Intersting Article About Health Risks

[marion]

As many of you know, I'm NOT a fan of the sistematic neutering of ALL hounds. My Ivy was NOT neutered. He led a very happy life without any surgery and intact. Soldi is not neutered either. There might be indications to do so

in individual dogs for various reasons, but my opinion is, that there are many health risks that dog owners are not

aware of as they don't get informed about them. One point is the impressing number of osteosarcoma which is

significantly higher in neutered dogs. The neutering of dogs increases the risk of osteosarcoma.I found this article and I think it's intersting

 

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHea...euterInDogs.pdf

 

 

[marion]

As many of you know, I'm NOT a fan of the sistematic neutering of ALL hounds. My Ivy was NOT neutered. He led a very happy life without any surgery and intact. Soldi is not neutered either. There might be indications to do so

in individual dogs for various reasons, but my opinion is, that there are many health risks that dog owners are not

aware of as they don't get informed about them. One point is the impressing number of osteosarcoma which is

significantly higher in neutered dogs. The neutering of dogs increases the risk of osteosarcoma.I found this article and I think it's intersting

 

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHea...euterInDogs.pdf

 

Here's another one...

 

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

[Guest Energy11]

Un-castrated dogs run a higher risk for prostate cancer and urinary tract problems, not to mention, aggression issues. My son's IG went un-castrated until he was 11, and had major prostate issues. After the castration, the dog was fine.

 

I would always castrate my males. I worked for a vet for four years, and the un-castrated males seemed to have a lot of problems. Just my thoughts ...

 

Same with un-spayed females. They run risks of uterine cancer, and re-occuring UTIs. Not to mention, drawing male dogs from everywhere, and causing aggression among the males in the house as well.

 

I am a supporter of spaying and castration in all breeds.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Energy11

[marion]

Un-castrated dogs run a higher risk for prostate cancer and urinary tract problems, not to mention, aggression issues. My son's IG went un-castrated until he was 11, and had major prostate issues. After the castration, the dog was fine.

 

I would always castrate my males. I worked for a vet for four years, and the un-castrated males seemed to have a lot of problems. Just my thoughts ...

 

I know lots and lots of uncastrated males without any urinary tract problems...by the way, my father is a vet.

 

I haven't posted this to start a discussion...I have no intention to change anyones opinions...I just found this article

interesting.

[Guest SusanP]

At least one of the articles is talking primarily about spay/neuter before 6 months, the other before 1 year. But our greyhounds tend to be spayed/neutered much later in life. Still, I agree that the decision to do any surgery should be an informed one, and this was news to me.

Edited November 15, 2009 by SusanP

[Guest Energy11]

I think it is a good idea that you posted the article. I guess whether to spay or castrate is a personal issue, too.

 

Thank you for the information, truly!

 

 

[Sighthounds4me]

At least one of the articles is talking primarily about spay/neuter before 6 months, the other before 1 year. But our greyhounds tend to be spayed/neutered much later in life. Still, I agree that the decision to do any surgery should be an informed one, and this was news to me.

 

Exactly, and any large dog I own will always be spayed/neutered late, assuming I am allowed to do so by contract (whether is is from a rescue or a breeder).

 

I will say that I have seen many males with prostate troubles, who are intact, especially the older they get. I am still debating about neutering Manero after he completes his UKC championship...

 

Oh, and I should say, too, that I am no longer certain I am a huge proponant of altering pets. Now, the disclaimers I attach to that are these: in the US, there are many, many idiotic pet owners who should probably be spayed and neutered themselve. To let them have intact animals only increases the numbers of pets who will never know the joys of having a happy home.

 

Also, for the average pet owner, altering their pets is a good thing. Many can't/don't want to deal with the potential issues of having intact pets...they don't want to keep them contained and supervised, to prevent unwanted litters, etc. For those that can/want to be responsible, I do not see a problem. But that is a culture that needs to change, and is unlikely to anytime soon. Thus the bills and laws we are seeing being proposed all over the nation.

 

I remember years ago, it was never a thought...when I was a kid, none of my pets were altered. And only if we *wanted* them to, were there ever any breedings. That's what being responsible means, much like Marion is stating.

 

However, I will also say this: for responsible rescue and adoption organizations, like most Greyhound adoption organizations, altering is the way to go. Otherwise, it would only make the overpopulation problem worse, because you'd have many, many people getting their hands on intact animals, telling the organization anything they want to hear ("Yes, I will get the pet altered...of COURSE I will!" wink wink, nudge, nudge). I shudder that our local shelter does not alter pets before placing them. How many more land in that shelter as a result?

Edited November 15, 2009 by Sighthounds4me

[Guest ThunderPaws]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I always like to hear both sides of the story.

 

It states that if dogs are neutered under the age of 1, the risk of osteosarcoma is 3.8 times higher.

Question: Since most of our retired racers are neutered at the age of 2 and up, why is the osteo rate still so high?

[Trudy]

Question: Since most of our retired racers are neutered at the age of 2 and up, why is the osteo rate still so high?

