Do you like this story?
Study links dog spaying with shorter lifespan
By David S. Greene
March 8, 2010
Study: Removal of ovaries could affect lifespan. A potentially groundbreaking study examined aging in Rottweilers. The work by a team led by Dr. David Waters of Purdue, published in the December 2009 issue of the journal Aging Cell, strongly indicates that the length of time a dog retains her ovaries is directly linked to how many years she will live.
Dr. Waters’ team spent a decade collecting and analyzing medical histories, longevity, and causes of death for 119 Rottweilers in the United States and Canada that survived to 13 years of age. These dogs were compared with a group of 186 Rottweilers with more typical longevity.
Researchers found that female Rottweilers have a distinct survival advantage over males—a trend also documented in humans. That advantage appears to be determined by whether the female dog is sexually intact, however. “Taking away ovaries during the first four years of life completely erased the female survival advantage,” Dr. Waters said.
This isn’t just an interesting factoid that will impact the spay-neuter debate with respect to dogs. It could have a lot to say about research into human longevity as well.
Dr. Parker’s group studied more than 29,000 women who underwent a hysterectomy for benign uterine disease. The findings showed that the benefits of ovary removal—protection against ovarian, uterine, and breast cancer—were outweighed by an increased mortality rate from other causes. As a result, longevity was cut short in women who lost their ovaries before the age of 50, compared with those who kept their ovaries for at least 50 years.
How ovaries affect longevity in Rottweilers is not understood, but Dr. Waters’ research points to a new set of research questions, recalibrating the conversation about removing ovaries.
Breed-specific legislation redux: Florida legislators are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by moving toward enacting sloppy, breed-specific laws again, substantively reversing their prohibition of such a thing more than 10 years ago. The bill under consideration is Florida HB 543 (Senate version: SB 1276).
In effect, they will be turning back the clock to a time when blaming the dog, independent of contextual evidence, was acceptable. State Rep. Thurston (D-Plantation) isn’t suggesting any move towards owner responsibility. And the fact that identifying breeds accurately is, at best, a crapshoot, has eluded Thurston, as well as his co-sponsors. Solving those problems can’t be done through the legislative process. The losers here will be good, innocent dogs and responsible owners. If you live in Florida, it ‘s time to make your voice heard (thanks to Cathy A for the cite).
Cat killed despite microchip: Sorry, but we’re not done with the Sunshine State yet. A couple in Broward county lost their Bengal cat, O’Malley. Fortunately, O’Malley was microchipped. That’s good, right? If he is found by authorities, he can be quickly identified and returned to his anxious parents. Good news: O’Malley was found by the authorities. Bad news, according to the Sun-Sentinel: he was put to death anyway.
The cat’s death has the family and county commissioners wondering if the scandal-plagued agency – which was restructured in 2008 after facing criticism for animal abuse and misconduct – has reformed its ways. The county is apologizing, but officials aren’t sure what exactly happened and are waiting for an internal investigation to be completed.[...]
An audit of the agency two years ago found food for dogs and cats in short supply, animal carcasses rotted in maggot-infested bags and workers taking valuable dogs for their own profits. Officials were forced to change procedures to reduce the problems.
“I’m furious,” said Broward County Mayor Ken Keechl, who led the drive to reform the agency. “I’m tired of it – how many years will this keep going on?”
Excellent question, Mr. Mayor.
For some good news, we fly up to New York…
The angel of Union Square: Emelinda Narvaez has rescued 10,000 dogs out of her mobile van in lower Manhattan. You read that right. Ten thousand dogs. This profile of Ms. Narvaez, a cancer survivor herself, shows her to be a truly remarkable woman.
[She] believes dogs are the “Angels of This Earth.” But to the more than 10,000 dogs she’s rescued in New York, Emelinda is the angel. She does her miracle work through her nonprofit, Earth Angels, a no-kill canine rescue and adoption organization established to rescue homeless and abandoned dogs.
