That's rather extraordinary when you consider human males are generally given the all clear when they hand in their sample at 6 weeks post op and of course that is just a vasectomy :)  Hard to imagine a dog can hang on to sperm longer when he doesn't even have any testicles left.

"Not immediately[...]"

Again, this is something I'm aware of, however, in the long run it does mean that the dog can no longer father any offspring

But the crux of the matter is that it is the people who are responsible enough to be able to contain and manage their pets properly that are most likely to be the ones to neuter them, often being railroaded and frightened into it by the vets who charge a not inconsiderable fee for this in most cases unnecesary procedure.

The irresponsbible are not going to shell out that sort of money, if they were they would just as easily be able to spend it on getting their gardens secure and their dogs trained.

This is why there are so many unwanted litters, and the number of responsible people that neuter doesn't impact on this hardly at all.

"The irresponsbible are not going to shell out that sort of money [...]"

Which is exactly why I said in a previous post why don't they make it 'easier' to neuter a dog like they do with cats?  The RSPCA give out free neutering vouchers for all cats age 6 months + so why not run a similar scheme with dogs?  This would encourage these 'irresponsible owners' to neuter their 'irresponsibly owned dogs'.

the pdsa dogs trust do- £25 for spey and £20 for castrate- i think? you just need to be recieving certain benefits- income support/housing benefit etc.

"the pdsa dogs trust do- £25 for spey and £20 for castrate- i think? you just need to be recieving certain benefits- income support/housing benefit etc."

An irresponsible dog owner isn't necessarily someone on benefits!

i know but just answered a question you posed!  i dont think free neutering should be available- it lowers the importance of the operation- i cant word that right- but i just mean it sends out a 'convenient' message- "get your dog neutered for free"! people will not consider what the op involves- they will just be blinded by something thats a 'freebie'!
and anyway- no-one will fund that, you will just get vets that have too much demand and not enough time=rushed ops and little aftercare talks=big mistake :(

"i dont think free neutering should be available"

I didn't say free neutering should be available!  I just used the fact that their IS free neutering available for cats as an example.  I do think there should be neutering schemes available to more people though cos an owner who isn't on benefits may still be in a position where the £100+ cost of neutering a dog/bitch is too much!

Why should some owners have to hole up their in season bitch for fear of the randy dogs allowed to roam loose on their estate making her pregnant?

Because that's one of the things you take into consideration when not spaying your bitch.  Ultimately, if the choice is to leave the bitch intact, it is your responsibility to ensure she is not impregnated 'accidentally'.

Why should some owners of intact males have to try their dambdest to obstruct nature and ensure that if they get even the sligtest whiff of an in season bitch the dog is on its best behaviour and responds immaculately to the command

Again, that's something to take into consideration when making the decision to leave your dog intact.  It's why you use a lead if your dog isn't reliable on recall.

Why should some owners have to physcially separate a dog and a bitch in two different rooms of the house, and 100% ensure that at no point do either 'meet' for 2 months of every year of their lives to prevent an unwanted litter?

Because they've chosen to leave their dogs intact.

Is it just because it could change a dogs coat, could make them incontinent, could make a castrated dog 'more appealing' to intact male dogs?  All of these things happen in the minority of cases

Do you have statistics available with which to accurately make this statement? 

The points you continue to bring up are good ones, however, the responsible dog owner takes these things under advisement when making the decision on whether to alter their dog or bitch.  I would suggest to those that think not altering your pet is a sign of irresponsibility, that it takes much more work (and in turn responsibility) to keep an a dog or bitch that has not been altered.  I would also suggest to those that think altering your pet curbs behavior problems that behavior problems do not begin in the testicles or ovaries but in a lack of proper training.

Altering your pet is a personal decision that should be made after researching both sides of the issue.  At the end of the day, all the preaching in the world isn't going to change someone's mind if they feel they've made the decision that is correct for their animal.

