De-sexing Debate

[BJean]

and the every day backyard breeder does?????? I hardly think so.......You can argue the point until you are blue in the face but the shelter, euthanasia and unwanted numbers speak for themselves.

and what do they say?

Edited May 8, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

I said it was a massive factor NOT the only factor. You cannot deny non desexed pets are a contributing factor to the over population of shelters and pounds both in the U.S and Aus. Of course because people here are dog fanciers and dog obsessed they feel themselves responsible enough to own an entire pet however as I continuously keep stating the general public do not have the same knowledge or information regarding entire pets or the benefits of having a desexed or an entire pet. Keep in mind that most of you here have been dealing with dogs since the dawn of time and to you this knowledge is second nature don't assume everyone knows the same as you.

define General Public.

what is the 'GP' - those that own a dog and dont breed, and are not members of DOL?

what is it that makes the GP so incapacitated for you to deem them incapable of making a decision

or less informed so as to know what is best for their pet?

pound stats? ...

a rockudocumentary?

well that's your perogative.

if you want to react to emotive docs of all kinds and not check your facts before you go into cause and effect

you're likely to be a yayster and vote in anything.

Like I previously stated. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. So don't make conclusions based on YOUR assumptions.

You've just surmised the collective intelligence of the General Public to equate to that of a peanut.

....

Edited May 8, 2010 by lilli

[Black Bronson]

I voted No

Atlas was only desexed because of health reasons, Kaos was done because when I got her, Atlas was still entire and I had no way of keeping them apart, so she was desexed before her first season

PERSONALLY, i will not desex a male unless there is a reason to do so, I can keep my dogs safe and in their yards and do not feel i need to have them desexed - Females I would get done, but only because I dont want the fuss of them being in season :D

BUT

at the same time I can see why people agree to it, I see so many people out there breeding litter after litter who are just in it for money....

I almost have my SIL and her Hubby talked into not breeding, they are getting a bitch and want puppies, they wouldnt listen to me at first, but over time I have mentioned a few things and had a huge chat to the Hubby about it, and he had no idea about BSL, or how many dogs were PTS each day...

Netball next week, I will have another go at it then

That's exactly my view also Teebs

[furballs]

I said it was a massive factor NOT the only factor. You cannot deny non desexed pets are a contributing factor to the over population of shelters and pounds both in the U.S and Aus. Of course because people here are dog fanciers and dog obsessed they feel themselves responsible enough to own an entire pet however as I continuously keep stating the general public do not have the same knowledge or information regarding entire pets or the benefits of having a desexed or an entire pet. Keep in mind that most of you here have been dealing with dogs since the dawn of time and to you this knowledge is second nature don't assume everyone knows the same as you.

define General Public.

what is the 'GP' - those that own a dog and dont breed, and are not members of DOL?

what is it that makes the GP so incapacitated for you to deem them incapable of making a decision

or less informed so as to know what is best for their pet?

pound stats? ...

a rockudocumentary?

well that's your perogative.

if you want to react to emotive docs of all kinds and not check your facts before you go into cause and effect

you're likely to be a yayster and vote in anything.

Like I previously stated. You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. So don't make conclusions based on YOUR assumptions.

You've just surmised the collective intelligence of the General Public to equate to that of a peanut.

....

I am the general public I guess, because I'm not a breeder and have only owned 5 dogs in my lifetime. According to Jackie I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. I only joined Dogzonline because I was searching for information on google and by chance I saw this website. I have spent many hours/days researching the pros and cons of desexing so I could make the right choice for my dog (without any intent on breeding her). If the general public don't have enough information then maybe the focus should be on educating the general public, rather than assuming we are all too irresponsible to do the right thing.

[Black Bronson]

Yes...they should have to be de-sexed!!!!

Working as a rescue group there are already so many dogs needing homes.

Why should people who have no knowledge about breeding be allowed to back yard breed?

Im sick of hearing of people who think it would be good to have a litter to:

• Teach the kids about puppies
  
• Because it would be interesting to see what my dog's puppies would look like
  
• It would be cute to have puppies
  
• Because some mates would like a dog like mine
  
• To make some extra cash
  

and the list goes on....

