The following excerpt is from k9joy.com. I wish I would have seen it before getting my dog spayed. If I knew, I would have found a vet to do tubal ligation instead of spaying (which removes everything). It just makes so much sense to me that I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it at the time and just going along with the conventional surgery.
Maybe others here have considered it and got feedback on it from their vet. If you're considering getting your dog spayed/neutered, I certainly think it would be worthwhile to ask your vet about these alternatives and it would be a great service to provide feedback from them to the forum....if you do not want a certain dog to ever pass on genes to future generations, you always have the responsible option of vasectomy for the male or tubal litigation for the female. Both of those two procedures are used also for humans - with excellent results and virtually no known ill effects. The procedures involve cutting the tubes that transport either semen or eggs from their origin to where you do not want them to meet: in the female's uterus. No organs are removed - no hormone balances smashed - no side effects on health.
Why this is not more popular? I can only guess, but here are some of the possible reasons:
It costs a little more than simple spay/neuter surgery that is simpler and faster for the vet to do....
People do not know of it as an option...
Vets do not recommend it, because it is not generally accepted standard practice yet.
The problem with this is that the ovaries are still in there producing hormones that create the statistics about canine and feline malignant mammary carcinomas. Basically, if spayed after the 2nd heat cycle (a girl will still cycle if the ovaries are left), there is more than an 80% increased risk of mammary (breast) cancer. If she is a pet and you aren't planning on breeding, why risk that? Nobody wants their dogs to have to go through a complete mastectomy (which involves basically from the front of chest to hips in a dog/cat), chemotherapy, or possibly death from something where the risk can be virtually eliminated. I've been through that enough times with the women in my life (including multiple close friends and even my MIL)...I don't need to go through that with my pets, too.
~Julie, Rogue, Monty, and Eddy~
"The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue." -Anon
In the interest of brevity, I left out an important point that the author (Mogens Eliasen) was making to qualify these alternatives to spaying/neutering. I don't want to start a flame war. I just want to offer another perspective that could shed some light on some possible root causes of these cancers so that the alternatives to spaying/neutering could then be considered viable options:Originally Posted by CaliforniaLabLoverBut the health issue - vets claim that dogs that are not spayed/neutered have a much greater tendency to get cancer?
I do not have specific references at hand, but I can assure you that they exit (I have seen several of them): The opposite is the case! Dogs that are altered change their entire hormone balance and metabolism in a fake hope of possibly coping with the serious lack of hormonal input from the removed organs. Other glands try to take over - but can't do the job. This results in all kinds of things in the metabolism now running only "sort-of OK", like a 4-cylinder engine on three cylinders. This will cause the immune system to be much less effective - and that alone is more than enough reason for explaining the elevated cancer cases in spayed/neutered dogs, compared to unspayed/unneutered dogs.
But what about all the cases of uterus cancer in unspayed bitches?
Well, amongst those bitches that are fed a raw, natural diet and not vaccinated to oblivion, those cancer cases are extremely rare. The sequence of this story is that because people destroy their dog's health with all kinds of dangerous chemistry, of course, cancer is a much greater risk. We know that from humans too. So, instead of doing something about the true reasons for those cancer problems, then we should just opt for masking the problem by removing those organs that typically will be the first ones to get attacked by the cancer? Sorry, folks, but this is some disgusting logic, based on lies and incorrect assumptions...
Let me illustrate with an example I know from Finn Smed: He has, over the last 45 years of running his dog hospital, had about 400,000 clients in total. (Remember, practically none of those dogs were spayed or neutered.) He has had 2 (two!) cases of testicle cancer. Both cases were one-sided, so he removed the one testicle that was damaged. End of story.
Another thing that I want to bring up is that Finn and I made an experiment in 1996 when he visited me and gave some public lectures at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC. I seized the opportunity to have him take a look at my students' dogs.... Just for the heck of it, we made a bet. Without letting him check any dogs from behind, he should, just from a look at the dog, its general constitution and movements, and from touching it around the head, determine if it was neutered/spayed or not. We had 41 dogs in total participating in this. Finn was wrong one single time with a dog that had been neutered about one month earlier...
What he was looking for? Typical thyroid problems and other hormone gland problems - which are inevitable results of neutering/spaying. They include obesity in a special way (the fat is distributed different from what it is on a dog that is simply over-fed and under-exercised), fatty, greasy coat, lazy movements, and dull eyes. All of which can be observed with an experienced eye, without any need for chemical analysis of blood samples or x-rays or any other sophisticated stuff...)
Generally speaking: dogs that are intact and fed a raw, natural diet and not over-vaccinated are generally much healthier than kibble-fed/over-vaccinated dogs that are neutered or spayed. But, if you want to poison your dog with kibble and multi-vaccines, then you might as well also remove some of the first pieces of evidence you will be faced with of having tampered with Nature...
I don't buy it.
For what reasons?Originally Posted by CYNLABS
I can think of many more reasons (in addition to Julie's point about cancer) it is not a generally accepted practice.
1) the general pet public is not intelligent enough to discern various options. Frankly, vets are lucky if they get to see most clients for a neuter/spay and then for vaccines. (I'm not talking about people on this board). Why would they deliberately muddy the waters, when they want to prevent pet overpopulation and do things that will help that particular animal?
2) If that dog in the general pet home stays un-neutered or unspayed, it will likely be subject to hormone fluctuations that the average pet owner (again, not members of the board) is ill-equipped to deal with. How many pets dropped off at the shelter are neutered/spayed? Very few. Vets want hormones GONE to prevent any sort of behavioral issues that would prevent a dog from needing to be rehomed. This vasectomy/tubal ligation would leave hormones in and could lead to behavior issues.
