# Spayed VS Unspayed



## cut'em (Oct 23, 2004)

Got a guestion to settle a family dispute. I have a 3 year old Chessie that is Unspayed. She goes into heat and when that happens I get the lecture that Spayed dogs have a much longer life expectancy than Unspayed dogs What's the truth here?


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

At 3 yrs old, the dog is fully matured and has entered the realm of a much stronger possibility of many different forms of cancer. If your chessie isn't out of high quality lines or isn't being campaigned in trials and you have no intentions of breeding her, do the right thing and get her spayed. You don't have to deal with the heat cycles or the possible oops breeding.

Living longer or shorter really doesn't have any bearing on this unless the unspayed dog comes down with cancerous growths which is heightened because of her internal sexual organs.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

I Do believe that longevity is an issue with unspayed dogs. Unused uteri (no pups) seem to be very succeptible to infection and disease, particularly in older dogs. While this is most often seen in smaller dogs, it occurs in hunting breeds as well. The situation regarding milk producing glands is a bit different. Generally, if the ***** has had even one litter, the mammary glands will be more likely to suffer growths and tumors. My information comes from both personal experience, and conversations with Veterinarian friends.
I know you didn't mention breeding in your post, cut'em, but I will add this anyway. Breeding a ***** just because she is a "pretty good hunter", or, in the worst case, to "make a few bucks" is a disservice to the dog, and the breed as a whole. Even a single litter, means a huge commitment on the owners part. Many backyard breeders have been left with a kennel full of six months old pups that nobody wants, even at bargain prices.
This is the bottom line; Unless you have a dog that will produce offspring that will lead to overall improvement of the breed, and you are willing to make the personal commitment necessary to raise and foster a litter of pups, you are much better off having the animal spayed or neutered. The dog will be calmer and less succeptable to a host of ailments. The chance of an accidental breeding is removed. You won't have to deal with the mess and inconvenience of her heat cycle and with good care, she should live a long and happy life.
I know I just mirrored what Chaws had to say, but it's good advice, and on reflection, worth repeating. :wink: 
Burl


----------



## cut'em (Oct 23, 2004)

I'm not in the market to breed her. The Question or Problem I have, is why do we decide that they should be "fixed" In nature they wouldn't be! So doesn't nature make the right choice???? I'm stuck on the leave them alone and let them be who they are. I wish we could Let dogs be dogs.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

It took me a while to really understand your response. I _think_ I understand where you are coming from.
Man began domesticating dogs thousands of years ago. In that sense, we have taken responsability, not only for our canine companions well being but for their very existance. While I agree that it might be great to be able to let things occur as they may, such is just not possible. In areas where dogs are left exclusively to their own devices, they, within only a few generations, revert to some semblance of their former wild selves, with all the attending consequences of disease, unchecked predation and overpopulation. 
The former views may not answer your question within the bounds you intended, but is a somewhat more extreme example of what could and would happen if we took an entirely "hands off" approach.
We are better off, I think, doing what we can to enhance not only the lives of our dogs, but their individual breeds as well. After all, if one of our dogs develops a specific medical problem, we take them to the vet to get it fixed. Right? We already do what we can to prevent disease and infirmity in our pets, through vaccinations and selective breeding. Spaying and neutering, while certainly not a natural occurance, has proven to be beneficial to not only our dogs, but to the entire canid community and to us owners as well.
If you choose to leave your dog as she is, I'm sure it will work out just fine. You are already aware of the attendant issues and if you choose to deal with them as they come, so be it. Some have their dogs living with them in their homes. Others keep their dogs in an outdoor kennel and would never think of allowing them inside. Both kinds of folks can be good owners, as long as they take care of the needs of their canine charges.
Good fortune in whatever course you choose.
Burl