For the past 41 years, every single day, rain, shine or sleet, Emelinda has been saving dogs on the streets and taking canines from overcrowded shelters (that otherwise would’ve been euthanized). She then nurses the dogs back to health and finds happy, healthy homes for her four-legged friends.
Thank you for your hard work and dedication, Emelinda. I have to agree with the author of the Huffington Post article, on behalf of the 10,000 lucky dogs. You are the angel.
Bow to wow: Now let’s hop on the subway and head a little north, to midtown. We’re stopping at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. As part of the adoption drive for Animal Care & Control of NYC, a gorgeous golden retriever named Bailey was on the set of The Today Show last week. Also present was gold medal winning U.S. Olympian Steven Holcomb, pilot of the victorious and historic “Night Train” four-man bobsled team (the U.S. had never won a gold in bobsled before the Vancouver Games). Steve met Bailey, and promptly adopted her…a golden for a gold medal winner (a golden tip of the cap to Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS for the story).
Paws for poetry: Switching gears entirely … April is National Poetry Month. (I learn so many interesting tidbits on this beat.) In celebration, I’m volunteering you, so listen up. Paws for Poetry is running a contest, and you are invited. See rules and regulations here for prizes and details. The deadline is April 15, so you have a little more than a month. Good luck!
I always like to hear from readers, especially if you have tips, and links for interesting stories. Give me a shout in the comments, or better yet, send me an e-mail.
Photo credits: Chow and pit bull terrier: Laura Dapkus, examiner.com. Steve and Bailey: msnbc.com.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
“Does Dr. Waters recommend that every dog owner delay their pet’s ovariohysterectomy? Not at all. In fact, he cautioned against overgeneralizing the study findings … “
Oh, I’m sure THAT won’t happen.
Comment by Mary Mary — March 8, 2010 @ 5:34 am
Not at ALL like the overgeneralizing that goes on NOW when I can’t walk an intact male dog who’s perfectly well-mannered, incredibly well-socialized, totally non-aggressive and obviously well-cared-for — not to mention clearly licensed and not-so-clearly microchipped — without total strangers stopping me to deliver the lecture that I am the worst of irresponsible, knuckle-dragging pet-owners, imperiling the life of my dog and personally responsible for the killing of millions of others in shelters. Everything but offering to castrate him right there on the street.
The same overgeneralization that goes on when I can’t get my PUPPY into a daycare at 4 months unless her gonads have been sliced out? Because … well, just because.
That kind of overgeneralization that doesn’t happen, you mean?
You know how we roll here, Mary Mary. Bring on the science and we’ll talk.
Question everything.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 8, 2010 @ 6:17 am
I really wish “they” would make up their minds on the spaying thing. The longer we leave females intact, the greater the risk for mammary tumors. But the shorter the lifespan. Eek.
Comment by YesBiscuit — March 8, 2010 @ 6:30 am
I meant - if we spay them early in an effort to ward off the mammary cancer, the shorter the lifespan.
(My brain works faster than my fingers oftentimes and sort of assumes everyone will just know what I meant to say.)
Comment by YesBiscuit — March 8, 2010 @ 6:32 am
I would suggest what it really means is that there’s no sweeping generalization that applies. On FB, a veterinarian I knew immediately jumped in to cite “lots” of data establishing the link between delayed spay and mammary cancer. And then he stated mammary cancer was the most common canine cancer.
Uh … show me those citations.
Let’s say you have a dog who has a high risk of breed-linked osteosarcoma (like a Rottie). Juvenile spay-neuter has been linked to higher incidence of osteo in this breed.
So … you make an INDIVIDUAL decision after discussing with your veterinarian, that your own dog has a better chance of living longer with a higher risk of mammary cancer and a lower risk of osteosarcoma. So you wait a few years to spay.
In other words, we’re not talking herd medicine here. Or we don’t have to be, anymore.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 8, 2010 @ 7:18 am
I am a simpleton and long for the days of sweeping generalizations!
