Developmentally; how is pyo and removal of sexual organs

Food, Fitness and how to keep them healthy.

Postby pitbullpony » February 9th, 2006, 9:03 am

normal?
Pyo is probably consistent with not being bred and becoming pregnant with every heat. There is some thought that back to back litters are species appropriate. There was a discussion on a list group I'm on where a renowned repro vet determined this to be true. If you would like me to I will hunt it down. Do I breed - no! However species wise; yes the female was most likely bred every heat and most likely conceived every heat. Pyo apparently occurs more often in empty bitches; something about the cervix opening and allowing the bacteria to multiply.

Removal of sexual organs is not NORMAL!

Look what happens when women are spayed and when men are castrated and no; I am not anthromo; I am telling you to look up the side effects of spaying and neutering.

The act of spaying or neutering certainly prevents some cancers; awfully hard to have cancer in an organ/body part that doesn't exist; however these cancers have been found on dogs that were spayed and neutered (except testicular cancer). Osteosarcoma has been found more often in dogs that are altered early.

I do wonder about the mammary gland tumours; that seems weird. What hope of propogation occurs when the dog has these tendencies? Perhaps poor cooked diets, excessive inoculations, little exercise and exposure to toxins is also part of the equation

Again looking forward to more discussion.
pitbullpony
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 24
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby msvette2u » February 9th, 2006, 11:26 am

I gather you're against spay/neuter.
I thnk as one person said, 99% of the population should spay and neuter. Because they are not going to be responsible enough to keep their dogs from having litters (or cats).

Just because of a few individuals who've decided they are somehow smarter than the rest of the population, I suppose we'll have a wave of people who don't think its "healthy" or that only idiots ought to spay and neuter because a "smart person" can keep their dog inside when in heat.

Well...until we see a drastic reduction in the amount of animals being killed daily due to having no homes to go to, I'd rather than EVERYONE spayed and neutered if they are not breeding show quality animals (or working animals as someone pointed out).

In the area where I live, there's already a bunch of UNEDUCATED people who let their unfixed animals run rampant and breed with whatever happens to come their way. How is that "smarter" or "more healthy"??? Just because their organs are intact does not mean they are better off, trust me!!
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
User avatar
msvette2u
I live here
 
Posts: 6812
Location: Eastern WA

Postby Emi » February 9th, 2006, 11:40 am

Pitbullpony exactly what does spaying/neutering have to do with woman and men ...

I'm sure you don't know what it's like to have a hysterectomy .. so don't go there if you don't know
User avatar
Emi
Full of Bully
 
Posts: 2068
Location: Houston TX ..

Postby mnp13 » February 9th, 2006, 11:41 am

Yes, dogs and cats are genetically designed to have a litter at every cycle. In the wild, every animal is designed that way. We are going against nature by not allowing them to breed, and that is what causes the problems. Since 99.9999% of domestic animals have no reason to be bred the only way to avoid the problems related with not reproducing every year is to remove the organs that you are not using anyway.

My cat was spayed at 12 weeks old. I have no idea if it changed how she grew or how her temperament developed, she is the way she is. Ruby was spayed at 18 months, about 24 hours from being dead from pyometra.

I'd rather not know what the difference might have been then have a dead pet.
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby pibblegrl » February 9th, 2006, 11:49 am

msvette2u wrote:I gather you're against spay/neuter.
I thnk as one person said, 99% of the population should spay and neuter. Because they are not going to be responsible enough to keep their dogs from having litters (or cats).

Just because of a few individuals who've decided they are somehow smarter than the rest of the population, I suppose we'll have a wave of people who don't think its "healthy" or that only idiots ought to spay and neuter because a "smart person" can keep their dog inside when in heat.

Well...until we see a drastic reduction in the amount of animals being killed daily due to having no homes to go to, I'd rather than EVERYONE spayed and neutered if they are not breeding show quality animals (or working animals as someone pointed out).

In the area where I live, there's already a bunch of UNEDUCATED people who let their unfixed animals run rampant and breed with whatever happens to come their way. How is that "smarter" or "more healthy"??? Just because their organs are intact does not mean they are better off, trust me!!



