The Most Dog Friendly Community Online
Join and Discover the Best Things to do with your Dog

Register

Would You Put Your Dog Through Surgery

GotWhippet, anyone who would consider you approach to rehoming your sterlised babies as 'barbaric" would need to get a clearer understanding of the definition of such a word. (Barbaric : Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.)

I did notice this word used earlier in this thread and though am a very open minded person, all for freedom of speech & opinions, I do hope readers and writers on this forum have a literal understanding of the words they use in their posts.

The intentions behind your decision to neuter babies prior to placing in new homes is admirable regardless to whether I personally would do it or not.

:thumbsup:
 
"Some would say no one should breed (I recently got chucked off a rescue forum for buying a puppy even though I have fundraised and volunteered for rescues for years), "

That's awful and so shortsighted of them! There are many personal reasons why people want pups, it doesn't mean you don't love all dogs! I walk rescue greyhounds regularly but knew that for a couple of family reasons, I needed to get a pup this time and wait two or three years before bringing in a rescue. I love all the greys I walk and dearly wish I could bring a couple of them home but perhaps the people who love dogs most are the ones who know when the time is right and don't just get one because they feel sorry for it. Pity is not a good place to be coming from when you bring a dog home from rescue, you need stronger emotions than that to get you through the difficult times and ensure that your home is the forever home.
 
memyselfNi said:
GotWhippet, anyone who would consider you approach to rehoming your sterlised babies as 'barbaric" would need to get a clearer understanding of the definition of such a word. (Barbaric : Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.)
I did notice this word used earlier in this thread and though am a very open minded person, all for freedom of speech & opinions, I do hope readers and writers on this forum have a literal understanding of the words they use in their posts.

The intentions behind your decision to neuter babies prior to placing in new homes is admirable regardless to whether I personally would do it or not.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I think you will find it was me who used the word barbaric, but I used it with reference to practices such as severing tendons to surgically alter tail carriage. I also know you will find that the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) includes under barbarous "Savage in infliction of cruelty, cruelly harsh", a usage which goes back to 1538 ... this reader and writer has a very clear understanding of the words she uses (and please lets not get into an argument about whether barbaric is synonymous with barbarous).

Annie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
memyselfNi said:
GotWhippet, anyone who would consider you approach to rehoming your sterlised babies as 'barbaric" would need to get a clearer understanding of the definition of such a word. (Barbaric : Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.)
I did notice this word used earlier in this thread and though am a very open minded person, all for freedom of speech & opinions, I do hope readers and writers on this forum have a literal understanding of the words they use in their posts.

The intentions behind your decision to neuter babies prior to placing in new homes is admirable regardless to whether I personally would do it or not.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I think this is funny because it was me who used the word first and I'm an English lecturer.....I used that word because I don't agree with neutering very young pups.

I do understand more fully now why people do this - can totally understand the puppy mill argument - but ethically we are doing something unnatural to dogs because other people (backyard breeders, commercial breeders etc) can't be trusted to look after animals properly and give them the life they deserve. It's a sorry state of affairs when people have to do this. Perhaps the situation is barbaric as opposed to the operation? Perhaps the law should be changed so that the breeder always has top priority should the dog be rehomed/ bred from without their permission eg If I bought a pup off you, legally I would be unable to rehome/ breed from the dog without permission and laws would be broken if that happened?

I can admit when I'm wrong. ;)

:ermm: Edited to say I'm still wrong - it was Annie who used the word first and I was just echoing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Esty said:
memyselfNi said:
GotWhippet, anyone who would consider you approach to rehoming your sterlised babies as 'barbaric" would need to get a clearer understanding of the definition of such a word. (Barbaric : Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.)
I did notice this word used earlier in this thread and though am a very open minded person, all for freedom of speech & opinions, I do hope readers and writers on this forum have a literal understanding of the words they use in their posts.

