Honest opinions regarding litter vs no litter at all

[glen]

Those girls are so beautiful.

 

[gilles]

just asked sergei gain about incontinence he said spaying young or old will have no difference, but if you want to do it do it later not at a young age in order to allow complete and good body structure developmemt. but again if i were you i would not touch them they are so beautiful and one day you my want them to have little cute ones too!

 

[gilles]

....its just me...i would never think about my convenience when it comes to my dogs , i would only think whats good for them ..and i take the s...t that comes with . and i don't even look at pros and cons of spaying and neutering, if there is no valid medical or physical reason i think its not natural to do it.... but again its just me....

 

[DennasMom]

From this thread - and others on the forum from people who have had litters - pregnancy is a serious risk to the life and well-being of the bitch. That alone would is enough for me to alter my girl. I also like to take my dog out in public - and having to lock her up for 6-12 weeks a year (2-3 heat cycles) would be more than just inconvenient... and unfair to her, as well.

The totally frustration of poor Jack is another reason I would fix the girls - and probably Jack, too, when the time is right. We have the added requirement from our boarding facility that all dogs must be altered... so if us humans ever want to take an over-seas vacation without the dog... we have to abide by their requirement - or find another place... but we love the place they go, and our dogs have always come home happy and with all their manners intact... places that take intact dogs around here basically lock them up in kennel prisons, which I would not want to do to my dog.

We do live in the city... so there are more rules and restrictions on pets... we want to share our pets with the world, and let our pets experience the world around them, so we follow the rules. It's a balance, but it really wasn't a hard decision for us to make.

A good question, though - which seems to me was answered in spades - with the conclusion that there's no health BENEFIT to a bitch to get pregnant and have a litter.

 

[gilles]

so the opinions are split on this subject , one can find pros and cons and the debate will never end..for me i think for a bitch to have a litter is a natural process that will contribute for sure to physical and mental developments that are necessary and part of life...is it risky yes everything is risky even if you lock the dog in an empty room....that's life .

 

[marke]

I will wait 6 more months - 1 year, I want a good surgeon for them even if it's a routine op. They are my beauties.

from what i've seen there is nothing routine about spaying a large adult dog ...... my advice to anyone would be a laparoscopic spay , the recovery from it is night and day ........

 

[teodora]

We live 20 min. to the city, in rural area and most dogs around here are hunting or farm working packs, not fixed... I'm not keen to put them in kennels anyway - some of them do, some don't accept entire dogs. I prefer to choose what I accept and what I don't for my dogs: to be honest, I hate the desexing crazy propaganda around here, and it makes me think twice about altering them as long as what I hear all day is "be a responsible owner and desex your puppy because there are too many unwanted dogs and don't ever buy - adopt!" - that's exactly the opposite, plain irresponsible to desex a puppy... Beside it, sorry for unwanted dogs but keeping mine as mother nature created them doesn't mean they'll multiply and I'm free to chose whether to buy or adopt, whoever is yelling otherwise just gets me pissed off with no positive outcome whatsoever. So - I want scientific data not emotional outbursts, that's why I asked about real benefits versus risks. I won't touch any of my dogs without knowing the facts.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[marke]

scientific evidence ? well , i read that breeding them lowers their chance of pyo ,i may have believed this , except i just lost a 9yr old weimaraner , that had 2 litters , to an emergency pyo surgery .........right now i got 2 intact males and an intact bitch , she should be coming in season pretty soon , it's a breeze , i look forward to it ..........placing puppies , i've placed maybe 70 over the last 24yrs , the best bitches , bred to the best males in the breed , and i can tell you placing pups in lifetime homes is not what it's cracked up to be .......i've seen gr ch dogues lose their homes ............ on the contrary i find this board for the most part anti-spay neuter ....... i myself am anti-spay neuter , but it's just not practical in a lot of situations for a lot of reasons , and some of them are health reasons , pyo is for real , i've had 2 neos , one got pyo , the second never got the chance ........... on a side note "mother nature" did not create neos , if she had her way they'd die out rather quickly ............... best way to get the "facts" is experience them .........

 

[teodora]

I won't be able to sell puppies because it would break my heart to see them going with some strangers, that's all. And somehow I'd feel guilty for it. I agree that neos as such are not well adjusted for wild life: even if poor Sophia is doing her best to prove herself lol...

