Age of neutering controversy

[lblax]

Originally Posted by 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. .

back yard breeders rarely if ever sell there pups with limited registrations reputable breeders do but the dogs ending up in rescue come frombyb normally well at least many more than from the reputable breeders and many reputable breeders use the limited registration as a cash cow my rott is on a limited registration i bought him to work not to show or breed but the breeder told me if i decided to breed or show for a extra 400.00 he would re submit the change to full registration im sure there are many breeders doing this

[Judi W]

Well Larry, I would say that your breeder is of questionable ethics. That is not the intent of the LR. AKC has done what it can by putting the LR in place. They are not in a position to force its use. Those same BYB would simply sell without any registration or with UKC or Continental or...........

[lblax]

Originally Posted by Judi W

Well Larry, I would say that your breeder is of questionable ethics. That is not the intent of the LR. AKC has done what it can by putting the LR in place. They are not in a position to force its use.

exactly thats why i posted the infohe isnt the only breeder doing this its simply math the excellant show puppies are either spoke for before breeding or are the 1st to go the breeder has good work /maybe show/ pet pups left drops the price to sell then offers up the option to show for extra money. the lr if used correctly was set up and ask for by breeders to protect there lines of dogs. its my opinion that the akc is in the position to make and enforce any breeding regulations to better breeds but they wont and with the shelters full and overflowing of unwanted dogs to me thats sad it could be as little effort on there part as saying for example... if your large breed dog is not ofa'd for hips and the dog you are breeding to is not ofa'd then the litter can not be registered its as simple as taking each individual breed and taking there number 1 health risk and not registering the litter if both parents were not certified free of this .... it would be a start i personally dont care if dogs are shown or have working titles but at least they need breeding regulations that would help improve the health of individual breeds. i guess im just a dreamer

[poohbearsmom]

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?

Because in our society, Gret, somewhere things got screwed up. That's why a lot of folks from EU countries have a hard time fathoming that the number of animals are PTS here on a daily basis is astounding.

Somehow, people quit being responsible for their actions, and therefore, the animals pay for it. I truly understand WHY rescues have their policies - it's because of the boundless irresponsibility. So, I suppose that it is necessary to perform a surgery that *could* actually increase the risk of certain ailments, rather than to rely on the general public to follow through with a commitment to a living creature they *choose* to bring into their lives.

[BostonRott]

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

II 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)

And with regards to osteosarcoma, rescue CAN do both........just wait until the dogs are at least a year before desexing them.

I have to admit, it is NOT difficult to keep dogs apart, and to keep intact females from being bred. If someone is too stupid to accomplish this, or a rescue can't trust them, why in the he$! is that home being given a dog in the first place??? Owning dogs is NOT rocket science.

[BostonRott]

Originally Posted by Patty1231

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.

I haven't seen anyone say that at all.

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.

No one has suggested not desexing. The issue is delaying the procedure until after 1 year of age.

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.

Why is it not appropriate for responsible owners to keep a dog intact until after 1 year of age to lower future risk of cancer???

[BostonRott]

Originally Posted by 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.

The study isn't 10 years old.

[BostonRott]

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

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.

Wonder what the new homes would have to say about that, given the option. "Would you prefer to have your dog desexed now and risk signifcantly increasing the chances of deadly bone cancer, or will you agree to netuer the dog (at your own cost) after 1 year of age?"

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by BostonRott

And with regards to osteosarcoma, rescue CAN do both........just wait until the dogs are at least a year before desexing them.

And that being said - most dogs enter rescue between 9 - 15 months of age anyway. It's the age our dogs tend to begin 'acting out'. Luckily, it coincides with the 'safer' age to spay or neuter.

[Patty1231]

Originally Posted by TrishB

And that being said - most dogs enter rescue between 9 - 15 months of age anyway. It's the age our dogs tend to begin 'acting out'. Luckily, it coincides with the 'safer' age to spay or neuter.