The intentions behind your decision to neuter babies prior to placing in new homes is admirable regardless to whether I personally would do it or not.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I think this is funny because it was me who used the word first and I'm an English lecturer.....I used that word because I don't agree with neutering very young pups. ...
Click to expand...
It's funnier than that because whichever of us used it first, you're an English lecturer and I'm an academic lol
 
GotWhippet? said:
The hormone issue indicates that pre-pubital desexing dogs are slightly increased CHANCE of being taller than their litter mates. Why is this a problem? I don't see any problems with this.
Click to expand...
It is not a problem of the dog being taller, it is a problem of abnormal bone development and recent increase of bone cancers in dogs, which have been linked to early desexing.

The hormone issue in one of the older articles also indicated that the low oestrogen levels in pre-pubital desexed dogs results in urinary incontinence. Well then why don't my bitches have incontinence when they are in season and why don't they have incontinence when they are carrying a litter?
Click to expand...

As I said there is a slight chance of these problems, and they may not become obvious until the bitch is bit older; instead of becoming incontinent when she is 14, she starts when she is 6.

All 3 desexed dogs are not significantly taller or shorter than my entire whippets that are in the backyard. The 3 pets don't have incontinence.
Click to expand...
Not statistically significant number. In any case I am not saying that every early spayed bitch will become incontinent or get bone cancer, I just wish those who promote early spay would point out truthfully all the pros and cons. And by "early" I mean before 12 weeks as opposed to pre-pubertal, by which I mean before 1st season.

I have to admit I have given lot of consideration to at least spay the pet girls before they go, but decided that if I cannot trust the people enough, then I should not let them have the pup at all. I recommend my buyers to spay at about 12 months, castrate at 18 months, if they can get away with not doing it earlier in the area where they live.

Up till recently it was possible to pay extra money if people did not want to have their pets desexed, but in many areas that is not possible. However dogs registered with KC and owned by members of KC do not have to be desexed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you ever fully KNOW who you can trust when they are purchasing your puppies?

How can you ever know what lies they tell you or what information they leave out?

When they promise they will desex the dog on maturity, how can you ever know that they actually do that? How can you be sure that they are not breeding litter after litter of pet/crossbred pups from a bitch or letting their entire dog roam the streets to sire any number of unwanted litters? Unless you are constantly able to visit their home unannounced and conduct surveillance how would you know for sure? Sometimes I think early desexing would be a good idea but because I am not sure about the health issues I don't do it and rely on the "limited registration" and the promises of the new owners that the dogs will not be bred from.

So many of my puppy owners have become uncontactable after a certain period of time and I don't know what has happened with those dogs. (on the flipside - there are also many who send me a christmas card and a photo every year)

I do a lot of questioning and as much research as I can on prospective buyers and have let pups/adult dogs go to people whom I thought were going to be fantastic owners only to be sadly let down on many occasions.

I also had a bloke ring me once with a pet bitch asking to use my stud dog. The bitch was bred by a show breeder (who shall remain nameless) but sold without papers (which is not allowed under our rules). When I said I was not allowed to let my dog service an unregistered bitch I got a 10 minute rant about the closed gene pool among show dogs and I should be happy that he was asking to use my dog to widen the gene pool and that we as show breeders were unscrupulous!
 
aslan said:
How can you ever fully KNOW who you can trust when they are purchasing your puppies?
Click to expand...
She can't be sure. Like you Lara, I am also not that naive to think I can read every puppy buyer like a book.

I also read the article you are talking about Tazaris. Like I said previously. Quite a few of the journal articles in regards to this are laughable. Cancers (including bone cancer) has risen significantly across dogs, cats and HUMANS. I sure as hell didn't get desexed when I was 5 years of age. Other factors like lifestyle and environmental factors should be looked into and not just one thing. Maybe it's all these wonderful complete dog foods we are giving our animals? Who knows. Question everything and don't just read one article and go A HAH it's in a journal so it must be right. Not likely though in some cases.

Also I am not here to change peoples minds on anything. I only said what I do and why I do it and will continue to do it.

I'm not going to sit here and continue to "tit for tat" every sentence you make Tazaris because I am not interested in people with chronic "tunnel vision".
 
You're right that people should question what they read in journals, although if it's in a peer reviewed journal the science can generally be assumed to be accurate, but they should also look at who funded the research ... I suspect that there is more literature pro early spay/neuter than against because the early spray/neuter lobby has more money behind it ... would you fund research that was going to find against you ... I mean we've all heard the phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics", and as an academic myself I can tell you that if you frame the hypothese you are testing in the 'right' way you can usually come up with the 'right' answer.

