Age of neutering controversy

[damp]

Originally Posted by BostonRott

I guess what I really don't understand is that both rescues and breeders claim to go through extensive screening processes and educate their new owners. So why is it tabboo for a rescue to place an intact dog but it's ok for a breeder?

I realize that no screening process is perfect and yes, some will slip through........but after seeing so much heartache due to dogs lost to cancer, and the public not understanding why such senseless things happen.......if we can give them a better chance against cancer (later neutering), why not??

Yes, there are worse accidents than unplanned breeding!

Originally Posted by poohbearsmom

I've not been a fan of early neuter/spay... and now I'm less of a fan of the practice. I am, however, a big fan of education and responsible action.

I am not a fan of neuter/spay at all. We have no traditions and normal routine/practice for that, but we are big fans of not breeding intact dogs on every street corner!

Originally Posted by Judi W

Is the assumption that a rehomed dog is going to be running at large and at risk not just to reproduction, but being hit by a car, getting involved in biting incidents and so forth just as it might have been before being rehomed? If that assumption has basis in fact, then the entire idea of placing dogs back out into the community itself should be re-examined.

I also believe, the responsibility of owning a Rottweiler (or any dog) is EXACT the same, no matter if the dog is intact or not!

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

Any dog can develop cancer (intact or not) at some point in their lifetime - but only intact animals can reproduce.

I may be getting cynical but my "trust" in people and their ability to be "responsible" has not increased with llife experience.

So - I agree with Patty - at the risk of increasing cancer I will go with the surer risk of unplanned additional puppies.

If you don’t trust people to be responsible enough to not breed unproven dogs of unknown and/or of humble extraction, why can you trust them to take care of the dogs in everyday life: To train the dog, to teach it manners and to behave in public, to take it to the vet when needed, to exercise and to play with it and keep it (inside ) and safe!

Again there are WORSE accidents than “hole in fence” breeding!!!

With all good reason people cry (snot like poles) in “Rainbow Bridge” when a dog died from cancer. With all good reason, they whine and slam people who bred their dog just because it is soooo cute… and suggest spaying the pregnant bitch and in the next thread they whine over responsible breeders culling pups. Next they are so happy and thankful and support someone who adopted/rescued a “doubtful” dog (in more than one respect) and again in the next thread they slam the owner for not being responsible and knowlegde enough to handle the dog they rescued.

Spaying/neutering doesn’t fix our breed. Neither do rescue, they HELP an INDIVIDUAL dog who doesn’t add nothing to the betterment of our breed in general.

[Bucky's Mom]

Originally Posted by damp

I am not a fan of neuter/spay at all. We have no traditions and normal routine/practice for that, but we are big fans of not breeding intact dogs on every street corner!

If you don’t trust people to be responsible enough to not breed unproven dogs of unknown and/or of humble extraction, why can you trust them to take care of the dogs in everyday life: To train the dog, to teach it manners and to behave in public, to take it to the vet when needed, to exercise and to play with it and keep it (inside ) and safe!

........With all good reason people cry (snot like poles) in “Rainbow Bridge” when a dog died from cancer. With all good reason, they whine and slam people who bred their dog just because it is soooo cute… and suggest spaying the pregnant bitch and in the next thread they whine over responsible breeders culling pups. Next they are so happy and thankful and support someone who adopted/rescued a “doubtful” dog (in more than one respect) and again in the next thread they slam the owner for not being responsible and knowlegde enough to handle the dog.

Spaying/neutering doesn’t fix our breed. Neither do rescue, they HELP an INDIVIDUAL dog who doesn’t add nothing to the betterment of our breed in general.

I agree that spaying/neutering doesn't fix the breed (AND I understand that there is no tradition of having this done in your country) (although I would LOVE to understand the snot from poles better :))

I was only responding with regards to the difference between having your major concern be cancer prevention or unwanted puppy prevention. (Not that we shouldn't do both)

[Patty1231]

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

Any dog can develop cancer (intact or not) at some point in their lifetime - but only intact animals can reproduce.

I believe this is the bottom line here. And if everyone owned a dog that was only for "the betterment of the breed" there would be a lot of dogs put to sleep and even more people without the companionship of a loving pet. But I guess that doesn't matter if all you have a dog for is to work and show and put titles after it's name.

[poohbearsmom]

Very good points, damp. Very thought provoking, indeed.

[poohbearsmom]

Originally Posted by Patty1231

I believe this is the bottom line here. And if everyone owned a dog that was only for "the betterment of the breed" there would be a lot of dogs put to sleep and even more people without the companionship of a loving pet. But I guess that doesn't matter if all you have a dog for is to work and show and put titles after it's name.

Come on, Patty... most of us who show and work dogs do so as an added bonus to the companionship our dogs offer, working a dog on a regular basis will actually increase the bond, so don't pull that card.

You mean to tell me that a companion animal can only be from a shelter, rescue or otherwise discarded?????

Besides, with some of the ailments, physical and mental that many dogs suffer due to poor breeding practices, there are worse things than euthenasia.

[damp]

Originally Posted by Patty1231

IAnd if everyone owned a dog that was only for "the betterment of the breed" there would be a lot of dogs put to sleep

Yes right and for the betterment of the breed!

Originally Posted by Patty1231

and even more people without the companionship of a loving pet. But I guess that doesn't matter if all you have a dog for is to work and show and put titles after it's name.

If you have ever had dogs with titles both in front but especially after the name you would KNOW they are also companions and loved... may be not pets

[Patty1231]

Originally Posted by poohbearsmom

Come on, Patty... most of us who show and work dogs do so as an added bonus to the companionship our dogs offer, so don't pull that card. .