Good point. The vast majority of dogs I've seen in shelters and rescues are not puppies. I think most responsible breeders will state in their contracts that their dogs are not be altered until at least 12 months; mine did. Perhaps there should be some education in the vet world since it is the vets that are pushing for early spay/neutering. I had a huge argument with one of my vets, who wanted Rocco to be spayed at 6 months. This type of thing does not exist solely in the worlds of shelters and rescues - it is with responsible owners who obtain their dogs from responsible breeders and take them to reputable (for the most part, always exceptions) veterinary practices. You wouldn't believe what I went through with the vet who saw Perle last time, arguing about vaccine regimens and vaccinating dogs with cancer. It seems to me that you're going to have to educate the veterinary world as much as the owner world.

[BostonRott]

Originally Posted by Patty1231

I think most responsible breeders will state in their contracts that their dogs are not be altered until at least 12 months; mine did.

Most breeders I know recommend non-breeding females to be spayed before their first heat. THe study info is new and needs to be passed along to many, both vets and breeders.

I had a huge argument with one of my vets, who wanted Rocco to be spayed at 6 months.

If your vet had managed to spay Rocco, I think he would owe you money for medical research reimbursement!!

[Patty1231]

Originally Posted by BostonRott

If your vet had managed to spay Rocco, I think he would owe you money for medical research reimbursement!!

Haha!! Sorry....I had just gotten back from training class and it was past my bedtime He certainly would owe me some money in that case, wouldn't he!!

[fbkeays]

Originally Posted by Patty1231

Perhaps there should be some education in the vet world since it is the vets that are pushing for early spay/neutering. I had a huge argument with one of my vets, who wanted Rocco to be spayed at 6 months. This type of thing does not exist solely in the worlds of shelters and rescues - it is with responsible owners who obtain their dogs from responsible breeders and take them to reputable (for the most part, always exceptions) veterinary practices. You wouldn't believe what I went through with the vet who saw Perle last time, arguing about vaccine regimens and vaccinating dogs with cancer. It seems to me that you're going to have to educate the veterinary world as much as the owner world.

I have stopped going to one vet practice because I could never get one of 2 of the 7 "good" vets. It seemed like I always got one of the "other" vets. The last time I went in, which is now two years ago, was because Fizbin was three legged. Misty had just finished recovering from TPLO and I was afraid it was his knee. Either the vet is completely incompetent, or was trying to con me into a neuter. She stated that Fizbin, at 18 months old was displastic and had arthritic changes in his hips.
Fortunately I did ask to see the x-rays and actually laughed when she showed me the arthitic changes. I told her she was nuts, there is nothing wrong with my dog and if she thought that those were arthitic changes, then show me an x-ray that doesn't have those! I left and never returned. I wonder how many people she got to neuter their dogs that way.
She didn't get that she wouldn't be able to con me when she started to say, "There is this thing called OFA...." and I interruped her by finishing with "Orthopedic Foundation for Animals- I know about that, I get all of my dogs done". She still wanted to set up the neuter appointment.

[LynnS]

Gretchen that is an interesting study. I agree wholeheartedly with Poohbear's mom and others that it is all about responsible ownership.

I think it is important for people to stay receptive to this type of research. It may be a piece in the puzzle in preventive measures an owner can take (and breeders can endorse) to reduce cancer risk...

[rottie_mama]

Originally Posted by fbkeays

Either the vet is completely incompetent, or was trying to con me into a neuter. She stated that Fizbin, at 18 months old was displastic and had arthritic changes in his hips. Fortunately I did ask to see the x-rays and actually laughed when she showed me the arthitic changes. I told her she was nuts, there is nothing wrong with my dog and if she thought that those were arthitic changes, then show me an x-ray that doesn't have those! I left and never returned. I wonder how many people she got to neuter their dogs that way.

Yeesh. I'm all for vets encouraging folks to spay/neuter their pets, but they certainly shouldn't try to trick people into doing it!

Rachel