Leave breeding to the professionals

The only option should be adoption

www.wheredopuppiescomefrom.com is a great site to visit

Puppies aren't found under a cabbage patch, some idiots are breeding them or irresponsibly owning dogs allowing accidental matings. The legislation should be focused upon and controlling breeding practices, not trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted with desexing legislation. Illegal dog breeding 1st offence a hefty fine, 2nd offence, time in the slammer............that will stop most of them

[BJean]

I am the general public I guess, because I'm not a breeder and have only owned 5 dogs in my lifetime. According to Jackie I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. I only joined Dogzonline because I was searching for information on google and by chance I saw this website. I have spent many hours/days researching the pros and cons of desexing so I could make the right choice for my dog (without any intent on breeding her). If the general public don't have enough information then maybe the focus should be on educating the general public, rather than assuming we are all too irresponsible to do the right thing.

Exactly furballs.

In all the pet homes or 'General Public' that may contact me

overall I am humbled by the impression that they are dog owners who want to do the best for their pet - their lifelong friend, their new family member;

but to their detriment, the GP's best intentionss are manipulated by what popular mantra dictates.

Let's be fair (and honest)

compulsory desexing is not in the interests of the individual pet owner -

we can feed them lots of campaign line crap about how not desexing their dog contributes to the

numbers of dogs pts each year, but RSPCA stats and studies tell a different story.

Responsible owners should be cherished and given the benefit of the doubt -

assuming they are all vegies in the dollard patch is insulting

and fails to see the importance and value of dogs in society.

Notwithstanding the compassion and capacity for learning of better practise, that their owners have

and aspire to.

Animal Rights want the vote of the compassionate and learned animal onwers

but at the same time they wish to condemn them unintelligent and incapable of

choosing what is best for their canine family member.

This is incongruous.

To care takes compassion. To have compassion requires empathy and an understanding of the dog

you call your own.

And it is this bond that is being manipulated by vote buyers and rockumentary agenda pushers.

Edited May 8, 2010 by lilli

[Crisovar]

You cannot deny non desexed pets are a contributing factor to the over population of shelters and pounds both in the U.S and Aus.

IMO the biggest factor is the wrong initial choice of pet.

[Kaz]

A definite NO from me.

I don't want every aspect of my life legislated by a government body or the general masses.

Having said that, all my dogs are desexed and I wish that the majority of pet owners would do the same for the simple fact that there are far too many crossbreed puppies ending up in pounds due to accidental matings.

[Dame Aussie]

I have two dogs. My boy was a rescue and was desexed before he came home. If I had the choice I would not have desexed him.

My girl is from a breeder and she is not desexed. I doubt I will desex her.

A lot of the time I feel desexing is done for OUR convenience, not the welfare of the dog. For every cancer etc that desexing avoids, there is another that becomes more likely.

I am responsible enough to keep my dogs safe and do not intend to backyard breed, as at least one person has suggested all pet owners who don't desex their dogs do??

[Earthdog]

As another GP and being familiar with several more of the soecies, I believe we are responsible enough to ensure our dogs don't breed willy nilly.

I voted no.

[Staranais]

Yes IMO people "should" desex their non breeding dogs, unless they are:

* 100% able to ensure their dog doesn't mate accidentally, and

* they have enough money put aside to fix a pyometra or treat mammary cancer (both much, much more prevalent in entire bitches).

If they are 100% able to ensure their dog doesn't breed accidentally, and can afford vet visits for a sick entire bitch, then they should do what they please with their dogs.

I'm not sure I would want the government to get involved though, and force pet owners to desex. I'm not a fan of too much legislation.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Staranais

[aussielover]

A lot of the time I feel desexing is done for OUR convenience, not the welfare of the dog. For every cancer etc that desexing avoids, there is another that becomes more likely.

I am responsible enough to keep my dogs safe and do not intend to backyard breed, as at least one person has suggested all pet owners who don't desex their dogs do??

What are those cancers that become more likely with desexing?

[felix]

[What are those cancers that become more likely with desexing?

Long term risks of desexing

[sandgrubber]

Interesting article but doesn't give you enough to do a cost/benefit analysis. The problem is that word 'significantly' . . . which when a scientist uses it means, within the framework of the experiment, there's little chance of the observed results occurring at random. Sometimes TINY TINY effects are quite significant. So if some rare cancer is significantly more likely, it may mean bugger all. While a common cancer being more likely at a low test of significance (eg, no large study has been done so the error bars on the experiment are large) may be much more of a worry.