Great post!!! :thought:

Even if you don't agree with the health reasons for s/n....you must at least agree that there is a serious problem with overpopulation due to the idiots that can't keep their intact animals from getting knocked up.
Candi

God created idiots as an endless source of amusement for the rest of us!
User avatar
pibblegrl
Snot Nose Bully Pup
 
Posts: 222
Location: Meriden, Ct

Postby pLaurent » February 9th, 2006, 11:57 am

Well, the way domestic cats and dogs breed is also totally "unnatural".

Wild animals do NOT have that many litters and many do not breed at all when conditions are not favorable. Cats and dogs will breed no matter what - in the dead of winter, when they're starving etc.

We created these animals who can and will have unlimited litters and it's our responsibility to ensure they do not.

Attributing human emotions to animals as far as reproduction is concerned is very misguided.

I'm sure none of the pregnant cats we pick up ever thought "Gee I'd love to have a family of my own out in this snow covered field with no food or shelter!"

They merely do what their instincts (which have been drastically altered by their long association with us) force them to do, even if it means the death of mother and babies.
User avatar
pLaurent
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 355
Location: Quebec, CDA

Postby msvette2u » February 9th, 2006, 12:05 pm

:goodStuff:
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
User avatar
msvette2u
I live here
 
Posts: 6812
Location: Eastern WA

Postby JCleve86 » February 9th, 2006, 1:51 pm

I can completely see where you are coming from. It's not at all natural to remove sexual organs in any living creature. It's just not...no matter which way you look at it. Biologically any and all living species are here for one reason and one reason alone: to reproduce. Interfering with that is NOT "natural" or "normal."

BUT...along that same vein...neither is owning pets. I know that sounds Peta, but in all reality pets are a man-made concept, just like automobiles or hybrid plants. If we let nature control everything, none of those things would have ever occured. So if we want to go along with what is "natural," none of us should own pets in the first place. Sure, plenty of living species, from people and animals to bacteria and parasites have symbiotic relationships...dogs helped us hunt and protected us back when. But I'm pretty sure dogs didn't evolve to sleep on our couches and eat our extra Doritos...

Following that line of thought, it would be perfectly normal for most dogs/cats to breed with every cycle. It would also be natural for most of those offspring to die. That's why dogs and cats have large litters rather than a single offspring like people do. The odds are stacked way against a brand new baby puppy in the wild with other predators, weather conditions, food supply, illness, competition among littermates....many conditions are stacked against him...so these critters evolved in such a way that they'd have 4, 6, maybe 10 pups in hopes that ONE of them would survive to reproduce. So if we want to go along that line of thought, doing what is natural, we should also kill some entire litters, and in others, keep only one (culling anyone?).

You said yourself that you don't breed. You understand the ethical implications concerning breeding in this day and age. So why allow abnormal health concerns (pyometra due to not breeding naturally) to be a concern if your not going to breed anyway? Why not prevent it all together? I also read that spayed/neutered dogs seem to have higher instances of osteosarcoma. However...how much of that is due to poor breeding practices in general? Almost all dogs face one health problem or another, be it hip dysplasia, cardiac abnormalities, skin problems...none would occur in the wild where natural selection would "cull" them. Assuming the study was accurate, I would still rather risk my dogs having a somewhat higher risk of developing bone cancer than dying rapidly of pyometra, or having more likelihood of dog aggro, or...in the case of irresponsible owners...having them reproduce and create litters that will end up either euthanized or in neglectful homes. That my friend isn't natural.

And, as you said...there are many factors that could be contributing to this study that may not have been evaluated...poor diet, exercise?, bad genes all around, environmental concerns...

I also can't help but bring up the thought that dogs who belong to folks who for whatever reason will not apply proper or accepted vet care to their animals (not spaying/neutering...most folks don't not do it because of ethics, they don't do it because they don't think the dogs are worth the money) have to, by necessity, be healthy dogs. A dog belonging to low income owners isn't going to get vet care when he has diabetes. He's going to die. Period. Dogs belonging to these types of owners (including dogs with homeless owners) HAVE to be healthy to survive. I can't help but wonder how much of the non-spayed and non-neutered population these dogs comprise, and therefore how just naturally they are going to not have the same health concerns (osteosarcoma, in this case) as "normal" pet dogs.
JCleve86
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 465
Location: Puyallup, WA

Postby Emi » February 9th, 2006, 2:23 pm

If we want to go back to the nature of things...

