The Great Spay/Neuter Debate: From a Trainer’s Perspective

When Janine Kahn, my fantabulous editor here at Dogster, invited me on as a guest blogger this month for the Dog Blog, she requested specifically that I not shy away from topics that may be considered contentious and likely to provoke thoughtful debate.

I tried to do Janine proud — we’ve discussed appropriate dog park behavior and the puppy mill industry these last couple of Tuesdays. Today, I’ve selected another subject that is likely to create a stir: spay and neuter.

Spay/neuter is generally recommended universally as a procedure with no or negligible side effects. It is the only ethical decision in terms of social consciousness related to pet overpopulation, and provides health and behavioral benefits.

Do not take the decision to spay/neuter lightly. At what age should you spay/neuter your pet? What management protocols should be in place should you decide to keep your dog intact responsibly — how will you adjust your environment to ensure you’re not contributing to the overpopulation problem?

Are intact dogs more “aggressive,” and are neutered dogs more likely to be obese? These are just a few of the questions pet owners would do well to consider.

The truth is, it’s not an easy decision. There are behavioral and physical benefits and risks, some of which are mitigated or altered based on the age of the dog at the time of neuter. While rescue and shelter organizations are understandably great advocates for early spay/neuter programs (often as young as 8 weeks!), little information is given to adopters about potential health risks associated with the procedure.

I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from neutering or spaying their dogs. I also understand the early need for spay/neuter in dogs who are adopted from shelters or rescues: Much as I cannot guarantee my clients will follow through with training, you cannot guarantee your adopters will take advantage of that spay/neuter voucher after the dog is taken home.

I am saying that I am a big advocate for educated consumers. When you are making a decision with potentially serious consequences, it is best to thoroughly research the pros and cons so you can make the best possible choice.

If you are not willing to securely fence your yard, even if that includes a potential cost of thousands of dollars; keep your dogs on leash at all times; and even implement a crate and rotate system in your home if necessary, talk to your vet about scheduling a neuter procedure at a time that is physically and behaviorally optimal for your dog.

I strongly believe that sterilization decisions should be highly individualized — related to the dog’s breed, physical development, the owner’s lifestyle, training and management abilities or options, the presence of other dogs and/or other pets, genetic health histories of both parents (when available), your home environment (chain-link fence in an area where there are many intact strays, for example?), etc. Conventional wisdom says to spay or neuter your dog at 6 months. But there may be real reasons to spay or neuter earlier or later, and you should carefully consider them, they must be considered carefully; hopefully as a collaborative decision among a knowledgeable veterinarian, behavior specialist, and committed pet owner.

It’s not much of a secret that I like to consider holistic health treatment for dog care issues. One of my favorite sources of information is the “Healthy Pets” section of Dr. Mercola’s website. The section is run by the fabulous Dr. Karen Becker, an integrated wellness veterinarian, and has a lot of compelling (albeit controversial) content. You can follow her on Facebook.

Check out her recent entry on the Mercola site, an unbiased examination of the data currently available on the physical and behavioral risks associated with spaying or neutering at any stage of a dog’s life.

What are your thoughts? Are your animals intact? Neutered or spayed? If spayed or neutered, at what age were they sterilized? Have you noted any health or behavioral changes in your dog(s) related to your decision? What information did your vet give you about the benefits/risks associated with your decision? Please give your feedback in the comments!

About the Author: Casey Lomonaco graduated with distinction from the Karen Pryor Academy for Animal Training and Behavior, and is a member of the following professional organizations: APDT (Association of Pet Dog Trainers), CGC evaluator — AKC (American Kennel Club), TDF (Truly Dog Friendly), and the No-Shock Collar Coalition.

View the original article here

You can’t spay/neuter your way out of pet over-population

It’s often said that “we can’t adopt our way out of pet over-population.” I say we can’t spay/neuter our way out of it.

I’m not even entirely sure what people mean when they talk about not being able to adopt our way out of pet over-population.

If they mean we have to have a big-picture view of the issue of pets being killed in shelters across the country, and not focus on just one piece of the puzzle, I can go along with that.

But I don’t think most people who use that sentence mean it that way. They seem to mean one of two things.

The first is, “There is no point in trying to adopt out all these pets and we should just kill them instead, because if we find homes for these we’ll just get more in to take their place.” (True also of killing them, but they don’t seem to consider that.)

The second is, “The only way to stop killing pets in shelters is to spay and neuter more of them.”

Now, low-cost/free and accessible spay/neuter is one of the steps to no-kill, and I support and applaud any community that has that in place. Yay.

But I think it’s kind of obvious that spaying and neutering will do absolutely nothing to save the lives of the pets who are homeless right now, nor the ones who will come into your shelter tomorrow or the next day.

The options are death and adoption. Spay/neuter isn’t going to help these pets, and rushing past adoption and waving your little speuter flag is going to mean those pets get dead. And the ones who come in the next day to take their place? Also dead.

I think it’s great that you have an upstream, supply-side plan. Don’t get rid of it. Near-universal spay/neuter has almost certainly accounted for a lot of the gains we’ve made in reducing shelter killing in the last two decades, even if there aren’t really any studies out there to support that. But I’m more than willing to believe that’s the case.

