17th September 2012, 11:11 PM
Charlie is bring neutered tomorrow
He is almost 7 months and I feel like this is the right time for him although I wish we didn't have to do it at all.
I've been lying awake worrying when I need sleep! I'm afraid he will hate me for leaving him there and I know he will be crying loads when I leave
Just needed to share, I worry about everything and anything all the time!
17th September 2012, 11:35 PM
Seven months is much too young to castrate. He needs those hormones to grow properly. especially his bones. I'd wait a year.
18th September 2012, 01:38 AM
I saw an article that neuter can be done via injection instead of surgery. Link is above.
18th September 2012, 05:54 AM
If you research......most Veterinarians ( even those well-known & respected) will say between 6 - 12 months of age.
Even Animal Behavorist ~ Victoria Stilwell suggests earlier rather than later.
No research is perfect, and no experience is absolute. In reality, there are very few definite "right" answers. The best answer to most questions is to find a Vet who you trust to tell you the whole story and make your decision based on the pro's & cons of that information.
Early neutering is a controversial topic. A very few uncontrolled studies have shown a link with early neuters (before 14 months of age) and some forms of cancer and joint problems. Both the joint problems and the cancers that they have linked are relatively common in large-boned dogs, so the challenge is to prove whether the early neuter actually caused an increase in the incidence. There have been no studies that prove this. Waiting to neuter seems to offer fewer advantages for smaller dogs than larger ones.
Spaying females before 6 months is less controversial than neutering; preventing the first heat nearly eliminates the risk of breast cancer which is much more common than bone cancer.
....also.... we have always brought our dogs home the same day after their surgery. IF you discuss this with your Vet..most of the time they will be agreeable. The office itself usually closes at 6 p.m...& the dogs are left till morning w/ no supervision. So therefore bringing them home w/ YOU being able to monitor it throughout the night is far better IMO. Should there be a problem ( which most likely there will NOT be)..there is always an emergency number to call.
We also opted for the lazer surgery which is far less invasive..and they heal much quicker. They didn't really even need the cones. ( Honestly..dogs are not so stupid as to lick open their stitches. We have NEVER had ANY of our dogs over the last 30 yrs. even try!)
Last edited by DZee; 18th September 2012 at 06:03 AM.
*Diane ~ Mom to~
Wrigley ( Cavalier)
Zeb ( Labrador)
& Jake ( Labradoodle)
18th September 2012, 06:17 AM
I totally disagree with you on this. I don't think you've done your homework, and you are making very risky assumptlons without sufficient research. But, go ahead. Take that big risk. Risk hindering the dog's development to maturity. I would never take that risk with a cavalier. The breed has too many genetic strikes against it as it is. Ignore these experts:
Originally Posted by DZee
This one is on the falsehood that early spaying eliminates the risk of mammary cancer:
Here is an AKC podcast released just this month: Early Spay and Neuter. In this podcast we hear from Dr. Benjamin Hart, a distinguished professor emeritus and active researcher at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. Hart is a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and discusses his CHF-funded research into the health implications of spay and neuter in Golden Retrievers, the results of which he and his research team have just submitted for publication.
Last edited by RodRussell; 18th September 2012 at 06:26 AM.
18th September 2012, 08:53 AM
It's a bit offensive to assume if we choose to have our dog neutered or spayed prior to maturity we obviously don't care if our beloved pet/s are at risk.
There is still a lot yet totally understood on this subject..as it is still controversial.
I guess it's a little like politics...depends on who you are listening to.
It's sad that we cannot have an exchange of thoughts without being made to feel we are complete idiots.
I too have done research & my statements were made on everything I have ever read.
Perhaps all the reasons given for many years as to WHY to neuter & spay are just complete myths???
.. I don't honestly know.
All I shared in my previous posts came from well known Vet (experts) as well.
I pretty much copied what they had wrote.
Obviously there has been some new discoveries regarding this.
Yes..Dr. Hart speaks of the advantages of waiting regarding LARGER breeds ( his research was w/ golden retrievers).
There is still not significant evidence that it benefits a smaller breed to wait till sexual maturity.
Here is where I got what you obviously consider (mis) information....
Last edited by DZee; 18th September 2012 at 09:26 AM.
*Diane ~ Mom to~
Wrigley ( Cavalier)
Zeb ( Labrador)
& Jake ( Labradoodle)
18th September 2012, 10:15 AM
I agree DZee, just had my lovely Sasha spayed at 8 mths after having two bitches not spayed who went on to suffer with Mammory Tumours, its the best decision for Sasha's future health as far as i am concerned x
18th September 2012, 11:01 AM
Rod, I think you can make your personal point about believing the growth plate/maturity argument without offending people by arguing they (have) put their dogs at risk (certainly no more so than by not neutering!). Even these studies indicate 'risks' are pretty darn tiny. And they are challenged by other studies. And in some the study group of dogs was TINY -- sometimes just 10 dogs. Not very statistically significant.