----------



## cut'em (Oct 23, 2004)

ccccrnr If you think cancer will not develop because your dog has been fixed. You've got alot of learning to do. If cancer is in the body, it's going to attack, what and where, we don't know. Tell me fixed dogs wont get other forms of cancer that will do them in! Don't kid yourself we're not spaying them to prevent cancer. It's do more as a means of making our lifes easier. Don't get me wrong I love my dog she's my only child and sleeps in My bed, not outside. I would trade everything to make her live forever but it's not going to happen. I'm just thinking if it aint broke, don't fix it


----------



## cut'em (Oct 23, 2004)

ccccrnr,
I shouldn't have gone directly at you. Collectivly You guys know a hell of a lot more than I ever will and I respect that. More than likely I will get her fixed. I'm just going down swinging. Like I mentioned in my first post, 'to settle a family dispute". Bet you can't guess which side I was on. Again I apoligize to you my friend.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Simply put though, removing the reproductive organs of an animal that is never planned to be bred is one of the most responsible acts an owner can have. The dog at that age won't change who they are because of the procedure but it just makes things easier at home. No more heat cycles, no more worries of boarding the dog if she's in heat or worrying about driving the male dogs in the neighborhood nutz when that cycle happens. Also the oops breedings do happen even without knowledge some time whether it be if the dog runs around the neighbors house or even through a chain link kennel fence.


----------



## Gamefinder (Jan 11, 2007)

Research is pointing to additional cancer in neutered animals as well as orthopedic issues, urin incontinance, etc. What has been blindly preached is not alway true. If neutering is a cure all why dont vets remove their own gonads? In some European countries speying/neutering is considered elective surgery for owner convenience and not allowed except in cases of medical need. Population control is thought to be a responsibility for owners to control and if they are not responsible they can be banned from owning animals. Also, tubal ligations and vasectomy are simpler surgery and while animals have normal life controlling hormones they can not reproduce. Early speying/neutering alter and damages normal bone growth and for a hunter animals neutered prior to puberty do not mature mentally so never totally become as reliable as a mature hunter, service dog, guard dog, or even pet. In 55 years of owning and raising my own dogs my animals have averaged 13.7 years in life span and 11.8 years as hunters. The ones that developed problems and were speyed averaged 10.2 years and 8 .3 years for hunting. As a person with grad degrees in animal science it seems only logical that if man messes with the hormone systems that control all life functions there are severe penalties that our canine partners will suffer from. The testies and ovaries are primary hormone producing organs and nature didn't make animals to survive well without them. Population control is a social issue for man to be responsible and control their canine helpers and friends. Easy quick fixes have consequences!


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Gamefinder, unfortunately your experience is an extremely small test group. Also there was no control and you didn't mention the age at which the animals were neutered/spayed.

Incontinence is an issue that from my readings has been found in an extremely small case study. If it was a severe number of dogs with that issue there would be more and larger studies.


----------



## Gamefinder (Jan 11, 2007)

Chaws I posted a reply but it came up as a seperate topic under Spey/Neuter


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

Gamefinder said:


> I believe your comments are a bit presumptive about my statements. I suggest you use as source materials to follow veterinary research such as Indexus Veterinarus (Sp?), various reproduction physiology journals, Morris Animal Foundation, and Lancet. My own numbers in 3 breeds over 55 years are limited to a population total grouping of just over 500 dogs owned at home or sold to friends and fellow hobby breeders. Removing source organs for the endocrine system (hormones) should not be considered lightly. Replacement hormone therapies have had many serious side affects also. Mandatory spey/neuter legislation proposed by the animal rights groups are a political and fun raising ploy not something that improves the life of the dogs.
> 
> Gamefinder


Here we go, back in it.

My apologies, I wasn't aware of the vast amount of data you had in your past population.

I still feel that many side effects are caused by the operation itself and am a firm believer of not spaying or neutering until the animal is full grown or until roughly the 2 year mark versus the 4-5 months that most vets press for.


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

To add additional thoughts, I'm a proponent of minimal invasive operations for this situation and not a complete rip and tear like many older dogs need because of the amount of internal growth.


----------