 

Because they are large boned dogs and the incidence of osteo with large breeds is higher to begin with.

 

 

 

A responsible owner with a large breed dog would be likely better off waiting until ~18 months or so before neutering their dog. Allows for growth to be done and the increased risk of osteo is no longer there (at least not to the extent it is in neutering them very young).

 

 

Doing a search of neutering and osteosarcoma will bring up lots of stuff to read through.

 

 

[marion]

At least one of the articles is talking primarily about spay/neuter before 6 months, the other before 1 year. But our greyhounds tend to be spayed/neutered much later in life. Still, I agree that the decision to do any surgery should be an informed one, and this was news to me.

 

Exactly, and any large dog I own will always be spayed/neutered late, assuming I am allowed to do so by contract (whether is is from a rescue or a breeder).

 

I will say that I have seen many males with prostate troubles, who are intact, especially the older they get. I am still debating about neutering Manero after he completes his UKC championship...

 

Oh, and I should say, too, that I am no longer certain I am a huge proponant of altering pets. Now, the disclaimers I attach to that are these: in the US, there are many, many idiotic pet owners who should probably be spayed and neutered themselve. To let them have intact animals only increases the numbers of pets who will never know the joys of having a happy home.

 

Also, for the average pet owner, altering their pets is a good thing. Many can't/don't want to deal with the potential issues of having intact pets...they don't want to keep them contained and supervised, to prevent unwanted litters, etc. For those that can/want to be responsible, I do not see a problem. But that is a culture that needs to change, and is unlikely to anytime soon. Thus the bills and laws we are seeing being proposed all over the nation.

 

I remember years ago, it was never a thought...when I was a kid, none of my pets were altered. And only if we *wanted* them to, were there ever any breedings. That's what being responsible means, much like Marion is stating.

 

However, I will also say this: for responsible rescue and adoption organizations, like most Greyhound adoption organizations, altering is the way to go. Otherwise, it would only make the overpopulation problem worse, because you'd have many, many people getting their hands on intact animals, telling the organization anything they want to hear ("Yes, I will get the pet altered...of COURSE I will!" wink wink, nudge, nudge). I shudder that our local shelter does not alter pets before placing them. How many more land in that shelter as a result?

 

 

Yes, I agree with you concerning the mentality of many dog owners who just don't want to deal with gender specific traits.

Also I understand that the adoption agencies MUST go that way in order to avoid unwanted litters and more

abuse of Greyhounds. Here in Spain there does always exist the danger of the hunters who breed whenever

they can to 'produce' more hunting galgos.

My point of view is only valid for a small number of dog people who are ready to deal with gender specific traits.

I know many people here who don't neuter their dogs because there's just no need. I depends on many factors.

I only can tell, that I never had a problem with my two intact male and female hounds. Soldi entered in heat

once

per year, Ivy couldn't care less until those 4 fertile days where I had an eye on them and walked them separately.

No false pregnancies, no urinary tract problems, no tyroid problems just nothing. I was lucky.

Now my poor Ivy is at the bridge and I still can't overcome his passing...

The articles are meant just as an information, as most vets don't inform about any risks.

[Guest KennelMom]

I think the health benefits/risks of spay/neuters are a wash. Spaying/Neutering increases the risk of some things, decreases the risk of others. Our own personal experience is that we've had healthy dogs well past 13-14 and all were spay/neutered. I would be much more inclined to keep a male intact than a female, simply because of the risk of mammary tumors (just went through surgery with that for Quilty who is most likely not spayed) and pyometria. With males, you don't really have those two risks...

 

An intact dog is no reason to permit misbehavior...though I think a lot of the misbehavior (ie, aggression) seen in American unaltered dogs stems more from "nuture" rather than nature. Bottom line is that most American dogs are removed from their mother and litters far too young, put into an unnatural environment with few (if any) rules/boundaries and they dont' get enough exercise or the chance to be a dog (as opposed to furry child-substitutes). But...it's easier to point to a dog's balls and say they are the problem.

 

That said, considering the millions of dogs we kill every year in this country b/c we (collectively) toss them aside when we don't want them, can't afford them, they become inconvenient or when they "oops" make puppies I FULLY support the routine spay/neuter of pets in America. It benefits dogdom as a whole and isn't a significant cost/risk to individual dogs in terms of long-term health risks...because there are some benefits as well.

Edited November 16, 2009 by KennelMom

[Sighthounds4me]

I think the health benefits/risks of spay/neuters are a wash. Spaying/Neutering increases the risk of some things, decreases the risk of others. Our own personal experience is that we've had healthy dogs well past 13-14 and all were spay/neutered. I would be much more inclined to keep a male intact than a female, simply because of the risk of mammary tumors (just went through surgery with that for Quilty who is most likely not spayed) and pyometria. With males, you don't really have those two risks...

 

An intact dog is no reason to permit misbehavior...though I think a lot of the misbehavior (ie, aggression) seen in American unaltered dogs stems more from "nuture" rather than nature. Bottom line is that most American dogs are removed from their mother and litters far too young, put into an unnatural environment with few (if any) rules/boundaries and they dont' get enough exercise or the chance to be a dog (as opposed to furry child-substitutes). But...it's easier to point to a dog's balls and say they are the problem.