Comment by YesBiscuit — March 8, 2010 @ 7:56 am
I was appalled to read about O’Malley the Bengal cat and the tragic faux pas with the Broward county, that cost this cat his life. When will pets be treated less like chattel and more like living creatures that bring joy to our lives? In Toronto we have had our own city’s Humane Society closed down by police for a few months due to negligence.
Comment by Nina — March 8, 2010 @ 9:54 am
For Mary Mary- I own and operate a dog boarding facility. I take intact males on occasion. It doesn’t matter if they are well mannered and friendly with the other dogs. Other dogs, neutered, spayed or otherwise become stressed when an intact male comes to my kennel. My theory is they smell the hormones and it riles them up. I am currently notifying my clients that I will no longer be accepting intact males. It’s not worth it to me to have the rest of the dogs upset. I haven’t taken unspayed females for years because of the same reason and if they come into heat while at my kennel, it’s a nightmare. Everyone wants to either fight or try to get in on the action!(and there’s a lot more clean up for me. If you own an unaltered animal that’s your choice and I totally get it but with that choice comes more responsibility. Find a house sitter when you need take a trip.
Comment by Kate — March 8, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
My theory is they smell the hormones and it riles them up.
Comment by Kate — March 8, 2010
It wasn’t Mary Mary. It was me. And your “theory” is based on … what?
Still, I do recognize that you have a right to run your business as you want.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 8, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Hi Nina,
We run a licensed Shelter home for our purebred dogs…and yes, the house is in an uproar when we bring in an intact animal. With 6-8 million pets “killed” annually deemed adoptable…this number does not include the animals that may have fleas, heartworm, or suspected illness that could be cleared up with just plain old medical care, spay/neuter is the responsible thing to do.
Our dogs eat Holistic, therefore they live to be 14-16 years old. They are large dogs, and do not eat processed grocery store foods that actually will cause cancer. There are many variables to consider….I side with the responsible owners that wish to take their dogs to Daycare, playgroups, and most will absolutely not board or allow unaltered animals in our facilities here.
Any study is full of variables, so I just side with 20 years of experience and maybe 2000 dogs> we have placed.
Comment by GWP Rescue — March 8, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Spay/neuter is the responsible thing to do.
Comment by GWP Rescue — March 8, 2010
No, being RESPONSIBLE is the responsible thing to do. It’s not the testicles that cause the problem. It’s the owner.
Most of my pets are spay-neutered. But it was an individual decision for each one of them. As for being “responsible,” how am I not? My 5-year-old intact male retriever doesn’t breed, doesn’t roam, is well-manned and well-socialized with people and other pets. He doesn’t bother the neighbors in any way.
I know thinking about possibly NOT altering is a paradigm shift. Can’t help that. Bring me the science, not the dogma.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 8, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
With 6-8 million pets “killed” annually deemed adoptable
A more accurate estimate is around 3.5 million, based on a number of data sources compiled and analyzed by both Maddies’s Fund and HSUS. Still far too many, but it’s important, in the spay/neuter debate and everywhere else, to be accurate.
Also, there’s no standardized shelter category called “adoptable.” The Asilomar Accords, which are the standard for the shelter industry, use the terms “healthy,” “treatable” and “unhealthy and untreatable.”
Ear mites and fleas don’t make an animal “unhealthy and untreatable.” Those are treatable conditions, and are included in the 3.5 million who are killed in America’s shelters each year for lack of a home, not considered part of the approximately half a million who are “unhealthy and untreatable.”
Comment by Christie Keith — March 8, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
YesBiscuit, it’s true that spaying helps reduce the incidence of mammary tumors, but apparently that incidence is low even in intact bitches. (It’s also variable by breed — one more example of there not being any one size fits all formula!)
So you’d want to look at all the factors — pyometritis, mammary tumors, early death, osteo, cruciate tears, etc — and make an educated guess based on your individual dog and circumstances.
There are pros and cons to either decision, and no clear right answer. I’m just annoyed at the constant drumbeat that speutering has only upside and no downside, and so many people’s inability or unwillingness to look at the facts and science because they’re terrified someone will decide not to alter their pets based on those facts and science.