Overall, I feel those studies cited are misleading in how they are used as an argument against neutering. There are significant differences in actual likelihoods of any dog having any serious issues over a lifetime from neutering (that comparative study, if you delve into it, reveals tiny fractional increases on the con side of neutering for various problems, while the preventative protection of neutering is for diseases that have huge potential impact -- such as mammary tumours).
I strongly feel that in many ways the larger arguments for neutering are the behaviour/management issues (which can directly lead to increased deaths, greater than what is accounted for by health issues, I would wager) and welfare reasons. Ask any vet or anyone in rescue: there's a far greater death risk or abandonment risk to any dog left intact simply from the innate behaviours of intact dogs. Neutering generally prevents/resolves the potential behavioural problems that cause owners to abandon, put down, sell on or send to the pound, an intact dog. It also eliminates the primary cause of dogs roaming and/or escaping -- males roaming after females in heat, or females escaping while in heat to get to males -- the end story of which is often a dog lost forever or killed by a car or other accident. Typically these dogs are young, going through puberty/first heat. and owners cannot manage them, are ignorant of risks, or choose not to.
Having talked to many pound personnel over the years, they say they get dogs handed in for behaviours owners could have limited or ended simply by neutering. Most surrendered dogs in pounds worldwide can be pts immediately or within 24-48 hours. The reclaim rate for dogs is also very low at pounds worldwide. They also say they often bring in whole posses of dogs, consisting of one female in heat being assaulted by a crowd of fighting males. Around 90% of the male dogs in pounds here are unneutered males. Most of the females are not spayed. Very often they are in heat. Many of the behaviours are harder to manage if the dog is neutered (males ion particular) after they start eg at later than about 9-10 months.
If people are persuaded by the argument about growth plates they can simply wait to neuter til their dog is one-ish but by waiting two-three heats to spay a female, the lifetime risk of mammary tumours, half of which are malignant, rises to 25%.
As for NAIA. I cannot take seriously any argument from that lobby organisation that has led the drive to prevent any productive work being accomplished on puppy mills because they feel breeders never should be subject to any kind of inspection (not in any workable way). In the past I've seen them send out warnings to breeders in specific areas to indicate there may be a raid on those wonderful responsible breeders with over 100 dogs in breeding cages. These often were passed around the old CKCS L-list. NAIA to me, are a breeder led lobby at the bottom of the barrel in having any right to moralise about dogs on any issue whatsoever. Oh, and that Mercola vet. The same one who recently chirped away about the things you need to adjust for with your flat-faced breeds, who have just a few little issues due to those flat faces people bought them for -- rather than taking the chance to discuss what you yourself have so well argued about the snub faces being a serious health risk and the flat face, which leads to eyeballs falling out of shallow skulls and serious breathing difficulties, maybe being a feature we should take a stance on for the dogs' sake. In despair at a vet industry that just rubberstamps the status quo health issues most easily prevented by not breeding for such features, I sent that Mercola article on to a few researchers, who were pretty disappointed that vets like this cater to their clients and audience and do not take the initiative to highlight a far more serious issue than might ever be encountered in an early spay. And unsubscribed from their nerwsletter.
In memory: Lucy
18th September 2012, 11:17 AM
When I woke up this morning to read the first reply I was pretty shocked and Charlie had his appointment at 9am. I stuck to my decision as I had done all the research beforehand and decided based on his growth and behaviour (especially roaming issues!!) that this was around the right time to do it along with a trusted vet's advice. We also took Harry in at around this time in his life and never had any problems re: that department. I also considered his ability at 7 months to be able to bounce back pretty quickly from his op with hopefully no negative physical or emotional repercussions.
I was upset leaving him but he seemed ok and I pick him up at 6:20.
Sorry for sparking a heated debate
18th September 2012, 11:26 AM
Don't apologise; it is always a good debate to have because people are often confused and worried and the issue comes up regularly.
If people wish to wait til their dog is a year or so that is entirely a personal choice. There are to me, significant health reasons not to wait longer than after a single heat for a female for those who choose to wait. But I think evidence AGAINST neutering before one is inconclusive.
The AKC Canine Health Foundation article I think gives a good conclusion -- there are good reasons to spay a female and to spay after 6 months and before first heat. With males you can balance out the pros and cons on the health arguments -- but the writer fails to return to one of the strongest initial arguments in the article, the behavioural issues.
In my experience it is unwanted male behaviours coupled with the drive of an intact male to roam that argue for neutering, as well as preventing unwanted litters and more pound deaths, not the health issues that are primary.
I do not think it responsible to look at neutering only as a health discussion -- if anything, the behaviour issues leading to higher risk of death, and the welfare issues, are even more persuasive.
BTW of all the cavaliers I took out of the pounds here in Ireland over the years, most of them males, I can only recall one that was neutered.
In memory: Lucy