But if you don’t also have an equally strong demand-side plan, you’re going to continue to have the kind of killing rates in shelters that we have today, which are — or should be — absolutely unacceptable to anyone who cares about animals.

Although there are places in the country where there’s still a good amount of lifesaving potential in increasing spay/neuter accessibility and prevalence, in most communities, we’ve already harvested the low-hanging fruit. Most pet dogs and cats are already spayed or neutered, and spending huge resources chasing down the tiny number who aren’t is going to result in ever-dwindling returns, particularly when it’s done at the expense of better sheltering and better adoption, as is so often the case *cough* Los Angeles *cough*.

But adoption? Building better adoption systems is all low-hanging fruit. That’s because there are millions more people every year who get new dogs and cats than there are pets in shelters. Most of them are willing to consider adopting a shelter pet — and millions of them already have, and plan to again. Shelter and rescue group adoption accounts for more than one-fifth of all new dog and cat acquisitions in this country already.

It would take a very small increase in that rate — just up to around one-quarter — to save the lives of every healthy pet, as well as every pet with a treatable or manageable health or behavior problem, in every shelter in America.

Creating better, more appealing ways to get pets adopted doesn’t just help those pets or your shelter, either;  it raises the profile of adoption in general and creates more social acceptance and awareness of adoption.

It both saves lives now, and builds infrastructure to keep saving them in the future. And even more importantly, it builds that infrastructure on a cultural level, not just for that one agency or community.

That’s why adoption is so critical, and in most places is the silver bullet, while spay/neuter is not. As long as you have high rates of spay/neuter in your community already, and a free/low cost and accessible spay/neuter program, all your low-hanging fruit is in adoptions, not surgery.

And if you’re in an area with very low rates of spay/neuter and no services, then yes, you need to get those s/n programs in place immediately. But that’s no reason to ignore adoptions. Those surgeries will only reduce future shelter intake; it takes adoption programs, and better sheltering practices, to save the lives of the homeless animals in your community right now, and the ones who will need your help in the near future.

The next time someone tells you that “you can’t adopt your way out of pet over-population,” don’t believe it. If they tell you that you can’t stop the killing with adoption, believe it even less. Because finding homes for homeless pets is the only way to save their lives.

View the original article here

Why spay/neuter is like kibble

I had a particularly frustrating conversation with a dog-walker friend of mine over on Facebook yesterday, about the challenges of owning an intact male dog in a city where virtually every dog you encounter has been spayed or neutered.

She didn’t say anything outrageous, just recapitulated the conventional wisdom about how intact animals trigger or cause behavior problems in group situations, how intact males will be aggressive, how intact males “incite” aggression in neutered dogs even when the intact male isn’t aggressive himself, and so on. Nothing we all haven’t heard before, and probably nothing many pet owners would think twice about.

But those of us who have kept intact males for decades, who take our dogs to conformation shows and field events where all the animals are intact, know that some of these statements being presented as universal truths are, in fact, situational.

When dogs aren’t used to being around intact dogs, yes, they may very well freak out when they meet one. But at dog shows, conformation handling classes and performance events, problems of aggression are very rare, because people and dogs are used to that situation. Everyone knows what to do, and the dogs know how the dogs next to them in the ring are “supposed to” walk, stand and smell.

After the exchange, I felt myself gearing up to go into a long rant about how we’ve lost our animal sense, and people can’t deal with animals as nature made them anymore, and we’re turning dogs into neutered little robots because of the demands of society and blah blah blah, when it struck me.

Spay/neuter is the kibble of reproductive biology.

I mean, think about it. Would pet ownership be so widespread if we didn’t have near-universal spay/neuter and easy, cheap commercial pet foods?

While we often give other reasons — altruistic ones or health ones — most dog owners have come to rely on neutering to change dogs’ natural behavior so they fit into unnatural crowded urban environment, just as they’ve come to rely on commercial processed diets to feed their pets cheaply and conveniently.

But our dogs, like us, will do best on a diet of fresh, varied, wholesome foods, even if such a diet is more expensive and time-consuming than putting kibble in a bowl. And while a dog with a specific health problem may benefit from being neutered, for most male dogs, neutering increases, rather than decreases, health risks.

Both kibble and spay/neuter benefit dogs in general by making it easier for people to own dogs, which is something I’m in favor of. And I don’t want to make it harder to own pets than it already is, either.

But I’m increasingly uncomfortable with how few people seem to question or even acknowledge that we’re making some pretty signifcant trade-offs in terms of our dogs’ health to get that ease of ownership.

For instance, it’s shocking how many people I respect — people who I think have some pretty good knowledge and experience about dogs — honestly don’t know there’s any medical or behavioral downside to spaying and neutering dogs.

And there’s something fundamentally skewed when a dog isn’t considered “normal” by dog owners or their dogs unless he’s had his testicles removed. Being intact is, in fact, normal, even if it’s no longer common. It’s not a health problem to be cured with surgery, it’s not a tragedy, and it’s not a sign that the dog’s owner is stupid or irresponsible.

I know that I’ll continue to feed my dogs fresh food and make decisions about their reproductive organs on an individual basis, just like I do for myself.

And I’ll continue to be glad that so many people want to share their lives and homes with dogs, and want to do the right thing for their pets.

But I’ll also remember that there is a natural conflict between those two statements — and wish a lot more people would realize that, too.

View the original article here