Unlike spay/neuter and other medical decisions, hiding and denying the truth is always the wrong thing to do.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 8, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
here are pros and cons to either decision, and no clear right answer. I’m just annoyed at the constant drumbeat that speutering has only upside and no downside, and so many people’s inability or unwillingness to look at the facts and science because they’re terrified someone will decide not to alter their pets based on those facts and science.
Unlike spay/neuter and other medical decisions, hiding and denying the truth is always the wrong thing to do.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 8, 2010
Word.
Most of my pets are and will continue to be neutered. But I don’t practice “herd medicine” on family members. Nor am I an irresponsible pet-owner because Joe Blow down the street with the unneutered, roaming, barking PIA Lab is.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 8, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
For us purebred dog owners, a decision to speuter is something between us the owner of the physical dog, his/her breeder and of course our vet. Often it’s spelled out clearly in the puppy contract. Regardless, it is a decision to be made in a responsible manner; just like taking the pill, using the patch and/or condoms for humans of reproductive age.
I am so damn sick and tired of the Canine Gonad Police, the You Must Use My Training Method and No One Else’s Police, The Adopt a Mutt from a Shelter Police and the rest of it that I could pelt every advocate of some dog cause or other within an arm’s throw with semi frozen dog turds coming to light in my dog yard now that the snow is melting. Whatever the hell happened to responsible dog ownership? You know, that concept you all rant about all the time? What about trusting us dog owners to exercise to do that very thing… Take care of our dogs responsibly!
Comment by Anne T. — March 8, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
It wasn’t Mary Mary. It was me. And your “theory” is based on … what?
It’s based on 5 years as a veterinary assistant and 15 years owning my own boarding kennel. I specialize in letting the dogs interact and socialize. After watching hundreds of dogs over the years, it’s fascinating to see what triggers different behaviors. One of the most consistent things I observe is how many dogs react to an intact male (even if he is a sweet, socialized, well behaved dog with the other dogs). Neutered males and spayed females both will become aggressive toward the intact male and even with each other. I am just citing my own individual observations; by no means is it scientific evidence. It would make an interesting study, though. If there are any studies on this, I’d be interested in reading them…
Comment by Kate — March 8, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Hmmm,
I’ve been rescue fostering for twenty years.
I also breed and show, so my own dogs are mainly intact.
Who socializes the unsocialized dogs? Well that would almost always end up being my intact girls and boys.
Well socialized with a good temperament is well socialized with a good temperament.
Last dog who caused a great big uproar was the neutered as a 4 month old, now 5 year old male who came in ready to shred everything out of fear, years of isolation and a complete lack of doggy manners.
Last two intact fostersmales (only briefly intact! :) ) came from back grounds of good experiences with people and other dogs. They barely raised an eyebrow here, except for one old spayed girl who took a fancy to one of the newcomers and flirted outrageously with him for a few days.
My dogs have to get along with other dogs, other intact dogs at shows with sometimes several thousand intact dogs and kids and cats. Gonads just don’t seem to be the root cause of any issues. But then again, my dogs, like Gina’s and Christie’s, are extensively socialized, trained and expected to to behave, testicles and ovaries not withstanding.
Maybe the hormones of an intact dog or bitch do rile some dogs up. But maybe that’s a lack of exposure to the full range of the doggy universe at play. My friends in European nations such as Switzerland tell me most dogs are intact, but they are expected to be responsibly owned, trained and socialized. And in most cases to accompany their owners most places, all the while being around many other strange, intact dogs. apparently aggressive incidents are very rare.
And these same places also have very low rates of homeless pets. Responsibility, it’s just such a good thing.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 8, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
Maybe the hormones of an intact dog or bitch do rile some dogs up. But maybe that’s a lack of exposure to the full range of the doggy universe at play.