I'm not pulling any cards here, but to infer that the only dogs worth preserving are those that better the breed is just as far out there. But that's a little off topic from the original post of cancer incidence in neutered and spayed dogs. Just because it is not common practice in one country does not make it unacceptable in another. And I've yet to be convinced that an increase in the cancer rate in altered dogs out of an already small percentage risk outweighs spaying/neutering of dogs that will not be bred. I still believe the percentage of unwanted litters still outweighs the risk of cancer.

I am not saying that responsible owners should not keep their animals intact - this is a highly personal decision - but doing so because of an overall minimal increased risk is not appropriate either. Spaying/neutering shelter and rescue animals simply decreases the higher risk of unwanted litters and decreases the potential for unworthy dogs to breed, which does absolutely nothing to better the breed.

[TrishB]

I'll throw my hat into the ring....

I agree with spay / neuter requirements of rescues. Regardless of the potential added risks of cancer as per this study.

That being said:

You have to take into consideration the source of your dog. If your dog went through a rescue organization, then it needed to be rescued. For every dog that does make it successfully through rescue, there are many more that are not as lucky and are either still in need of being rescued or have since been put to sleep.

The goal of a rescue is to eventually get to a place where they are no longer needed. Where there are no homeless / abused / forgotten dogs that require their services. On that line of thought - to achieve that goal, restricting the ability of the dogs rescued to reproduce is a requirement of any rescue organization in order to reach their final goal.

The goal of a COE Breeder is different than that of rescue. Yes, they both require wonderful homes. But a breeder’s goal is not to make them selves obsolete by not being needed by dogs any longer. Their goal is to improve the breed. In order to do so - some of their dogs will NEED to remain intact, so that they can reproduce and continue their genetic lines.

------------------

So the origin of your dog must be taken into consideration. That person's / organization's goals will dictate which risks are of more of a concern to some, while being an acceptable risk to others.

I would accept the early neutering / spaying of my rescue dog, because I would expect it from them as a necessary component of rescue. Just as I would accept the lack of that requirement from a COE Breeder. If you disagree with one or the other - than simply rethink the origin of your dog.

[Lorrie]

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

I may be getting cynical but my "trust" in people and their ability to be "responsible" has not increased with llife experience.

Clap .. Clap ... I don't think it is being cynical .. I think it is being realistic.

In a perfect world we could adopt out intact dogs to homes and know they are responsible. But despite the "checks" we do, our contracts and the extensive efforts at follow up we are only human and people are only people. How can we know for certain that down the road the dog will not be accidentally or purposefully bred?

At least breeders have the luxury of options like "co-owning" and can control the reproduction of their dogs a little more closely. We are dealing with 99% unpapered dogs .. and the type of applicants we get are different then those that a COE breeder would have apply. Not neccessarily better or worse .. just different.

Within the organization we have noticed a disturbing trend in dogs and temperment in the last 5 years. The instances of unstable and genetically unsound dog appearing in shelters and pounds has increased noticably. One of our debated conclusions for this rise is BYB's and even well intended but uneducated people producing litters.

The number of Rott crosses in the pounds across NA is staggering.

My personal feelings on this (I do own an intact male) can not impose on the standards and ethics of the rescue. It is simply to great a risk to take.

[Troy]

Ten years ago when selecting a reputable breeder I saw several breeder contracts for pet-quality dogs that required a prompt neutering at six months.

[lblax]

i agree with damp and pooh .... i would like to add that if the akc had any kind of motivation other than money and had any intent to promote ethical breeding the controversy to nueter or not wouldnt matter because there simply would not be a market for pups that couldnt be registered thus curing most of the problem of unwanted unhealthy dogs...

[Bucky's Mom]

Originally Posted by lblax

.... i would like to add that if the akc had any kind of motivation other than money and had any intent to promote ethical breeding the controversy to nueter or not wouldnt matter because there simply would not be a market for pups that couldnt be registered thus curing most of the problem of unwanted unhealthy dogs...

But they don't - it is a money making registration not an oversite commitee for every breed it recognizes.

You are comparing apples to turnips.

The reputable rescues are not dealing with breeding -they are dealing with the product of irresponsible breeding.

And the key to preventing MORE irresponsible breeding is a strick policy with regards to the neuter and spay of the dogs that pass through their doors.

[lblax]

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

they are dealing with the product of irresponsible breeding.

And the key to preventing MORE irresponsible breeding is a strick policy with regards to the neuter and spay of the dogs that pass through their doors.

the irresponsible breeding is spawned by the irresponsible registering and the dogs that pass through there doors wouldnt be intentionally bred because there is not a market for unregisted puppies there would be accidants im sure but i still lean with the others why put uneeded risks of more medical problems on a dog that is going to be a heartbreak for the person that rescues them anyway

[Bucky's Mom]

Originally Posted by lblax

i still lean with the others why put uneeded risks of more medical problems on a dog that is going to be a heartbreak for the person that rescues them anyway

Because as I stated before - the increase in the potential risk for cancer is not enough of a reason (in my mind) to defer the spay/neuter surgery. Too many chances for an accident to happen.

But I am sure that there will be further studies that will solidify an educated decision one way or the other in the future.

[Judi W]

the "not a market for unregistered pups" is why AKC has the limited registration selection for breeders. That was developed at the request of breeders and breed clubs and does exactly what you say they do not do. A limited registration dog can participate in performance events (which we want, breedable or not dogs to be able to be trained and accomplish things) but that no offspring from these dogs will ever be registered by the AKC.