By nature dogs are pack animals ... and in a pack only 2 dogs breed the alpha male and alpha female , and the others don't mate and produce off spring .
User avatar
Emi
Full of Bully
 
Posts: 2068
Location: Houston TX ..

Postby mnp13 » February 9th, 2006, 3:51 pm

JCleve86

:goodStuff:
Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.
User avatar
mnp13
Evil Overlord
 
Posts: 17232
Location: Rochester, NY

Postby pitbullpony » February 9th, 2006, 3:52 pm

Just to clarify -- my post was not about propagation of the species.

My post is about the deleterious health affects of spaying and neutering animals. Since few believe me that there are deleterious effects - feel free to do the research. Bone cancer is I believe deadly; incontinence can ruin a pet's life, possibly although not that I've seen hypothyroidism is also linked to sex hormones. You can probably go on.

To clarify; pyo is bad; often hard to catch -- which is why my bitch puppy will be spayed - not at 8 weeks, but as near to her first heat as possible.

I do not breed and only want to see animals bred that have performance titles, health clearances, proper screened homes and on deposit.

However; 1000s of people keep 1000s of dogs intact without cancers, unwanted litters, keeping an eye on pyo and other problems. If they didn't there would be no conformation shows and no breeding dogs. Performance dogs are often left intact - check out your next schutzhund or protection dog trial - see how many testicles (not on the handlers) are waving around then. And yes some bitches certainly are intact - I would hope so -- I hate to see people breeding schutzhund/protection dogs without the bitch being titled.

So should intact animals be the norm - hard to say.

I certainly see the benefit to spay and not having to worry about pyometra. However please don't discount the potential health ramifications of neuter or spay on your animals. I find it interesting that pyometra is so often occuring - horses and cows due to cost are very rarely spayed and they are mucky about their backend - they very rarely suffer any problems until much later in life.

Keep the conversation going; I am enjoying hearing from both sides,
pitbullpony
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 24
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby pLaurent » February 9th, 2006, 3:52 pm

If we want to go back to the nature of things...

By nature dogs are pack animals ... and in a pack only 2 dogs breed the alpha male and alpha female , and the others don't mate and produce off spring


Quite true! As I said, the lives that cats and dogs live with us is anything but natural in any way. So letting them keep their reproductive organs (but not letting them USE them) but disallowing other natural behaviors makes little sense.

If you really want your dogs to live naturally, take them out of their crates, let them go and scavange/hunt for food, fight for territory, live in a pack and breed at will like dingos. :) No other life is natural for them.
User avatar
pLaurent
Hyper Adolescent Bully
 
Posts: 355
Location: Quebec, CDA

Postby msvette2u » February 9th, 2006, 4:04 pm

However; 1000s of people keep 1000s of dogs intact without cancers, unwanted litters, keeping an eye on pyo and other problems.


1000s of intact animals kept responsibly is great. 1000s of intact animals kept irresponsibly, is the direct cause of pet overpopulation. C'mon. You can't actually believe that the responsible breeders are the ones to blame for the pet overpopulation crisis?
To what DO you attribute the crisis? Or do you deny one exists?
If some random health issues is the price to pay, so be it. Thousands of animals are spay/neutered and don't suffer these issues.
Statistics are almost always inaccurate and often biased and more frequently don't see the "whole picture" like JCleve pointed out.
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
User avatar
msvette2u
I live here
 
Posts: 6812
Location: Eastern WA

Postby JCleve86 » February 9th, 2006, 4:26 pm

To my understanding, horses and cows have a much longer lifespan than dogs and cats too. I also fall back on the fact that cows, like people, only have one calf (usually)...same with horses...I wonder if that (the release of one egg verses several) has any affect on pyometra? Does anybody know how frequently cows/horses cycle? I know with dogs it's usually every six months once they hit maturity, so going on a whim, if cows/horses cycle more frequently that might have something to do with it too.

