Greyhound Puppy

[Guest FastDogsOwnMe]

Early neutering has bad effects on dogs, ranging from growing taller/lankier with lack of body/chest to increased risk of bone cancer. HIGHLY suggested to wait until 18 months plus, especially with the males (but I realize not everyone has the choice).

[Guest brandi007]

All the greyhound puppies I've been involved in adopting out (and it's been a few now...) act more like dogs than the track greyhounds I've adopted out. Of course this is a by-product of the environment they've grown up in - puppies who grow up in more of a kennel environment are going to be more like their race track counterparts where as puppies who grow up like normal puppies (houses, families, etc.) tend to be more dog like. They're still greyhounds and sleep a lot but the time that they're awake they tend to be a lot more energetic and crazy!

 

I fostered a 6 month old puppy and would rather eat my own eyes than do it again! Haha.... kidding! But seriously consider if you have the time to put into a puppy. They require socialization, lots of exercise and tons of patience! Also puppy proof your house

[Guest Swifthounds]

[Could be do to earlier neutering/spaying in pups raised in pet homes. Our Ziggy was ridiculously tall(33" at the withers) but had a very thin and lanky build, never having filled out. He was neutered really early, 8 weeks, before the adoption group would send him to us. While he may have been a tall greyhound no matter what, I'm positive his overall build(and likely some of his height) was due to being neutered so early.

Spike was like that too. Forget his exact neutering age but it was right around 10-12 weeks old. And please don't think I'm a pervert but he also had the tiniest...um...item ever

 

Early neutering has bad effects on dogs, ranging from growing taller/lankier with lack of body/chest to increased risk of bone cancer. HIGHLY suggested to wait until 18 months plus, especially with the males (but I realize not everyone has the choice).

 

 

 

I attempted to have that conversation, research in hand, with a greyhound group to no avail. I though 6 months was pushing it, but less than 4 months old is really young. I know of three large practices that won't do alters that young except on feral trap/release kittens. I waited until Vixen was a year and would wait longer now. I would never even consider neutering a male hound at less than 54 weeks.

[Guest CampWhippet]

I am glad to hear groups neuter the oops puppies before placing them. I run a rescue group and the last 7 puppies I have taken in came from oops litters. These were from pet homes who bought a puppy with the promise to not breed, well, that didn't turn out that way.

 

I've never placed an intact dog and this is why. I had two 12 week old puppies altered today, one male and one female. Would I prefer to wait until 12 months? Absolutely. But in rescue work it is not responsible to place intact dogs, IMO.

[Guest Swifthounds]

I am glad to hear groups neuter the oops puppies before placing them. I run a rescue group and the last 7 puppies I have taken in came from oops litters. These were from pet homes who bought a puppy with the promise to not breed, well, that didn't turn out that way.

 

I've never placed an intact dog and this is why. I had two 12 week old puppies altered today, one male and one female. Would I prefer to wait until 12 months? Absolutely. But in rescue work it is not responsible to place intact dogs, IMO.

 

I hear this rationale a lot, especially from my rescue folks, and I can understand why the day to day realities of rescue make it seem much more reasonable to alter first and place second, and that keeping a dog in a kennel or a foster until the alter can be done at an ideal age is not financially feasible. Still, it seems odd that one can trust an adopter with the dog's life, but not his/her reproductive ability. Keeping intact dogs without them reproducing isn't difficult to do, and if the adopter will disregard something like that basic responsibility and spay/neuter contract, why would anyone think they'll honor any other guidance or requirements?

[Guest FastDogsOwnMe]

Agreed; if you're too stupid to keep a MALE from breeding some stranger's dog, you have no business owning ANY dogs. I would maybe understand it if the home had an intact bitch already, though.

[Guest Lovey_Hounds]

Maybe it's just the puppies I know (Elphie and Bear), but they seem to be so much taller than track dogs. Probably just me, but I can sorta spot a non track pup based on looks.

 

That is not always the case i think it depends on genetics, our youngest Chili and her sister talon are not that tall. Talon was spayed before 1 year old and chili was spayed at 2 years and 5 months old the only difference between the 2 is chili has muscles like a racer and talon looks more like a regular pet dog.

I choose not to spay chili until later on so she had a chance to grow the way she should and fill out, i also wanted to make sure her bones developed the way they should because we wanted to lure course with her.