I think that is the case — that the near-universality of sterilized animals has created a situation where an intact animal reads as “abnormal” to other dogs — and, in fact, to people, too. This idea that so many trainers have that intact dogs are hard to manage or handle? It’s nonsense. It’s their lack of experience with intact animals that creates that situation, not intactness per se.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 8, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
Add to that the fact that now gonads are blamed for everything in an intact dog. Frankly, most of the bad behavior is just bad behavior.
I seem to get calls from a lot of people who start out with “The vet/trainer/behaviorist/groomer said neutering would calm him down/make them stop fighting/make him/her house train/not bite grandma but it didn’t work!
Further exploration reveals that doggy was never properly trained, socialized, walked and that the sum total of formal advise or even trips outside the house were to go to the vet for shots or a disasterous outing to the dog park or drop in training class with an un-leash trained, unsocialized dog.
Neuter or spay will not fix anything. It may remove some degree of distraction. But give me a well socialized dog of any reproductive status over a neutered or spayed shut in any day of the week.
As for health, complicated. I have been keeping tabs on a number of aging dogs for some time. Ever since I realized that the people with dogs in my breed that were living into their teens were almost never spaying or neutering retired show dogs unless there was a compelling reason to.
While I do know of one confirmed death from mammary cancer, it seems pretty uncommon in my breed. However, almost all the girls who made it to 12, 13, 14 were spayed late in life (7 and over), usually due to a pyometra scare or cystic ovaries.
One died of ovarian cancer. But at 15, well over her expected lifespan.
At the last nationals attended, the difference in the intact male veterans versus the majority of the female veterans was astonishing. The dogs looked half the age of the bitches, all of whom were spayed. While “the stress of having puppies” is the conventional wisdom mantra given for the lack of fitness in the older females, I don’t buy it. The two who looked the best had both had pups later in life, around age 6, and had been intact until 7 or 8. They looked years younger than some of the females who had been spayed at 2 or 3.
My oldest current girl is 8. Spayed at 7. (She had two litters, producing a grand total of 3 puppies, lest anyone wonder if I was keeping her uterus around to crank out puppies) She developed cystic ovaries last year so we spayed her. Her once a year, mild seasons had been a breeze to manage so I never felt the need to rush her to surgery, the cysts were detected on a routine ultrasound all my older dogs get once a year.
Beyond cancer, there are also the orthopedic implications of early spay/neuter. There is some evidence that it may increase the risk of cranial cruciate ligament rupture. My breed is prone to ccl injury. We have seen an increase in dogs surrendered because owners cannot afford the 3-5 K needed to fix a ccl. I don’t know that the National rescue is keeping a log, but the last two we had in locally with ccl injury were both young, altered males. I have just sent out an inquiry to several high volume rescue chapters to see if that is the trend. If so, then the club may need to look into researching whether early spay/neuter is leading to more of these types of injuries.
I do usually spay my girls once they retire from competition and after they have a litter, if they have a litter at all. But I am in less of a rush to so as I once was.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 8, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
whoops, that should read “neuter or spay will not fix everything”
Comment by JenniferJ — March 9, 2010 @ 1:44 am
thank you for the inspiring story and link to Emelinda Narvaez’ nonprofit group Earth Angels - The Angel of Union Square - and it’s great Huffington Post mentioned her work. There are angels among us.
Comment by mary frances — March 9, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
If that’s true, then we’re all going to need these:
http://retrieverman.wordpress......tity-belt/
Comment by retrieverman — March 9, 2010 @ 12:56 pm
The risk of mammary cancer in female dogs does increase with each estrus cycle, at least up to some age.
But this risk is almost always misrepresented — even in survey articles found in referred veterinary journals — in a way that implies that spaying needs to be done before the first or second estrus, or else there’s a 25% lifetime risk of mammary cancer, and no mammary cancer risk reduction for spaying after 2 estrus cycles. There is NO research data to support this very common assertion. NONE.