I do completely see your point. From that perspective, it's kind of a lose lose situation, but because MOST owners are irresponsible, I see it like this:

A: Irresponsible owner with intact pet - pretty much guarantees unwanted litters - certain death of unwanted dogs - uncountable number of dogs hurt

B: Irresponsible owner with spay/neutered pet - no unwanted dogs - possible *risk* of health problems (incontinance being one you mentioned is rare, as are the others...there is increased risk but it's certainly not profound from what I have researched) - one dog who *might* be hurt eventually

The pros far outweigh the cons at this point, but again...I do certainly see your point. I think we just all have to decide on an individual basis which option is more risky.
JCleve86
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 465
Location: Puyallup, WA

Postby turtle » February 10th, 2006, 3:02 am

LOL, I should have been reading more. I posted this reply on the other thread and it seems like it is more appropriate to this discussion... So here it is again!

It's a fact that most pet owners are not responsible enough to own an intact dog. Too many will slip up once and end up with yet another "oops" litter. On that basis, I'd say most pet dogs should be spay/neutered.

Most of my dogs have been spayed females and they were all spayed at about 6 to 9 months of age. None of them had any problems as they got older but they all had a happy home life with little stress. Although from my recent reading, I would not spay a female again until she was two years old, or at least until after her first heat. And yes, I am a resposible owner and would not let her get bred!

There are studies that show there is an affect on growth with early neutering, but I don't have the link at hand. It's something about the early neutering causes a loss of hormones which make the growth plates in the bones not close as soon as they should and the dogs grow taller and more lanky than they would if they were neutered at about two years of age.

I think there is also a correlation with female dogs and early spaying but I would need to go find the info. If anyone has those studies, please post them!

But I had found this article posted else where and thought it was interesting. It talks about cancer in spayed and neutered pets.

I find the article makes a point about the loss of the hormones from the spay and in a stressful situation, they seem to have found a link to cancer.

And I have read several of Milani's books, they were quite good. I did not know she had a web site but she does and the article is from there:

http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200509.html

----------------------------------------------------

"Spay, Neuter, and Cancer: Revisiting and Old Trinity"

Perhaps no aspect of pet ownership in the U.S. elicits as passionately supportive emotions as the subject of spay and neuter. In fact, this orientation is so well established that saying anything that questions the procedure is akin to blasphemy. However, just as women were routinely relieved of their reproductive organs with a "La de da, you'll never miss 'em" attitude until studies exploring the nonreproductive effects of reproductive hormones made human physicians rethink this position, so veterinarians and other animal-care professionals are making tentative moves to rethink wholesale sterilization of companion animals, too.

To understand what difference this may make in our attitudes about the procedure, let's consider the subject of cancer. Most dog owners have heard that spay and neuter prevent testicular and mammary (breast) cancer: however is that the whole story relative to cancer or is there more to it?

Obviously, if we remove a dog's testicles, there's no way he'll develop testicular cancer. On the other hand, most dogs who develop testicular cancer respond well to castration, so the advantages of preventive surgery are perhaps not as great as one might expect. Although intact (unsterilized) females have a higher incidence of mammary cancer, the dog's weight plays an important role in the process: intact females who are lean at one year of age have a lower incidence of the disease compared to their chunky cohorts.

In an interesting article in the August Veterinary Practice News entitled "Can we neuter cancer in dogs?" veterinary oncologist Kevin Hahn opens by saying that, after reviewing studies reported over the last 30 years, he's not sure what to recommend to his clients. Like most veterinarians, Dr Hahn mentions the higher incidence of testicular and mammary cancer in intact animals, but also notes that spayed females have a 4 times greater risk of cardiac hemangiosarcomas, and neutered males also show a significant increased risk for this cancer compared to intact ones.

Another cancer Dr Hahn discusses that deserves mention is prostate cancer because a lot of people erroneously believe that castration prevents this. In reality, it does not. In fact, castrated dogs have up to a 4 times greater risk of developing prostate cancer than intact animals. At the same time, spayed or neutered dogs have a 1.5 to 3 times greater chance of developing bladder cancer. Because of this, rectal examinations and abdominal palpation should always be part of a routine veterinary physical examination.

The link between sterilization and osteosarcoma (i.e. bone cancer) is also troubling: Spayed and neutered animals are twice as likely to develop this cancer. Those spayed or castrated before their first birthdays had a roughly 1 in 4 lifetime risk for osteosarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop a tumor than intact dogs.