[JJNg]

As a vet, I think I tend to be pretty open-minded about the whole spay/neuter issue. I find it interesting that the European community has a rather different mindset about it, and there are countries where spay/neuter is not routinely performed, but there is not an overpopulation problem. I honestly feel that the pet overpopulation problem in the US is a societal problem, and is not one that will be solved through spay/neuter.

 

However, given the attitude many people have about breeding dogs, I believe shelters/rescues that require puppies be sterilized before going to homes are taking the most responsible approach.

 

Still, it seems odd that one can trust an adopter with the dog's life, but not his/her reproductive ability. Keeping intact dogs without them reproducing isn't difficult to do, and if the adopter will disregard something like that basic responsibility and spay/neuter contract, why would anyone think they'll honor any other guidance or requirements?

I come across many people who love their dogs and take excellent care of them, but allow them to reproduce for all the wrong reasons. Having a dog who is intact, with the potential for having puppies, seems to be a temptation that many owners can't resist. They fall in love with the dog and decide they want a puppy from that dog. Or they have friends or relatives who think the dog is wonderful and say they want a puppy if she ever has a litter. I hear comments like this often, sometimes from people with purebred dogs from breeders, but also from people with mutts they rescued off the street, or 'designer' mixes they bought at a petstore.

 

In my experience, the true 'oops' breeding is fairly uncommon. More often, it's a family who intentionally breeds their dog because they want to have puppies, or they don't to make the effort to separate intact males and females, and essentially have the mindset of allowing a breeding to happen naturally. Doesn't mean these people don't care about their dogs or are stupid - they just have a very casual attitude about allowing a dog to have puppies.

 

I always discuss spay/neuter with puppy owners to get an idea of their future plans, and try to offer guidance if they are willing to listen (many have their minds set already). Just the other day, I spoke with a woman was said she was planning to let her pup have 1 litter before spaying her. I tactfully asked her goals in breeding, and the only reason she was planning a litter was because the breeder had told her that it's healthier to allow a dog to have a litter before spaying. Of course, now that she's been talking about breeding, she has family members and friends who want puppies from this dog (who is only about 4 months old now).

 

The woman referenced above is a very dedicated owner who just lost her geriatric lab mix a few months back. Turns out that lab mix had an accidental litter of lab/shep puppies shortly after they got her many years ago, and it was such a good experience that they wouldn't mind doing it again. This is the type of attitude shared by many in the 'general public' that has vets and rescue groups pushing spay/neuter.

 

Early neutering has bad effects on dogs, ranging from growing taller/lankier with lack of body/chest to increased risk of bone cancer.

I agree that there are potential medical consequences to early spay/neuter, and I don't usually recommend it before 6 months. However, I don't have anything against shelters and rescue groups doing it so that pups will be altered before going to new homes. Other than the difference in appearance, what 'bad effect' does growing taller and lankier have?

 

I'm also not convinced of the link between early spay/neuter with osteosarcoma. I believe that idea comes from a single study that looked at the incidence of bone cancer in rottweilers - a breed that's probably even more prone to osteo than greys. This may or may not hold true for other breeds, and there may have been other factors that affected the results as well.

 

Given the high incidence of osteo in retired racing greys, dogs that aren't neutered/spayed until after they retire, do you have any data to indicate the rate of bone cancer would be even higher if greys were neutered at the more 'traditional' age of 6 months? Has anyone looked at the incidence of bone cancer in oops puppies or training drop-outs who are neutered earlier vs. ones who raced longer? Any kind of general impression anecdotal reports here?

 

Regarding osteo in greys and the NGA vs AKC theory, I also wonder how much environment and diet plays a role. I agree there's obviously a genetic component, but there are also signficant differences in outside factors between track greys and other greys. Looking at the incidence of bone cancer in oops puppies from NGA lines that are raised in homes instead of the usual farm/track environment might also provide more information in this area.

 

Anyway, enough of my late night musings. This has gotten a lot longer than I had planned.

[Batmom]

I am glad to hear groups neuter the oops puppies before placing them. I run a rescue group and the last 7 puppies I have taken in came from oops litters. These were from pet homes who bought a puppy with the promise to not breed, well, that didn't turn out that way.

 

I've never placed an intact dog and this is why. I had two 12 week old puppies altered today, one male and one female. Would I prefer to wait until 12 months? Absolutely. But in rescue work it is not responsible to place intact dogs, IMO.

 

Thank you, Jonathan. IMO, too.