The actual published veterinary research shows that spaying dogs before 5 YEARS of age corresponds with a very large reduction in the lifetime risk of mammary cancer. What has apparently happened is that somebody misread the first of these two studies — published in 1969 — and everybody else who claims to reference that study keeps repeating the same misrepresentation.
This misreading of a 1969 mammary cancer study has apparently been the single biggest source for 40 years of recommendations to s/n dogs by 6 months of age in order to optimize their health.
Sonnenschein EG, Glickman LT, Goldschmidt MH, McKee LJ, “Body Conformation, Diet, and Risk of Breast Cancer in Pet Dogs: A Case-Control Study”, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1991, Vol 133, No 7, 694-703
Schneider, R, Dorn, CR, Taylor, DON. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Postsurgical Survival. J Natl Cancer Institute, Vol 43, No 6, Dec. 1969
Comment by LauraS — March 10, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
1. The study itself appears to be a rehash of a study that was published back in 2003 - the same data was used but the emphasis in that study was on canine cancer. “Exceptional longevity in pet dogs is accompanied by cancer resistance and delayed onset of major diseases.” No mention was made of ovary exposure as related to longevity even though the same Rottweiler data was used.
2. The dogs studied died between 1995-2000 - further indicating this was an old study - first used for a different purpose.
3. The major flaw in the 2009 study is the control groups of dogs used. They used one group aged 9-10 yrs. - and another group aged 13.3-14.3. The study only included 183 Rottweiler dogs in healthy home environments. We already know that the benefits of spaying include greatly decreased risk of breast & ovarian cancer. The average age of onset for breast & ovarian cancers in Rottweilers is generally younger than the control groups studied, thus all Rottweilers that died of breast or ovarian cancer at a younger age would have been excluded from the study. This would compare to taking a group of female smokers 90 years old and over - and concluding that cigarette smoking has no effect on women’s health since they are still alive at 90. All the women who died of smoking related diseases at younger than 90 years of age (common) would not have been considered in the study.
4. There appears to be other factors that contributed to the longevity of the Rottweilers in the 13.3-14.3 age group. As a group they weighed less at 79-90 lbs. - versus the younger group that weighed 90-100 lbs. Also the older dogs were shorter. Studies have long shown smaller, thinner dogs live longer by two years on average.
5. The oldest Rottweiler group - 13.3-14.3 - had a considerably larger number of mothers that achieved exceptional longevity - showing a genetic link to their longevity.
6. The 2009 study greatly contradicts much broader previous studies on ALL breeds and MIXED breeds - in reputable journals that show unequivocally the spaying prolongs female dog’s lives and that breeding shortens their lives.
7. The study is flawed also because he states that the average life expectancy of a Rottweiller is 9-10 yrs., when the majority of resources indicate it is actually 10-12 years - thus the “exceptional longevity” of 13 is not that extraordinary. Even more notable is the major cause of death he shows for in Rottweillers in the 9-10 yr. group is indeed cancer - 73% dying from it.
8. The study was originally completed to show that Rottweilers that lived past the age of 10 had a reduced risk for cancer. 73% died from it in his 9-10 year group and only 25% died from it in his 13.3 to 14.3 age group. This is the REAL information the study revealed - and the main thrust of the 2003 paper.
Comment by Brent — March 23, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
There are alternatives to spay/neuter. They are, for females: tubal ligation and hysterectomy (removal of just the uterus), for males: vasectomy. So the argument that we have to spay/neuter dogs and cats to prevent pet overpopulation goes right out the window. Of course, if you decide on the alternatives, you will have to deal with animals as animals with their sexual nature, not toys. I have cats and they mate but not produce kittens. They are healthy and happy. I encourage everyone to educate himself/herself about this important issue: Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....indogs.pdf
Comment by Barbara Biel — August 17, 2011 @ 12:38 pm
Of course, if you decide on the alternatives, you will have to deal with animals as animals with their sexual nature, not toys.
Barbara, you don’t win people to your side with sideswipe insults like that for anyone who makes a decision you disagree with.
Comment by Lis C — August 17, 2011 @ 4:47 pm