But the point I'm trying to make is that there are a great number or dog owners who aren't 'responsible' and that they should be getting their dogs neutered, not that all dogs/bitches should be castrated/spayed.  If someone is 100% dilligant and chooses not to have their dog neutered then good for them!  But those that aren't should IMO...

:)

If you feel so strongly about the topic, what is it you're doing to find and educate those that you would consider irresponsible?  Having a conversation on a forum (call it a debate if you like) is well and good but if you aren't proactive you're not contributing to the solution you're seeking.

As a full-time uni student and a single parent at this particular moment in time I don't stand on a soap box every day of the week in my local shopping centre ;)  But what I do do is 'talk' about animal related issues (of many animals as I'm not just a dog owner!) to would be owners/current owners offering advice and heading theirs.  I'm not an activist at all just voicing my opinion along with the rest of the members of this discussion forum :p

People shouldn't own dogs unless they are prepared for ALL ther responsibilities, neutering is not a substitute, and if people are using it as such it is even worse for the poor dog .

I never said neutering was a substitute!  But why do some people advoctae spaying a bitch but not castrating a male?  If a bitch owner spays their girl then they are being responsible in the fact that there is no way that dog can get pregnant.  However, if a dog (male) owner doesn't get their dog castrated then they aren't ensuring that that dog cannot sire pups.  So, why is it that some members of here are all for spaying bitches but not castrating dogs when both are the same thing - neutering which is desexing - which 100% ensures that neither sex can have pups?

Because there are benefits to the ANIMAL in spaying a mature bitch, but rarely so with males, where the benefits are primarily social for the owner. 

In fact prostatic cancer is found primarily in neutered males ans is far more common than any of the health problems neutering helps with.

"Do you have statistics available with which to accurately make this statement?"

Don't need statistics - its well known that the things I pointed out can happen to dogs/bitches as a result of castrating/spaying but don't to all :)

I was right there with you until you used the word 'minority'.

Which post are you referring to where I used the word 'minority'?

Is it just because it could change a dogs coat, could make them incontinent, could make a castrated dog 'more appealing' to intact male dogs?  All of these things happen in the minority of cases

But it is the minority as the majority suffer no ill effects!

do you have the stats to back this up ? I must meet that minority of dogs when I go out - setters and spaniels with fluffy strange coloured coats, soooo many suffering from femininisation thingy its unreal :rolleyes:

"I must meet that minority of dogs when I go out - setters and spaniels with fluffy strange coloured coats, soooo many suffering from femininisation thingy its unreal [...]"

And how many dogs do you actually meet?  Do you have statistics to back up how many dogs you believe do suffer from such ill-effects?

there is no need to get pedantic peewee, just because you cant come up with any stats - after all you are the one insisting that its the "minority" of dogs that get issues, im just saying it must be that minority im meeting, but seeing as you cant come up with any figures who knows :rolleyes:

"there is no need to get pedantic peewee"

Me!?  lol  What about you? :p

See some of my other posts and you'll find that its not that I "cant come up with any stats" as I would gladly!  Its that I ain't got time as I'm a busy single parent in my Final Year at uni and as much as I really enjoyed the whole discussion going on in this topic I have other, more pressing research to do

The fact is, I know what ive seen / experienced and you know what you havent seen / experienced (not being funny about it but ive seen the problems and you havent - fair comment? ) and to be fair if there were stats on any of this they wouldnt be particularly accruate because im sure people dont relate half they problems their dogs have with the fact that it has been neutered.  I dont think vets are particularly honest telling the whole facts about neutering which is wrong because people should be told the whole truth before making up their own minds about what is best for their dog, and if it is done for behavioural problems then a full assessment by a behaviourist should be done on the dog and possibly using Tardak injection first to see if it works before the dog is properly neutered because once its neutered there is no going now.