[Guest Swifthounds]

As a vet, I think I tend to be pretty open-minded about the whole spay/neuter issue. I find it interesting that the European community has a rather different mindset about it, and there are countries where spay/neuter is not routinely performed, but there is not an overpopulation problem. I honestly feel that the pet overpopulation problem in the US is a societal problem, and is not one that will be solved through spay/neuter.

 

Of course it's societal and spay/neuter has no impact. The numbers bear out that a dramatic increase in altering pets pursuant to the spay/neuter movement has made no discernible dent in the pet overpopulation problem in the U.S.

 

 

I come across many people who love their dogs and take excellent care of them, but allow them to reproduce for all the wrong reasons. Having a dog who is intact, with the potential for having puppies, seems to be a temptation that many owners can't resist. They fall in love with the dog and decide they want a puppy from that dog. Or they have friends or relatives who think the dog is wonderful and say they want a puppy if she ever has a litter. I hear comments like this often, sometimes from people with purebred dogs from breeders, but also from people with mutts they rescued off the street, or 'designer' mixes they bought at a petstore.

 

I'd not say that folks breeding this way for those reasons are taking "excellent care" of their dogs. They almost never have good knowledge of breeding practices, testing, and nutrition. I've seen more than I ever wanted to in the vets office a few days later when the bitch is very ill and they have no clue that they could/should have done anything differently.

 

In my experience, the true 'oops' breeding is fairly uncommon. More often, it's a family who intentionally breeds their dog because they want to have puppies, or they don't to make the effort to separate intact males and females, and essentially have the mindset of allowing a breeding to happen naturally. Doesn't mean these people don't care about their dogs or are stupid - they just have a very casual attitude about allowing a dog to have puppies.

 

I agree that oops breedings are uncommon. Well, it usually means they don't care about the health or longevity of the puppies they produce, the health implications for the dogs, and they almost never make a lifetime commitment to each animal they breed. Do they willfully breed? Yes. Do they do it with malice? Usually not, just ignorance - not that its any better for the dogs.

 

I always discuss spay/neuter with puppy owners to get an idea of their future plans, and try to offer guidance if they are willing to listen (many have their minds set already). Just the other day, I spoke with a woman was said she was planning to let her pup have 1 litter before spaying her. I tactfully asked her goals in breeding, and the only reason she was planning a litter was because the breeder had told her that it's healthier to allow a dog to have a litter before spaying. Of course, now that she's been talking about breeding, she has family members and friends who want puppies from this dog (who is only about 4 months old now).

 

The woman referenced above is a very dedicated owner who just lost her geriatric lab mix a few months back. Turns out that lab mix had an accidental litter of lab/shep puppies shortly after they got her many years ago, and it was such a good experience that they wouldn't mind doing it again. This is the type of attitude shared by many in the 'general public' that has vets and rescue groups pushing spay/neuter.

 

Perfect example of why education goes a longer way than spay/neuter.

 

Early neutering has bad effects on dogs, ranging from growing taller/lankier with lack of body/chest to increased risk of bone cancer.

 

I agree that there are potential medical consequences to early spay/neuter, and I don't usually recommend it before 6 months. However, I don't have anything against shelters and rescue groups doing it so that pups will be altered before going to new homes. Other than the difference in appearance, what 'bad effect' does growing taller and lankier have?

 

I'm also not convinced of the link between early spay/neuter with osteosarcoma. I believe that idea comes from a single study that looked at the incidence of bone cancer in rottweilers - a breed that's probably even more prone to osteo than greys. This may or may not hold true for other breeds, and there may have been other factors that affected the results as well.

 

Given the high incidence of osteo in retired racing greys, dogs that aren't neutered/spayed until after they retire, do you have any data to indicate the rate of bone cancer would be even higher if greys were neutered at the more 'traditional' age of 6 months? Has anyone looked at the incidence of bone cancer in oops puppies or training drop-outs who are neutered earlier vs. ones who raced longer? Any kind of general impression anecdotal reports here?

 

Regarding osteo in greys and the NGA vs AKC theory, I also wonder how much environment and diet plays a role. I agree there's obviously a genetic component, but there are also signficant differences in outside factors between track greys and other greys. Looking at the incidence of bone cancer in oops puppies from NGA lines that are raised in homes instead of the usual farm/track environment might also provide more information in this area.

 

I don't know how much useful information we could glean from studying oops litters altered too early. By definition, they are oops litters, so things like genetics and environmental exposure will be variables that cannot be eliminated.