And slightly off topic, and not directed at any one in particular ... surely every breeder takes a risk re. the lifelong well being of any pup they sell ... I'm just confused as to why you do it if you are so uncertain of your ability to choose new owners well that you feel compelled to spay/neuter before 12 weeks ... is there a shortage of really good homes?

Annie
 
I think we have gotten a little off-topic, but I wish to add a little clarification here:

If the word 'barbarous' had been used I would have assumed it was in relation to someone performing a procedure without pain relief, general anesthetic and/or associated welfare aspects being taken into account. I know that such a word would not have represented this topic in anyway as we were discussing surgery and therefore these practices would have been performed in a veterinary environment

I had made comment to the word 'barbaric' being used in the situation where a breeder had the forethought into having such a procedure as early neutering done. (hence, to why I had highlighted the word intentions) IMO, I don't believe this action is be represented by a 'lack of restraint" or in a 'tastless, uncivilized manner' if the effective rehoming of their puppies is considered.

I apologise to any readers or writers if an offence was taken to my original post. I had written my own opinion based on a definition of 'barbaric' within the context of Gotwhippet response.

I agree with you themetalchicken that the procedures such as severing tail tendons is of a crude nature, only to give superifical gratification to person authorising such a surgery. I hope I never have to come within hearing distance of such an act. :angry: I must say, here on this forum, is the first time I have heard of it.

Stonegrace, :cheers: on bringing forth a subject that opens discussion, though I must backtrack to the original post and say I don't believe neutering will improve your chances in the ring :p

A healthy discussion on definitions and use of the English language makes for great coffee conversation 8)

(PS does anyone know the appreviation for the smiley face that holds the coffeecup? I couldn't find him)
 
Of-course, nobody can be 100% sure of anybody, but most of my puppy buyers contact me long time before I even mate my bitch. With some I am in continuous contact since before the pups are born, and at least weekly contact after the pups arrive. Most of these people are professional people, people running their own business, they are not interested in breeding. There were couple of occasions when i at first thought a person sounds OK, but by the time the pups were ready to go I started to have doubt, and told them they cannot have the pup. Maybe I was wrong, but I rather ere on the side of caution.

As far as articles re-problems in early de-sexed dogs goes, i have read number of them. There are more and more popping up. It is not that I read one article and made up my mind, but any research that acknowledges potential problems is in line with scientific facts; that hormones are important for individual's development.

It is true that there is an increase in various cancers, but it is not too difficult for a vet with a large busy practice to see the trends if certain cancers appear more often in dogs that have been desexed before 12 weeks.

I have no problem with people who consider the evidence presented, and decide that they prefer to spay/castrate before they let their pups go. But people should be able to decide on sound information, not that provided by pro-spay lobby.

Also, i do know that most of my pups have been de-sexed, because most people send me updates. Some I know that they have been done, because they come for visits.

Of-course, I cannot be sure that somebody one day will not do something with one of my pups that I would object to, but I am not sure if that is a good enough reason to have them all undergo operation, which if performed too early I believe could have a detrimental effect?

However, i can see the next step in the laws to be that all pups on limited register have to be done before they are sold.
 
Glad I don't live in Oz, as a responsible dog owner I want my ability to choose the right time to have my dog neutered to be respected by anyone I might buy a puppy from, and my right as the person with legal, physical and moral responsibility for my dog to choose not to neuter at all if I feel that might be detrimental to his health. I live in a house with two neutered dogs and one entire, and two pups, one of whom is almost 12mths and will be neutered sometime in the next 6 mths, a decision based on my knowledge of my dog not a breeders fear that I might some day breed from the pup they were selling me.