Now peewee stop looking at champdogs and get some uni work done *wags finger* :p

"The fact is, I know what ive seen / experienced and you know what you havent seen / experienced (not being funny about it but ive seen the problems and you havent - fair comment? )"

I never said I haven't "seen" any dogs with ill-effects cos I have - we ourselves have owned a bitch who suffered from ill-effects of spaying, but it was also to do with her weight and quite possibly her diet.  I've also seen quite a few bitches/dogs with owners who 'blame' neutering for a whole host of problems.  However, the vast majority of dogs I have known over the years (which have been neutered) have suffered no ill-effects as a result of neutering.  My point to this whole 'argument' of "neutering causes all sorts of ill-effects" is that its not just neutering which can cause some of the ill effects, and there can be other and/or contributory factors to most of them anyway.  I just don't believe in 'laying the blame' solely on neutering for the ill-effects

"there were stats on any of this they wouldnt be particularly accruate because im sure people dont relate half they problems their dogs have with the fact that it has been neutered"

Any statistial information can be classed as "not particularly accurate" as it looks at a relatively small cross-section only and then predicts/estimates the 'results' on the larger scale...

I don't believe it fair for some members of this forum to imply that Vets railroad their clients into neutering.  Yes, some may, some clients may feel thats whats happening when it probably isn't, but most don't.  Neutering is not something to be taken 'lightly' (by vet or owner) as it involves an operation (a major operation in bithces!) and anasthetic can have adverse effects on some dogs.

"if it is done for behavioural problems then a full assessment by a behaviourist should be done on the dog and possibly using Tardak injection first to see if it works before"

I totally agree with you there!  But I've not said "neuter males to cure any behavioural problems" anyway - I'm merely talking about reducing the amount of improperly bred/unwanted puppies thats all :)

"Now peewee stop looking at champdogs and get some uni work done *wags finger*"

Yes miss! ;)

And my point is, how do you know?  You have no statistics because you 'don't need them', it's something you just 'know'.  That is the verbal equivalent of planting your feet and crossing your arms.  My problem with your argument isn't your opinion but that your opinion seems to be based on things you've been told and you're running with it.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that's how you're coming across to me.

"You have no statistics because you 'don't need them', it's something you just 'know'."

Its something a lot of people know - vets, vetinary nurses, breeders, owners etc etc.  If I had the time I would gladly search for and provide you with statistics but my Final Year uni work takes precidence at present.  I am NOT "planting [my] feet and crossing [my] arms".  "[...] your opinion seems to be based on things you've been told and you're running with it."  This isn't the case.  I haven't just "been told" anything and I don't take what people say as read, never have and never will.  Over the years of being an animal owner I have learnt a lot from books & other resources as well as people including vets, breeders, other owners, pet suppliers etc etc.

You have your opinion, I have mine.  I'm not trying to change anybody elses opinion just as I'm not taking other posters opinions as them trying to change mine.  This is a forum which is a place for people to state their opinions

Or is it only the minority who think to report the side-effects?

"Or is it only the minority who think to report the side-effects?"

Equally it can be a case of is it only the minority which it actually occurs to which is what I stated.

Food can be 'blamed' for a change in coat.  Weight can be 'blamed' for a change in coat.  The environment in which a dog lives can be 'blamed' for temperament.  Just as the fact that some dogs do have behavioural problems and some dogs don't.  Taking it further the detergent & household products owners use, smoking etc could be blamed for all these things!  Why are so many members of this board 'laying the blame' solely on neutering for these 'problems'?

>Taking it further the detergent & household products owners use, smoking etc could be blamed for all these things!

I don't think so, really. There's nothing on those lines that would cause a spayed bitch's incontinence, for example (something I'm battling with at the moment) which is medically proven to be more likely in a spayed bitch than an entire one.

Also I'm reminded that 49% (for example) is still a minority.

The poster I was resonding to was specifically referring to a change in coat and temperament - I didn't say anything about incontinence in my reply to that post as I'm not foolish to believe that the things I stated could cause incontinence :)

I still don't believe that an owner's smoking habit will alter the texture of a dog's coat - it'll make it smell bad, certainly, and possibly give the dog cancer, but beyond that would be no more than coincidence. :)

The inhilation/absorption of smoke into a humans body doesn't just affect what is on the inside so why shouldn't it affect the outside of a dog too?

