This is a bit of creeping PETA-ism that annoys me whenever I encounter it, and I’ll object every time no matter how much I agree with the substance of the comment. “Pet” is the English word that refers to animals that are NOT “just belongings”, animals that are valued for emotional reasons beyond their practical and economic value. That’s why “pet” is also used as a term of endearment for human loved ones, and “cow”, “donkey”, and “sheep” aren’t.

As regards cross breeding, I think all dogs chould be cross bred, preferably until they are all wild-dog-shaped, normal-legged, shortish haired, athletic looking dogs.

Because, of course, no one is justified in wanting for any reason, any dog that doesn’t look and act like a dingo. It’s an outrage that people should have smart, steady, responsible guide dogs; reliable, dedicated shepherds or cattle dogs; and especially no small, medium-energy, affectionate housepets, right?

No Bulldog caesareans,

My personal opinion is that any bitch that needs a caesarean for her first whelping, should be spayed, and the litter should not be registerable—placed as pets on spay/neuter contracts only.

no docked tails, no clipped ears,

I’m opposed to these things, too, but we don’t have to end the existence of purebred dogs in order end these things. Just ask the British.

no hip dysplasia, no droopy infected eyes, no ears prone to infection, no breed weaknesses.

Because, of course, all these things will magically disappear if we just forbid the existence of purebred dogs, and mandate that only crossbreeds can exist. Right. Sure.

Just canine athletes, with respectful and truly caring human companions.

Because of course, I am not a respectful and truly caring companion to the Twisted Abomination of Nature that’s sitting here beside me. (Okay, you didn’t say that, and I bet have no idea what dog I’m talking about, but I’m pretty confident that you’d agree with the ego with a keyboard that said it, if you did know. Follows logically from what you describe as the only acceptable dog.)

Anything less is a crime.

Having a dog that you personally don’t approve of or value is a crime. Right. Got it.

As regards cross breeding, I think all dogs chould be cross bred, preferably until they are all wild-dog-shaped, normal-legged, shortish haired, athletic looking dogs. No Bulldog caesareans, no docked tails, no clipped ears, no hip dysplasia, no droopy infected eyes, no ears prone to infection, no breed weaknesses. Just canine athletes, with respectful and truly caring human companions.

Anything less is a crime.

Of course, if one is the owner who only needs a fluffy toy, castration has all desirable bonuses: the energy level drops, and if you do it at a very young age, so does the IQ. As a result, you don’t need to provide your dog with walks and work, challenging their mind and body. The dog will be happy with the bag of food and a couch, no need to train, as there are no agression issues, no need to take a stroll in the rain, no need to become the dog’s pack leader — why bother?

At least, don’t stay brain-washed and have courage to admit that you want to alter your dog’s personality, so it fits your lifestyle and turns your devoted companion into a stuffed animal, that it is convenience you care about — not the health issues and overpopulation!

How many dogs have you seen who would run away and quickly impregnate a run-away bitch who happened to be around and in heat? Even if you know a few, think about how little responsibility their owners had. And again — what’s wrong with sterilization that only eliminates the reproductive ability but dones’t dosuch horrendous damage to the hormonal system and the whole mind and body as a result?!

And if this is such a healthy procedure that only has benefits — why not try on ourselves? Instead of poisonining our body with hormonal contraception or going through the inconvenience of other other contraception, after we have the kids and don’t want to have more — let’s get rid of those organs! Get an early menopause, become a castrate — why not, if it is so good for the body?

I completely agree with the statement made by Jessica. It should be a Vet’s DUTY to explain an owners role if they choose to NOT alter their pet. A Vet should explain in detail what can happen if a female gets pregnant or how a male can wander and inpregnate females… Also, how to prevent unwanted pregnancies should they choose to not alter. There are many ‘backyard’ breeders who have contacted our rescue asking for help… it’s always the same scenerio… “I thought it would be easy to find homes for all of them”… Then we are called on to fix the problem they created. If we can’t help… it’s off to the shelter to either get saved and find a great loving home, go to a hell hole, or be euthanized.