The article then goes on to discuss the role of hormones and genetic controls in cancer. All agree that there is a connection, but no one knows exactly what it is. However, in his article Dr Hahn discusses a study done by Dr David Felman (and published in the June Nature) that I find intriguing because of how it may relate to the role the animal's behavior and his/her relationship with the owner plays in cancer. In a very tiny nutshell, the study looked at two gene mutations that lead the stress hormones cortisol and cortisone to trigger the growth of later stage cancer cells.

Because cortisol is also one of the hormones that's elevated when stress results in animal behavioral problems which, in turn, may result from human-animal relationship ones, it would seem that avoiding such elevations of this hormone by treating bond and behavioral problems could conceivably lower the probability of cancer in some animals, or improve the survival chances of those already afflicted with the disease. Although such a hypothesis might seem to require too great a leap of credibility for those who associate cortisol and cortisone with those drugs that counter inflammation and itching, another effect of these hormones is that they undermine the immune response. So while they may benefit animals who encounter occasional stresses of brief duration, these same substances may seriously undermine the health of those who daily live in stressful environments. In that case, not only will these animals have a higher probability of developing stress-related behavioral and medical problems (such as aggression or separation anxiety displays, irritable bowel syndrome or chronic or recurring urinary tract conditions), these animals' taxed immune response may experience more difficulty recognizing and dispatching mutant cells before they multiply and form cancers.

Currently the exploration of the nonreproductive effects of sex hormones is in its infancy and, unlike the rise of feminism which challenged the philosophy underlying hysterectomy and ovariohysterectomy in women, many of those who normally claim to speak for the animals are usually quiet about how sterilization may affect companion animals. Like Dr Hahn, I, too, have reviewed the literature and am not sure what to tell clients. However, I do know that unless we can free the subject from the emotional cocoon that has protected spay and neuter from objective scrutiny all these years, our pets won't be able to benefit from the knowledge that is slowly, but surely, being generated on this subject.

------------------------------------------------------

And I see she's written a sequel to the article above:

http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200511.html

----------------------------------------------------------

"Reproductive Emotions and the Human-Companion Animal Bond"

Two months ago I wrote a commentary about spaying and neutering in which I quoted study results complied by one group that were misquoted by the author of another article. The legitimate confusion this generated as well as some of the highly emotional e-mails I received about that commentary has led me to think about the role emotions play in this issue. But first, the correction.

I wrote that dogs younger than a year who were spayed or castrated have about a one in four lifetime risk of developing bone cancer and are significantly more likely to develop this than intact animals. What the article I was using failed to note was that the study ("Endogenenous Gonadal Hormone Exposure and Bone Sarcoma Risk," Dawn M. Cooley et al. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, Vol. 11, 1434-1440, November 2002) was done on 71,004 rottweilers. Thus based on the study we can say that delaying spaying or castration until sexual maturity confers some protection against bone cancer in this breed, but we can't say anything about that relationship in any other breeds.

Now on to the responses I received about that commentary. To me, the first intriguing point regarding these was that none of the negative comments challenged the above unintentional misrepresentation of information. The one e-mail that did was very thoughtful and I immediately realized my error. Hence the above correction. That the negative e-mails did not address the data could have occurred for several reasons. One is that studies comparing intact and sterilized companion animal populations seem more likely to show up in obscure scientific journals than veterinary ones, even when the researchers are veterinarians.

The second reason why none of the negative e-mails I received challenged the scientific findings could be because scientific evidence is not an issue that warranted their writers' consideration. Instead of analyzing or even condemning the studies that I described, they took a purely emotion-driven kill-the-messenger approach.

One typical of this genre said that, even if I didn't mind living with male dogs who lift their legs on everything and females who bleed all over place, other people didn't want to live like that. At the same time as the mental image those naive comments elicited made me, Ms. Anal-Neat-As-a-Pin, chuckle, this and similar comments saddened me because these people obviously believe that their righteous indignation renders even the most basic knowledge of normal canine physiology and behavior unnecessary. Worse, they have so much energy tied up in their emotions demanding mandatory spay and neuter for all dogs and cats that there's none left for the difficult task of objectivity evaluating the science and ethics underlying this extremely complex subject.