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[glen]

I'm the same,i wish the days would slow down I dread the day these pups leave us,i want them all

 

[Joao M]

We live 20 min. to the city, in rural area and most dogs around here are hunting or farm working packs, not fixed... I'm not keen to put them in kennels anyway - some of them do, some don't accept entire dogs. I prefer to choose what I accept and what I don't for my dogs: to be honest, I hate the desexing crazy propaganda around here, and it makes me think twice about altering them as long as what I hear all day is "be a responsible owner and desex your puppy because there are too many unwanted dogs and don't ever buy - adopt!" - that's exactly the opposite, plain irresponsible to desex a puppy... Beside it, sorry for unwanted dogs but keeping mine as mother nature created them doesn't mean they'll multiply and I'm free to chose whether to buy or adopt, whoever is yelling otherwise just gets me pissed off with no positive outcome whatsoever. So - I want scientific data not emotional outbursts, that's why I asked about real benefits versus risks. I won't touch any of my dogs without knowing the facts. Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Teodora
I believe we are in the same lines of thought and I will try to be as objective as possible.
I cannot give you scientific data but only what I have read and discussed with vets and breeders over the years. The issue your raised was spaying the girls without breeding them or after one litter
.
Breeding vs not breeding a bitch:
Pro breeding at least once: Never found any relevant data. Some say that they get more "balanced" but that may be just a "feeling" and not science.
No need to breed: avoiding pregnancy complications; birth complications, etc.
I think it is fair to say there are more science-based pros not to breed than to breed once.

Spaying or not; neutering or not
It was not your point and it is an endless discussion. I always prefer to keep them intact (males and females) but your have to consider what is feasible in your particular situation.
I believe everyone that has a male and females (plural here is relevant).. has a complicated life when one of the girls is in heat. For the bitch for the male and for the owner. Really complicated without a (good) kennel.

As you correctly say you have to do what you accept for your dogs, so at the end of the day I think you will spay the girls (most likely and before any litter) or neuter Jack.

 

[Hiraeth]

Spaying does reduce the risk of mammary tumors, but to my knowledge it seems to only be a significant reduction if done before the first heat.

Just some information about this, since everything else has pretty much been covered. According to everything I've read, if you're going to spay a bitch, the earlier you spay the less likely your dog will have mammary tumors. Going through the first heat increases the odds, going through the second heat increases the odds some more, etc.

However, the cohort of dogs who have the smallest occurrence of mammary cancer is intact females (the percentage of intact females with mammary cancer in the studies I've read is less than 1%). So, by spaying, you are inherently increasing the risk, it's just when you spay.

 

[marke]

However, the cohort of dogs who have the smallest occurrence of mammary cancer is intact females (the percentage of intact females with mammary cancer in the studies I've read is less than 1%). So, by spaying, you are inherently increasing the risk, it's just when you spay.

maybe i'm reading this wrong ? if this is implying intact bitches are less prone to mammary tumors , it defies logic ...... misinformation at it's best ......

Overview of Mammary Tumors: Mammary Tumors: Merck Veterinary Manual

Mammary tumors in dogs are most frequent in intact bitches;

Mammary Tumors | ACVS

More than a quarter of unspayed female dogs will develop a mammary tumor during their lifetime. The risk is much lower for spayed female dogs, male dogs, and cats of either gender. In female dogs, 50% of mammary tumors are benign and 50% are malignant.

Canine Mammary Tumors | Veterinary Medical Center

Mammary tumors are more common in intact than in spayed females; in fact spaying before the first or second heat cycle significantly reduces the risk of developing mammary tumors. Median age on presentation is 10 to 11 years.

 

[Hiraeth]

From "Evaluation of the risk and age of onset of cancer and behavioral disorders in gonadectomized Vizslas", 2014: http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/HealthyPets/61314_Pets_Lead%20Article_VizslaStudy.pdf

Dogs gonadectomized at ≤ 6 months, between 7 and 12 months, or at > 12 months of age had significantly increased odds of developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined...