Breeders too (in all forms) should make people aware of these issues. I am going to assume that honest reputable breeders not only screen applicants but educate potential adopters about altering vs not altering. But I know, not all of them do. For some, it’s about MONEY and not the BREED.

All lives are worth the effort in saving. It is not the animals fault, I place the blame on negligent owners mostly.. However Vets and Breeders must realize how vital their role is in the education of people who are not as aware of the potential outcomes of not altering animals.

I am not trying to say that ALL animals should be fixed and I hope it isn’t coming across that way. A good breeder will breed the right dogs to get a litter of healthy pups who will further that partiular breeds’ standards and make it a good solid/strong stock.
Then there are others…We have taken adult dogs from breeders because they are of no use to them anymore and I am so sick of people ‘creating’ these new hybrid dogs. Gee… lets put these two together and see what happens…. They end up at the shelter or in rescue groups… that is what happens. We recently helped a litter of Pit/Chihuahua pups b/c of that reason… will it ever stop?

I’m tending to jump around here, but I get so worked up on this issue because I deal with the aftermath on a DAILY basis…and let me remind everyone.. Rescue Groups do not get any monetary benefit from doing so.

Education is a powerful tool and it’s high time that EVERYONE in the position to do so… Does it!

The problem in many situations is that anecdotal information is often not substantiated BUT also popular culture (whether you are talking dog training community or not) often stumbles onto trends that either don’t have the numbers to study or to gain the interest of researchers.

The difficulty is that you can make statements on particular trends or cite studies that support them while there is probably another one that conflicts elsewhere.

It is something that has made me cranky at some scientific presentations…

I don’t remember when the really early altering procedures began to be promoted—1990s? But most veterinarians insist on delaying up here until after 6 months of age, and many breeders here want their animals to develop the physical traits that they believe are solely based on hormones in the system.

My point? (Other than I probably need to finish my coffee before posting!) Is that you did a great job in giving an overview and pulling out important statements for reader review.

So, TY2U for tackling this!

Thanks, everyone! Great comments!

I’ve found five retrospective studies of longevity in dogs as a function of s/n status, and they all found the same things: intact and neutered male dogs have the same average lifespan, while spayed females outlive intact females by an average of 1.2-2.6 years, depending on the study. So the oft repeated claim that s/n increases lifespan in dogs is only supportable in female dogs, not male dogs.

OK, now this issue gets more complicated. The studies that looked at this question were all retrospective studies, not prospective studies. For an issue like longevity and s/n, there is a built in selection bias that will exaggerate the longevity of s/n dogs or s/n cats.

Glickman et.al. briefly mention this selection bias issue in their health survey report of Akitas: “In bitches, it appears that the later a dog is neutered the longer it lived. However, this finding may be biased by the fact that unless a bitch lives to an older age it cannot be neutered at that age. In contrast, any bitch could be neutered earlier in life.”

I was curious what this might amount to, so I did a Monte Carlo simulation of a model dog population s/n at different ages. I used a real longevity distribution curve and distributed the s/n over the age ranges. The results show that the selection bias in retrospective longevity studies of s/n can be quite large. In my analysis, it exaggerated the median longevity advantage for s/n by 2.5 years. YMMV, depending on at what ages s/n is distributed over the longevity distribution curve. The more dogs who are s/n as adults and especially as older adults, the larger this selection bias becomes.

The point is, I think if somebody were to do a controlled prospective research study of longevity as a function of s/n in dogs it would probably find that intact male dogs outlive their neutered male counterparts, and that the longevity advantage observed in retrospective studies for spaying female dogs would shrink and perhaps disappear entirely.

Controlled prospective research studies are a lot more expensive to do than retrospective studies, and in a field like veterinary medical research that isn’t funded to the degree that human medicine is, controlled prospective research studies are few and far between.