The other reason these emotion-driven responses are so troubling takes us back to the fact that so few of the articles comparing intact and sterilized companion animals show up where you would expect them: in the veterinary, humane, or animal welfare literature. Logic says this occurs because these researchers don't submit their findings to those journals, or those journals won't publish them if the researchers do. When I ask myself why this would happen, one explanation that comes to mind is that neither the researchers nor the journal editors want to deal with the emotional fall-out, no matter how rigorous the research or beneficial the results for animals. Having had a mild sampling of that, I can understand this. On the other hand, I must ask myself how long we're going to keep using the image of unwanted puppies and kittens or fantasies regarding the disgusting behaviors of intact animals as a shield to protect ourselves from open and thoughtful examination of the effects of sterilization on the animal to whom it is done.

Thirty years ago, the lowest form of pet-owners were the person who got dogs or cats and bred them so their kids could see the miracle of birth. We now live in a society in which a child's first memory may be of the beloved family pet dying of or being euthanized for cancer or some other immune-mediated disease for which no cure is known. Frankly, I don't see that as a valid trade-off and certainly not one that will ensure a healthy companion animal population in the years to come. If there's some link between these and other diseases and spay and neuter, let's find out what it is. Then we can make a rational decision whether the price that all sterilized animals and their species are being asked to pay for the behavior of an irresponsible portion of human population is worth it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

I may be slow but I get there - a turtle's motto
User avatar
turtle
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 688

Postby pitbullpony » February 10th, 2006, 10:30 am

Thanks gfTurtle; that is the background information to what I was trying oh so valiantly to post.

Not that spay or neuter is all bad; but neither is it all good. We must weigh in on any medical intervention we do with ourselves and our companion animals.

I am bookmarking that site.

Again thank you,
pitbullpony
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 24
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby turtle » February 10th, 2006, 11:21 am

pitbullpony wrote:Not that spay or neuter is all bad; but neither is it all good. We must weigh in on any medical intervention we do with ourselves and our companion animals.



Yes, that's my own feelings too.

But sadly most of the general public can not keep an unspayed female without letting her get bred by accident. So their pets should be spayed. I've kept intact bitches and sure, it's work but most people are lazy.

I do agree that as responsible dog owners, we should consider the risks of early spay/neuters.

If anyone has the time to find the links with the info about how early spaying affects female dogs, I would be grateful. I remember reading that early spaying can make a female more susceptible to urinary tract infections and of course the surgery has it's own risks, one of the most common ones being long term incontinence.

And the info on growth in males neutered very young, I know it's out there but I am stuck working long hours and I am not on line much right now!

I do support spay/neuter for almost all pets but I think there are possible long term risks down the road. Those would not make a difference to most owners but it's an interesting subject and one not discussed much.
.
-------------------------------------------------------

I may be slow but I get there - a turtle's motto
User avatar
turtle
Loyally Bully
 
Posts: 688

Postby msvette2u » February 10th, 2006, 11:29 am

pitbullpony wrote:Not that spay or neuter is all bad; but neither is it all good.
Again thank you,



Of course nothing is "all good" but one must weigh the risks v. benefits of anything they do.

http://ravenwooddals.tripod.com/cancer.htm

http://www.caninecancerawareness.org/Ca ... mmary.html

http://www.caninecancerawareness.org/

Is it worse to spay and get bone cancer than to not spay and get breast cancer? Or spay after the 1st or 2nd heat cycle only to have the dog die of breast cancer?
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
User avatar
msvette2u
I live here
 
Posts: 6812
Location: Eastern WA

Postby SisMorphine » February 10th, 2006, 11:34 am

pitbullpony wrote:I do wonder about the mammary gland tumours

I can tell you that 90% of the female rats I have worked with and known who were unspayed developed mammary tumors. Not a single spayed female rat did.

I know we're talking about cats and dogs here, but I think it's a pretty interesting fact.

Edited to add: Have you ever had an unspayed female (any species, doesn't matter) who had gone into heat, gone through a false pregnancy, tried to give birth to NOTHING, ending up with a prolapsed rectum and uterus resulting in having to be PTSed? After living through that I can't even fathom entertaining the idea of ever having an unspayed female in my house again.
"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." -Anatole France
SisMorphine
They're like service dogs gone wrong.
 
Posts: 9231

Postby msvette2u » February 10th, 2006, 11:42 am

Which is why we're spaying our puppy before her 1st heat cycle...no chances then!
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
User avatar
msvette2u
I live here
 
Posts: 6812
Location: Eastern WA

Next

Return to Nutrition & Health

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]

cron