaming, not to mention the frequency with which pyometra occurs due to the prolonged period of repeated estrus cycling. An intact cat by and large makes a pretty horrible and unbearable housepet/companion.

So then, as far as dogs go, you acknowledge that there are potential covariates that affect whether an intact dog has behavioral issues (ownership, training, etc) but that is all speculation and additionally, the same factors come into play with altered dogs. Yes, our society promotes that altering = responsible pet ownership, so from that point of view you can say that more intact dogs have irresponsible owners, or you can correlate it with socioeconomic status. However from a different angle, since virtually all shelters and rescues alter their dogs before releasing them, the least expensive mainstream source for dogs actually almost universally provides altered ones into the population. I'm certainly not saying that more money = better pet owners, as we all know that is not true. Just saying that you can't really draw conclusions from notions based on one point of view.