The present study included 1,360 female dogs, 535 of which were sexually intact. Only 11 dogs had mammary gland neoplasia; all but one of these were spayed at > 5 years of age. Given that mammary gland cancer is seen more commonly in female dogs and 54.3% of the dogs in the survey were female, this would still have been equivalent to only 20 dogs in the study having mammary gland cancer, had the cancer affected both sexes equally.

From "The effect of neutering on the risk of mammary tumours in dogs – a systematic review", 2012; a review that judges the biased nature of the studies done on the links between altering and mammary cancer: The effect of neutering on the risk of mammary tumours in dogs a systematic review - Beauvais - 2012 - Journal of Small Animal Practice - Wiley Online Library.

Mammary gland cancer is an important condition in female dogs, with approximately 20% to 50% of the tumors being histologically malignant. It is commonly believed that gonadectomized female dogs have a reduced risk of mammary gland cancer and that the earlier a dog is gonadectomized, the lower the risk. However, authors of a recent systematic review of all reports in peer-reviewed journals on the associations among neutering, age at neutering, and mammary gland tumors concluded that the evidence that neutering reduces the risk of mammary gland neoplasia is weak and not a sound basis for firm recommendations on neutering because of limited evidence and bias in published results.

In other words, the studies that everyone is basing their "intact females are more likely to be diagnosed with malignant mammary cancer" are highly biased and recent studies have found the exact opposite to be true.

 

[marke]

your referenced "studies" are horrible , they grade studies , i think 1 through 5 , these have to be a 9 ...... i been through both of them before , they're not even worth discussion ........ my anecdotal evidence of 15-20 intact and neutered bitches , mostly sisters , about half bred half spayed , tells me more than those junk search engine "studies" , those "studies" aren't worth the time those kids put into them ....... merck , ohio stat and the acvs must need better info , maybe those kids could straighten them out ...... i know which of my dogs got mammary tumors and which didn't , ridiculous

 

[Hiraeth]

So we should base our judgments about altering and mammary cancer risk based on your anecdotal evidence of the 20 dogs you have owned who are all from the same breed and lines?

Right. We'll get super accurate information from doing that and it will be totally applicable to all breeds and dogs from different lines! Why didn't we think of this before?! You should probably submit your scientific research and results for publication so that everyone can benefit from your experience and knowledge.

 

[marke]

So we should base our judgments about altering and mammary cancer risk based on your anecdotal evidence of the 20 dogs you have owned who are all from the same breed and lines?

nope , my anecdotal evidence is just for me ..... it just verifies what my vets , and i got lots of them , tell me ...... what ohio state says , what Merck says and what the ACVS says ..... i have to think between all them they've seen a few dogs , actually seen and treated them ..... and like me with my 20 dogs , just seen what was right in front of their face .........

 

[teodora]

Few years ago I had pure breed female teckel. She lived 17 happy years and she was intact for the first 7. She had one litter and 3 pups, and few years later she developed mammary cancer. She went through surgery and a slow recovery but she made it and she died of old age. Now she was probably prone to developing tumors anyway and had fake pregnancies and strange symptoms all her life: but that's just one example of an unaltered girl I had that HAD cancer while intact (and after her litter). I'm pretty sure cancer in dogs, like in human, can't be properly predicted and the risk is more genetically than anything. I just want to do what I can do to give them a long happy life: the rest is really not up to me....

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[gilles]

i dont think risks of cancer are altered either way, its a genetic predisposition...

 

[Nik]

your referenced "studies" are horrible , they grade studies , i think 1 through 5 , these have to be a 9 ...... i been through both of them before , they're not even worth discussion ........ my anecdotal evidence of 15-20 intact and neutered bitches , mostly sisters , about half bred half spayed , tells me more than those junk search engine "studies" , those "studies" aren't worth the time those kids put into them ....... merck , ohio stat and the acvs must need better info , maybe those kids could straighten them out ...... i know which of my dogs got mammary tumors and which didn't , ridiculous

I would worry about the accuracy of studies that are funded from anyone/organization that profits off neutering/spaying operations. It kind of means they have a vested interest and are not at all unbiased. Anecdotal advice at least is based on personal experience but given the small sample size and other conditions that could effect outcome also not entire applicable on a grander scheme... idk the neuter/spay decision is such a tricky one. It seems like there are so many risks but then there are risks to not doing it as well and of course the societal pressure is ridiculous (at least around where I live).