 

That said, considering the millions of dogs we kill every year in this country b/c we (collectively) toss them aside when we don't want them, can't afford them, they become inconvenient or when they "oops" make puppies I FULLY support the routine spay/neuter of pets in America. It benefits dogdom as a whole and isn't a significant cost/risk to individual dogs in terms of long-term health risks...because there are some benefits as well.

 

These are some VERY good points, as well. I, too, am more likely to own an intact male (I have two, currently) than an intact bitch. If I am not a breeder, I see no reason to have an intact bitch. Males are much easier, both because I do not have to deal with the hormonal changes,and because breeding is so much easier, if the breeder wants to use the male.

 

As far as misbehavior...YES YES YES! I will say that in some cases, it may be a bit tougher to train intact dogs. But, that is exactly as I say: in *some* cases, and *a bit* more difficult. It is neither impossible, norsomething to be taken lightly. I know plenty of intact male (and female) dogs that have advanced obedience and agility titles. Many of those are among non-traditional obedience/agility breeds, proving even further that it can be done. So that means that day-to-day manners are not that difficult to maintain.

 

Is it true that *sometimes* those hormones can lead to snarkiness and fighting? Yes. but that is *sometimes,* and it can be managed with proper socialization and training.

 

And that last paragraph...again, I agree, but to a point. For the majority of people, yes. For a few, who have the ability and desire to deal with it, I don't see it as a problem. But, I don't see a need for spay/neuter to be mandatory by law (and anyway, that is taking away a freedom upon which this country was founded!). Education is still the key!

[Guest missecho]

Interestingly, I've never seen any information about hot flashes in female dogs that have been spayed. I guess nobody cares!

[Guest missecho]

Another point: I wonder what is the effect of the steroid injections that are given to female greyhounds to prevent their going into heat during their racing careers.

[marion]

Another point: I wonder what is the effect of the steroid injections that are given to female greyhounds to prevent their going into heat during their racing careers.

 

Yes, steroid injections have serious side effects. They can cause cancer

I found this info in the Internet:

 

Cheque Drops, also sold under the name Mibolerone, are a liquid oral contraceptive that must be given to bitches on a daily basis for thirty days prior to coming into heat in order to be effective.

 

The problem is bitches seldom come in season like clockwork, so predicting when to start the thirty day dosage is next to impossible. This can lead to prolonged use of the medication, and a greater possibility of experiencing some of the numerous side-effects.

 

Cheque Drops have been known to cause:

 

•Infertility

•Liver damage

•Increased chance of vaginal infections

•Increased house wetting

•Body odor

•Skin problems

•Vaginal distortion

•Increased urge to ride other dogs

•Personality changes

It should also be noted that veterinarians do not recommend using Cheque Drops until after a bitch has had her first full season.

 

Ovaban Rx

Ovaban Rx is basically birth control pills for dogs.

 

Chemically known as megestrol acetate, Ovaban is designed to be given to a bitch at the beginning of her heat cycle with an aim toward delaying it, although these birth control pills for dogs can be started earlier if your bitch has a reasonably predictable cycle.

 

Ovaban is considered slightly safer to use than Cheque Drops, but can also produce side-effects, including:

 

•Uterine infections

•Breast enlargement

•Mammarian cancer

•Weight gain

•Coat changes

 

It's not possible to trick nature without health risks.

[Burpdog]

My point of view is only valid for a small number of dog people who are ready to deal with gender specific traits

 

If you mean seasons and howling I have dealt with it and that is not why I spay & neuter. It has to do with mammory cancer and prostrate cancer.

 

Regarding osteo and other cancers: the thinking on this is over vaccinating and the increased use of pestisides causes the cancers.

[marion]

My point of view is only valid for a small number of dog people who are ready to deal with gender specific traits

 

If you mean seasons and howling I have dealt with it and that is not why I spay & neuter. It has to do with mammory cancer and prostrate cancer.

 

Regarding osteo and other cancers: the thinking on this is over vaccinating and the increased use of pestisides causes the cancers.

 

 

Diane...respecting the risk of mammary tumors, it decreases with neutering a female before her first heat cycle but

there are studies that prostrate cancer is even more frequent in castrated males. Opinions seem to be controversial.In male dogs, neutering (castration) has been shown to reduce the incidence of prostatic hyperplasia and infection, but not

prostatic cancer.

Respecting piometra, the risk is nearly eliminated if the female gets spayed within the first 4 years of her life.

It seems that for females there do exist more health benefits than for males after castration.

 

http://www.vetcontact.com/en/art.php?a=29&t

[Sighthounds4me]

Another point: I wonder what is the effect of the steroid injections that are given to female greyhounds to prevent their going into heat during their racing careers.

 

Generally, it's not steroids (which would do nothing), and it's not injections.

 

Most often, Greyhound bitches on the track are given synthetic hormones orally. Not terribly different that human women being on the pill.