If the smoking habits of the owner made a dog's coat woolly, then that effect wouldn't be seen with dogs owned by non-smokers. And it is. Hormones (or the lack thereof) have a direct effect.

But my point is whose to say that such things don't atleast contribute to such an affect in some dogs?

Not that I think for a minute you don't know this Jeangenie but I'm posting it to clarify my use of terminology :)

Majority -  "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total."

Minority -  "The smaller in number of two groups forming a whole."

Not that I'm being pedantic and saying that the minority is 49% and the majority is 51% though ;)

>Not that I'm being pedantic and saying that the minority is 49% and the majority is 51% though

Statisticians would, though! ;) :D

:) haha

Seriously though, whenever a source quotes 'a minority' the actual size of the 'minority' needs to be considered. A minority of 1% is of less significance than a minority of 35%, for example. Also, in this particular situation, not all dogs which suffer side-effects will suffer from them all. Some will suffer fom incontinence, some when their coat becomes hard to manage and painful to groom, some will smell attractive. However the total of these minorities can add up to quite a substantial number. Then include the individuals where the owners assume that it's normal and don't report the problems - unfortunately because these are unknown you can't put on a definite figure, but logic dictates that there will be at least 1 - and the number of affected lives certainly isn't negligible. :)

Edit: A good example of the use of 'minority' is with the incidence of mammary cancer in bitches. If spayed between the first and second season the risk of developing such a cancer is reported to be 8%. After the second season the risk is reported to rise to 25%, and subsequent seasons don't increase the risk beyond that. So even at the highest level of risk a substantial majority are unlikely to be troubled. Should the minority risk be written off? ;)

I'm not arguing about writing anything off whether it be the majority or minority.  I totally agree that a minority can be insignificant but at the same time can be a hugely significant number.

The point I was trying to make with the definition post was that I don't have (time to find) the 'statistics' which would state what percentage the minority and majority are.  I was trying to say that I'm not stating that the minority is either an insignificant number (e.g. 0.01%) or a significant number (e.g 49%) cos I wouldn't even like to hazzard a guess as I'd probably be beaten down with pieces of timber ( ;) ), just that that was the terminology I was using :)

With regards dogs coats being "hard to manage and painful to groom" we have a Sheltie (and have had 2 in the past) and their fur is both [relatively] hard to manage and painful [well, uncomfortable anyway] to groom [espcially behind the ears, under the 'arm pits' and the feathers on their bums] even with gentle daily brushing as it pulls their thin skin and they really don't appreciate it.  I really don't see the importance of this whole "coat changing" thing unless of course its a show dog but the vast majority of dogs in the UK are not show dogs nor do they need to look like them with such long & immaculately cauffered (sp?) fur.

With regards incontinence - our bitch suffered from this (yes she was spayed but she was also overweight).  We knew it was a possible ill-effect of getting her spayed but it is also a possible effect of being overweight and it didn't occur until she was about 7.  Its something that is manageable with the right treatment.  If a bitch was 'spotting' around the house or just piddling all over the place then this is something that most people would regard as 'abnormal'.

As for the whole "castrated males smell attractive to entire males and my dogs follow them about all the time" thing then so does an entire female - and?  The difference being that an entire male cannot impregnate a non-entire male as it can with a female.  An entire female cannot be impregnated by a non-entire male.  A non-entire male and a non-entire female both can't 'achieve' anything with any other dog so hurray!  What I don't get is the argument that appears to be cropping up in some of these posts which appears to me to be by all means spay females but castrating males isn't necessary - why isn't it necessary?

If a castrated male is frequently approached when out and attempts made to mount him, he's going to get pretty fed up and eventually fights may occur. That can be pretty serious, even life-threatening.

Regarding the spaying of bitches - apparently the risk of pyometra (although I've obviously been very lucky and haven't had any bitch suffer from this) is very high in entire bitches, certainly higher than the oft-quoted risk of mammary cancer, whether bred from or not, so spaying can be considered sensible from a medical point of view, not from a 'general management' point of view. There doesn't seem to be a similar situation with dogs.