I run a boarding kennel. Non-desexed dogs, especially males, are more trouble. They often don't play nicely; they often pee on walls and beds and occasionally my leg; and if there's a bitch in season in the vacinity they sometimes get moody and tempermental to the point of not eating.

The desexed boys are generally more cruisy and easy going. All I've observed says that entire males who aren't used at stud tend to get pretty frustrated, and some of 'em don't cope with frustration very well.

Too bad our society puts such a stigma on castration, and so much emphasis on testes. It would be interesting to know if eunichs are, in general, less troubled than entire human males.

[What are those cancers that become more likely with desexing?

Long term risks of desexing

Edited May 9, 2010 by sandgrubber

[whippets]

With the <1% and <0.6% "slight" risks of cancer (if altered) arn't exactly overwhelming figures to argue not desexing a dog.

Edited May 9, 2010 by whippets

[Staranais]

Interesting article but doesn't give you enough to do a cost/benefit analysis. The problem is that word 'significantly' . . . which when a scientist uses it means, within the framework of the experiment, there's little chance of the observed results occurring at random. Sometimes TINY TINY effects are quite significant.

Also depends how common the cancer is originally. i.e., an increase of 10% to 20% in the risk of getting a cancer matters far more to any sensible dog owner than an increase of 0.1 - 0.2%, yet they are both a 100% increase in risk.

There are definitely health downsides to desexing as well as health benefits, but for most bitches of most breeds IMO the health benefits of desexing outweight the risks. Rotties are a possible exception, especially in lines prone to osteosarcoma, since it's sadly so common.

[felix]

With the <1% and <0.6% "slight" risks of cancer (if altered) arn't exactly overwhelming figures to argue not desexing a dog.

Maybe, but it is up to the owners to decide what is overwhelming and what is not. IMO of course.

[Staranais]

With the <1% and <0.6% "slight" risks of cancer (if altered) arn't exactly overwhelming figures to argue not desexing a dog.

Maybe, but it is up to the owners to decide what is overwhelming and what is not. IMO of course.

Yes, it is. As long as they are given unbiased information, explained in a way that even people without a statistics degree can understand easily, it is up to the owner to decide what to do with their dog. I have left my own bitch entire, for example, for a variety of reasons, even though I probably will not breed her.

But I do want to say that IMO although that article you posted was interesting & in many ways valuable, it did IMO underplayed the risk of mammary cancer by not explaining the absolute risk increase. For most breeds, compared to the other cancer risks/benefits associated with desexing, the increase in risk in mammary cancer is overwhelmingly huge.

An increase of 0.25% to 13% of all dogs getting malignant, usually deadly, mammary cancer is a hugely significant increase in risk in real terms. In most breeds, no other cancer is increased by desexing nearly enought to counter that. For example, in real terms, on average, hemangiosarcoma increases from 0.2% to 0.4 - 1% of bitches, and osteosarcoma from 0.2 to 0.4% of bitches, after desexing. That's more than an order of magnitude difference in risk levels there.

I think the article could have done more to emphasise that.

Edited so my grammar actually made sense.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Staranais

[whippets]

Up to the owners.....or up to the breeders who desex before rehoming. Those figures are still insignificant compared to the benefits.

Desexing makes sense to me but I am against mandatory desexing. I get ticked off enough by pollies and councils telling me what I can and can't do already.

[jackie_a1]

To all of you who have joined in the debate intelligently and not gotten defensive or personal thank you so much for your input.

For those of you who deem it acceptable to become defensive step back and take a breather. I am open minded I can see why owners are against desexing and I can see why people are for it also. I keep in mind all suggestions and don't demean others for their argument.

There is no doubt that there are thousands of unwanted pets in shelters. Puppy numbers may be down but are dog (and cat) numbers? It doesn't matter if they are young pups or old dogs they all deserve to be homed. Mandatory desexing would provide the general public with information as to why they are being forced to desex, due to unwanted litters, strays, accidental litters etc.

I've noticed a trend on these forum when in regards to others disagreeing with what others write. Respect other peoples views have an intellectual debate but don't flame people or render their opinion less factual because it doesn't coincide with what YOU think.

In my opinion it seems that 'most' people I know and who work directly for shelters pounds etc or with rescue groups or in correlation with welfare organizations are a little more open to the idea of mandatory desexing.

It's not the solution I am not saying that I wanted to see your thoughts and opinions on it ranging from professional breeders to simple dog owners.