 

It's not just things like osteo. The hormonal influx at or around 54 weeks causes growth plate fusion and other natural maturing processes implicated in everything from bone strength to temperament, and lack of muscle mass. Greyhounds atlered early nearly always have a juvenile look all their lives - and a more juvenile body structure.

 

There's also the dramatic increase in bladder and prostate cancers in neutered dogs. I'm not saying that is a reason to never neuter, but it is something to factor into the decision and something I think owners should be advised of so that they can make an informed decision, though it's not something most vets advise clients about.

 

It still seems odd that one can trust an adopter with the dog's life, but not his/her reproductive ability, even for the short time it would take to wait for the proper age to alter. Keeping intact dogs without them reproducing isn't difficult to do, especially if you only have one intact dog at a time, which would normally be the case where adoption with required altering is the norm. Enforcing the alter clause is easy to do, as long as you know how to draft the contract. There's something oddly hypocritical about trading the good health and longevity of the dog for the security of knowing it will never reproduce. Harm the animal so that it cannot be used to produce more puppies? An adopter not willing to honor a spay/neuter contract isn't likely to listen to other silliness in the contract like taking proper medical care,not tying it out on an exercise line, returning it to the group when unwanted, etc.

[Guest CampWhippet]

..... Still, it seems odd that one can trust an adopter with the dog's life, but not his/her reproductive ability. Keeping intact dogs without them reproducing isn't difficult to do, and if the adopter will disregard something like that basic responsibility and spay/neuter contract, why would anyone think they'll honor any other guidance or requirements?

 

Odd? I suppose. But an intelligent person can discern that one's abilty to properly care for a dog and still have an "oops" litter are compatible events. It happens all the time, just not with any of the dogs I place.

[Guest Swifthounds]

..... Still, it seems odd that one can trust an adopter with the dog's life, but not his/her reproductive ability. Keeping intact dogs without them reproducing isn't difficult to do, and if the adopter will disregard something like that basic responsibility and spay/neuter contract, why would anyone think they'll honor any other guidance or requirements?

 

Odd? I suppose. But an intelligent person can discern that one's abilty to properly care for a dog and still have an "oops" litter are compatible events. It happens all the time, just not with any of the dogs I place.

 

Odd was the kindest word I could come up with. Puppies, and rescue puppies in general involve a lot of issues that aren't present with something like an ex-racing greyhound. Keeping them from reproducing is one of the easiest, especially if there aren't other intact dogs in the house. I have kept intact males and intact females at times and never had an issue. Of course I'm as dilligent about their reproductive health as I am about other aspects of the health, but you can be much lazier about it (especially if you don't have goth sexes intact at once) and have no issues. As someone stated earlier in the discussion, most of the oops pups in the pet population really aren't accidents, but decisions. Oops litters are possible, but where you're adopting an intact puppy into a home with no other intact dog and on a spay/neuter contract an oops litter really isn't compatible with properly caring for an animal - it basically has to be an intentional act.

 

Why rescue a puppy only to choose to deliberately bring about locomotive, physical, sexual, and muscular malfunctions, and increase disease process?

[Guest DoofBert]

When OOPS girlie Tania came home at 10 weeks, we immediately put her in training... Puppy Kindergartner, then official obedniance school. We used positive motivation training and some free shape training to civilize our 'LAND SHARK'.

 

She is very much like our retired racers in personality and behaviors.

 

Our vet (and some racing owners) cautioned us not to spay Tania too soon to make certain her long bones mature properly. She is not lanky and carries a good weight. She was spayed at 11 months.

 

ALl in all, a terrific experience. But I must admit, that having a retired foster from a foster home is so so easy!

[Guest der_Windhund]

I have had my 5 month old greyhound/wolfhound for 2 weeks now. I can tell you what he is like, but I have only been around racers for a few hours so cant give good comparison.

He is extremley smart. I am clicker training, and he is very food motivated.

house broke in 7 days.

In one week, sits, down, stay, rings bell for out, and working on recall.

He is extremely affectionate. Loves every person and dog. Especially loves kids, and their high pitched sounds.

He is spooked easier than other dogs I find.

He is much more mellow than other pups his age, and rarely pulls on his leash.

He is very attached already, and still not used to his kennel.

he really wants to please, and I never have to raise my voice ( I think this would upset him allot as well)

He is an escape artist, and a thief. Not a chewer, but does bark at cats ect.

He is the perfect dog in my eyes, and very beautiful and unique.

I would like retired racer next....