Annie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stonegrace I don't believe neutering will improve your chances in the ring
Click to expand...
Its a good job you are a close friend Memyselfni - I might have really taken offense to that! :p :lol:

Although i dont currently desex my babies before they go to their homes, it is something ive considered. After selling a puppy to someone i thought i knew well, i had a lot of contact with these potential owners before the pups were even conceived, genuinely a lovely family and they love their whippet like a member of the family. BUT, after signing a desexing contract (which is not worth the paper its written on, but it is often enough to encourage owners to do it!) they went on to mate their bitch to a friends whippet anyway - so they could let their children see the "miracle of birth", so they could let the bitch have a litter before she is desexed otherwise "she might feel like she is missing out on somthing", because "she is such a nice bitch she would make nice puppies". I dont care what the reasons behind it was - they were not registered breeders, they DID NOT breed their bitch for the right reasons and those puppies would not have had the right start to life that i would have given them, being a registered breeder (the new owners did not get puppy packs, info on health care, proper socialisation or advice on raising a puppy. They certainly did not screen potential new owners like i do).

So, more unregistered, unethically and irresponsibly bred puppies go out into the world, probably for their owners to then also breed them because "thats where their pup came from and it grew up fine".

Its the same arguement about registered breeders Vs backyard breeders. I wouldnt call us "elitist" - just educated, passionate about our breed, their well being and breeding for the RIGHT reasons ... as opposed to the BYBs.

My point is - i can see why breeders do paed. desexings and i agree with it - no matter how much you think your puppies are going to responsible homes, its not always the case.

Although Whippets are currently not considered a high risk breed of being dumped, it wont be long before we start to see them in the pounds if BYBs continue. The amount of Staffys, Shepherds and all those lovely fluffy designer breeds that are euthanased in pounds every week - is proof of this. These dogs on death row were probably also bred because "we want our children to experience the miracle of birth". :rolleyes:
 
stonegrace said:
Although Whippets are currently not considered a high risk breed of being dumped, it wont be long before we start to see them in the pounds if BYBs continue. The amount of Staffys, Shepherds and all those lovely fluffy designer breeds that are euthanased in pounds every week - is proof of this. These dogs on death row were probably also bred because "we want our children to experience the miracle of birth". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Although there might be a small amount of that involved, by far the majority of these dog breeds are bred because there is a market to make profit. There are idiots on estates who think toting a Staffy makes them a better man and don't really care where that dog came from. The majority I would think come from puppy farms or bybs where the attitude of the owners would have very little to do with the experience of their children and much more to do with the action of their own wallet. It's why places like 'Many Tears' rescue are full of breeding dogs who are pitifully unsocialised and past it by the time they are three years old. The ones in pounds are not necessarily the pups who may have gone on to ok homes (at least in the case of the non-aggressive breeds), but the poor bitches who have had five litters by the time they are four and are seen as a disposable commodity.
 
Thank you so much for posting this link ... I've drawn on this in the past when posting but only had a paper copy I was given by a friend and didn't know it was available online ... perhaps the link should be pinned somewhere mods to allow the many people who ask for advice re. spay/neuter to make an informed choice.

Annie
 
Make an informed choice on ONE article?

Your the academic. Ever written a paper on just one article? Made informed choices before on just one point of view? I carry 2 bachelor degrees (one with honors) plus 1 postgraduate so I guess I can call myself an academic as well and I certainly wouldn't make any informed choices based on one article. If the mods pin the article then make sure they pin articles highlighting the other arguement for people to peruse.

I wish I could link the 30 papers I have that favour the otherside of this argument but ebsco host won't let me link journal articles directly from the Deakin University library site. People can do their own research.

Here is one article from a journal that I could get off the internet HERE

I found plenty of abstracts and references to the links I like but I prefer to use academic databases.

I reiterate. I'm not here to change peoples minds on anything. Read as much as you can on both sides of this arguement and make your choices. It's not an informed decision when you read just one article from one side. Some people will explore and some will still have their head firmly impanted into the sand.
 
Although the journal is informative, it is obviously biased toward one arguement and rather than post a link to the negatives associated with it, a reader should make an informed decision by reading information that also disputes those adverse affects associated with early desexing. There are plenty of journals that support it however i have only seen them in hard copy. When i have time i will see if i can find some links.

A breeder can only make an informed choice by researching the facts themselves. At the end of the day, it will most likley come down to personal preference anyway and no amount of journals will sway someone, especially when the arguement becomes emotive and words such as barbaric are used to describe early desexings! Rather than looking at the actual benefits involved with such procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top