One of my spayed bitches (only spayed at 6 years of age because I was having to keep two dogs, although I wasn't going to breed from her anyway) is now at age 11 (and not the slightest bit overweight, unlike her mother who gained a lot of body fat after spaying (for the same reason as her daughter) despite her food intake being cut by half and her exercise increasing) having intermittent urinary incontinence, occasionally creating a flood and getting extremely distressed about it. The medication, at the recommended dose, makes her attractive to dogs ...

Both dogs and bitches mount other dogs and bitches and whether they be entire or not the mountee can get "fed up and eventually fights may occur" - its a dominance thing too!

"[...] spaying can be considered sensible from a medical point of view, not from a 'general management' point of view."

What about testicular cancer in dogs?  Castration could also be seen this way.  Never have I stated "neuter for general management" anyway.

And as you state through your description of your girls in your post, bitches react differently to spaying - some suffer ill-effects, others (most) don't :)

Anyway, as much as I'm enjoying the discussion I'm gonna leave this topic alone now (well, I'm gonna try anyway ;) haha) cos I really have said all I've got to say and its just starting to go round and round in circles... I've got uni work to get done so au revoir topic about neutering (which means "Sterilization by surgical removal of the testicles of a male animal or ovaries of a female animal" which I was talking about and not just the castrating of dogs ;) )!

If you've ever worked a stud dog you'd know there's a big difference between dominance mounting and sexual mounting! ;)

Testicular cancer is very rare (according to my vet, at least) and easily detectable at an early stage. Some papers suggest that castration actually increases the risk of malignant prostate cancer, so not necessarily a good thing from a medical point of view.

Over the years I've had 5 bitches spayed: one has gained body fat (not healthy), one has incontinence (distressing for her), and one died. The other two were fine. So going by my personal experiences 60% of spayed bitches have longterm complications.

"If you've ever worked a stud dog you'd know there's a big difference between dominance mounting and sexual mounting!"

I'm fully aware of that but my point was that not all mounting is "sexual" ;)

Yes - but the mounting that castrated dogs with feminising syndrome are subjected to is far more determined than the 'dominance' mounting that non-attractive animals may get. A dog under such assault is going to react in a far more extreme manner - it simply can't be compared to the scolding given under more normal circumstances. :)

feminising syndrome gives off the scent of an "inseason" bitch rather than just a bitch which is why it is more sexual than dominance.

[Quote; but the mounting that castrated dogs with feminising syndrome are subjected to is far more determined than the 'dominance' mounting that non-attractive animals may get]

Well in all my years around dogs I have never seen a feminised castrated male, perhaps I've just been lucky, but if they are out there why are the owners of the dogs that are letting thier dogs doing the above not keeping thier males under proper control to stop it.
Sorry but if everyone kept thier dogs, whatever sex etc under proper control around other dogs none of this would matter anyway.

"Why should some owners have to hole up their in season bitch for fear of the randy dogs allowed to roam loose on their estate making her pregnant?

Because that's one of the things you take into consideration when not spaying your bitch.  Ultimately, if the choice is to leave the bitch intact, it is your responsibility to ensure she is not impregnated 'accidentally'."

You've taken that the wrong way.  What I meant was why do some owners have to hole up their bithces for the duration of their season purely cos they live in an area where some irresponsible dog owners allow theirs to roam?  If these 'irresponsible' dog owners had had their dogs castrated then there wouldn't be a risk to the bitches 'responsible' owner who had chosen not to have her spayed

Nope, not taking what you said the wrong way.

If I had a bitch puppy and had to make a decision on whether to spay her or not, part of that decision making process would be to take into account whether I was willing to keep her 'holed up' for the duration of a cycle.  Part of my consideration would be to assume that I was surrounded by irresponsible owners and whether I wanted to take steps necessary to ensure my bitch didn't end up pregnant.