Mandatory spay/neuter: The unkindest cut?

From Kim Campbell Thornton, in her regular column at MSNBC.com, a hard took at the health downside of mandatory spay/neuter legislation:

As legislators push for more mandatory spay and neuter laws for pets as young as 4 and 6 months in hopes of reducing the number of unwanted animals, critics are crying foul over research showing that such surgeries may raise certain health risks in dogs and therefore shouldn't be required.



Studies have shown that dogs that undergo spaying (removal of the ovaries and uterus) or neutering (removal of the testicles) are at increased risks for certain cancers, thyroid disorder, incontinence and some of the same behavior issues, such as aggression, that the surgeries are said to prevent.

One example:

While it's long been believed that spaying and neutering can improve a dog's behavior, one large study done at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine found that, with a few exceptions, spaying and neutering was associated with worse behavior, although those effects were often specific to certain breeds and depended on the age at which the dog was altered.

Kim goes over many of the issues raised in Dr. Margaret V. Root Kustritz's review of what the science says, and discusses the conflict between public benefit -- reducing the number of dogs and cats entering the animal control system -- and the health of individual dogs and cats. She interviews a number of folks in the shelter community as well as veterinarians including Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly.



Lots of great information... check it out.



Related, from Gina: Nathan Winograd breaks down his case that pet overpopulation is a myth, explains what no kill really is about (it's not about turn-away shelters and mentally ill pet hoarders, no matter what you've been told) and shows how 90 percent of the pets in the shelters can find permanent, loving homes with the reform of the shelter industry. Oh yeah and by the way, read the book.

Comments

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by Luke Thomas — February 22, 2009 @ 12:03 pm



"many European countries EAT dog and cat meat. It’s a fact. In Guangdong China, they eat 10,000 cats a day."



Oh - so China is a European country now?

[Jenniferj]

Oh, bless you guys for answering Luke's post. The inacurracies were making my eyes bleed.



As Gina said, I wasn't sure how to start.



I asked my 10 and 5 year olds where China was located. Both said Asia, yay for charter school and Carmen San Diego DVDs....

[Luke Thomas]

I don't know where you get your information about s/n is harmful, but my vet-who is a practicing licensed medical vet-has told me that spay/neutering PREVENTS a lot of cancers. Plus they are less likely to wander and get hit by cars. According to the CDC, neutered dogs are FIVE TIMES less likely to bite. It curbs aggression. I seen a lot of cats and dogs hit by cars. Every single day. What's so healthy about that-they wander trying to find a mate. Unless you think getting hit by cars is healthy????

[YouCantBeSerious]

The amount of sheer stupidity in this original post and the supportive comments is astounding. Simply astounding. The breeders, the breedISTs (Mongrels??? Yeah, okay, my "mongrel" is probably going to outlive your damn inbred, disease-prone purebred) and the other tards who support the ridiculously flawed crap written by a vet who BREEDERS are apparently blind to said vet's transparent bias, and hypnotized by the long words Winograd uses to embellish his weakly supported statistics and theories. Every single one of you I've mentioned needs to work at a rescue group for a month and deal with the kind of crap that happens.



Because yes, I work for a rescue group in Northern California. We get SF SPCA DUMPS because guess what--the SF SPCA is no longer a no-kill shelter under that new head (she is a NIGHTMARE). The SF SPCA gives them to us because otherwise they would be euthanized. We got PUPPIES from the SF SPCA last month. It's sickening. And yes, I've been to the SF SPCA when their kitten cages were empty like Winograd complains about other shelters, but that does not mean that there weren't kittens to fill the cages; there are a number of reasons why the cages could be empty on any particular day.



What Winograd and you people also don't seem to account for is that the numbers lie. Do Winograd's numbers include the dogs and cats that my rescue have seen come and go? No, they don't, because we get owner surrenders that aren't reported, we get the SF SPCA's rejects and we get random people dumping cats with litters of kittens to us (not to mention the many thousands upon thousands of abandoned animals that people DUMP at PetCo/PetSMART--that's how we got our second bunny, she was DUMPED in front of a PetCo in a box and they gave her to us for free; technically an "adoption", but there was nothing but a short receipt to sign saying that PetCo wasn't liable for any vet costs since she was a dump/of questionable origin). The number of homeless pets that Winograd yammers on about? Most likely a LOW GUESSTIMATE. The numbers of homes that have pets/"need pets"? Yet more guesstimates. Some homes just don't give a crap about animals and don't want a pet. It's all fuzzy math, just like the fuzzy logic that Winograd and people who don't believe in companion animal overpopulation use.



And because the SF SPCA dumps their rejects with us, they aren't recorded. What we get as their intake papers are merely vet papers, no any kind of official papers from the SF SPCA saying that these pups/kittens are FROM the SF SPCA. It's all an under-the-table operation of sorts, so that the SF SPCA can't be accused of dumping pets. It's disgusting.



Where else do we get our dogs? Shelters from around the county and even other counties give us their "unadoptable" dogs that have run out of time/are about to be euthanized. Why are they "unadoptable"? Because they don't pass the "adoptable" test--which a lot of the time includes ridiculous stuff like "too shy" or "bit handler" (particularly if it's been a family pet/owner surrender). Well hello--the dog has been dumped in an unfamiliar environment. These shelters will just find any damn reason to kill a dog and why? Because there is no space, no time, no manpower and no money to take care of these animals the way they need to be taken care of.



I just...can't understand the breeders and the breedists. There are TOO MANY ANIMALS (NOT too many people not willing to adopt a mutt OR not too many rescues UNwilling to adopt out [we rarely reject a potential adopter who has filled out an application and even with that loose way of adopting out we STILL can't keep up with all the dogs that need homes]; if someone REALLY wants a dog or cat, they will find one from some place, and breeders only contribute to the problem) and we see it every damned day. Where's your logic?

[The OTHER Pat]

Your credibility would suffer less if you'd keep the name-calling out of it.



"Tards"? Are you TRYING to be offensive?

[Gina Spadafori]

The amount of sheer stupidity in this original post and the supportive comments is astounding. Simply astounding. The breeders, the breedISTs (Mongrels??? Yeah, okay, my “mongrel” is probably going to outlive your damn inbred, disease-prone purebred) and the other tards who support the ridiculously flawed crap written by a vet who BREEDERS are apparently blind to said vet’s transparent bias, and hypnotized by the long words Winograd uses to embellish his weakly supported statistics and theories. Every single one of you I’ve mentioned needs to work at a rescue group for a month and deal with the kind of crap that happens



Comment by YouCantBeSerious — June 22, 2009



"Stupid"? "tard"? Great start to getting people over to your self-righteous, my-way-or-the-highway point of view. I doubt anyone here with a purpose-bred dog hates mixes the way you hate purebreds. How nice for a "rescue volunteer" to hate some pets simply because of a background they didn't choose.



And we DO have people in rescue here. Lots of them. For, example, I ran a Sheltie rescue for three years, fostering and placing more than 100 dogs. And yes, I am a breeder, too, one litter, recent, for whom I'll be responsible all their lives.



I'll tell you something I learned when I ran a rescue, which you apparently have missed: Ethical, responsible, compassionate breeders aren't contributing to the problem. Because when we got one of their dogs (usually because the owner had broken the agreement to let the breeder know FIRST) they couldn't get to us fast enough to help that dog.



It isn't true that a breeder is a breeder is a breeder and all are the same.



But hey, let your hate continue to drive you, instead of enlisting people who care about pets as much as you do to be stake-holders and problem-solvers to get to a no-kill nation.



Or just keep doing what you're doing harder. It doesn't work now, so if you keep it up, it should work better ... not.