3) I suspect, as a "new" procedure, it would cost more.
4) Vets, like doctors, are slow to adopt new procedures until given hard evidence/studies. The "article" you posted has none of that.
<br />U-CD Of Love and Other Demons, CD, RE, CGC (Gabby)<br />Maverick<br />Saint Louis
This information was not directed to the general public, it was intended for pet owners (such as the members of this board) who are responsible pet owners and are interested in what are considered best practices from all parts the world.Originally Posted by gabbys mom
Just because something isn't a generally accepted practice doesn't mean it's not worthwhile or better than the status quo. There are numerous posts on this board that are a testiment to things that work better than a generally accepted practice. Even vets have changed their generally accepted practice of annual vacines to moving many of those to every 3 years. I think one of the major reasons for this change was the pressure put on by customers like us who continually questioned and required reasons for this generally accepted practice. The same can happen with neutering/spaying if we question the generally accepted practice and ask about the alternatives. If these alternatives are a better for humans, then why are they not also better for our pets?Again, this info is not directed toward the general public. And behavioral issues from not being fully neutered/spayed can be controlled just like any other behavioral issue by the pack leader through training.Originally Posted by gabbys momOriginally Posted by gabbys mom
It would probably cost more to begin with but when it becomes more common, the costs will be considerably less because the surgery is simpler and less invasive.
For adopting new procedures, see my response above concerning changes to generally accepted practices.
Then you should have said that this post wasn't directed at the general public...
The problem is, it's out there for any person to read...and most people can't handle properly feeding their dogs let alone leaving them partially intact. If that person who did a vasectomy on their dog lost their dog or it was stolen and it ended up at a shelter or they no longer wanted the dog, the common practice would be for it to be castrated...so now you are forcing a dog to go through 2 surgeries when you can do it in one.
Too many directions in the senario.
I don't believe that full overectomies or castrations cause more harm than good.
Dani, Rider & Rookie
SHR Watson's Safari Rider, JH, WC, CL1-R, RA, CGC, TDI
SHR Endeavor Put Me In Coach, RN, WC, CGC
Member Since 6/2003
The reason vets changed to a three year vaccine protocol was that scientific studies were completed that testified to lasting efficacy of the vaccines. Customers might have questioned the yearly vaccines, but most doctors, good doctors, rely upon science, not opinions - which is all the article offered.Originally Posted by jlab
And no, I do not believe the majority of people who will read the above article are responsible enough to maintain an essentially intact animal (or intelligent enough to discern that it is heavy on opinion and devoid of fact).
Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten. - Cree prophecy
The scientific studies you refer to are over 10 years old and vet practices are just starting to adopt the new frequencies. Many are not because the pharmaceutical companies are still recommending the annual vaccines. Don't you think there's a conflict of interest here?Originally Posted by yellojakesmom
Can you post a summary of the research that provides evidence that the common vacines are necessary and effective compared to the risks? It now appears from the research conducted in the UK that these vaccines likely cause more harm with delayed health effects than the claimed protection they afford. Wonder how long it will be before vets incorporate the results of this scientific study into their practices? (Don't hold your breath waiting for this to ever happen - even most good doctors couldn't justify or tolerate the resultant loss of revenue). Here's a summary of the ongoing UK research:[size=10pt]Canine Vaccine Survey
by Canine Health Concern, England
It is well known that there are risks associated with vaccination of dogs, just as there are risks for humans. The trouble is, no one has adequately quantified the risks. Is it true that only a tiny minority of dogs suffer adverse reactions to vaccines, or is the problem more common? And what is a vaccine reaction? Is it something that happens immediately after the jab, or can you expect a reaction to manifest weeks or months later?
Christopher Day, Honorary Secretary of the British Homoeopathic Veterinary Association, told us that, in his experience, where the start date of a dog's illness is known, a high percentage (around 80%) begin within three months of vaccination.
Canine Health Concern tested this observation and has analyzed the histories of over 3,800 dogs post vaccination. This critical mass, by any standards, is a very high number from which to draw valid statistical conclusions. Most commercial scientific research involves significantly fewer dogs (tending to base their conclusions on data involving a couple of litters of puppies, if that). We have been able to show a definite statistical correlation between a vaccine event and the onset of a number of specific illnesses. Our published conclusions have satisfied mathematical or inferential statistical tests at a level of confidence of 99% or better.
Overall, we found that 66% per cent of all sick dogs start being sick within three months of vaccination, which is considerably more than double the expected rate of illness. Worse, 49% of all illnesses reported in the survey occurred within 30 days of vaccination. This is over five times the expected percentage if vaccination had no bearing on subsequent illness. More damning still, 29% of sick dogs first became sick within seven days of their vaccine jab. This means that a dog is 13 times more likely to become ill within seven days of vaccination than at any other time.
In the study, 69.2% of allergic dogs first became allergic within three months of being vaccinated - more than double the expected number. 55.8% of dogs with autoimmune disease developed the condition within three months of being vaccinated - again, more than twice the expected figure. Of dogs with colitis, 65.9% developed the complaint within three months of being vaccinated and, of dogs with dry eye/conjunctivitis, 70.2% developed their conditions within three months - both nearly three times higher than expected. 73.1% of dogs with epilepsy first became epileptic within three months of vaccination. As 2% of all dogs in the UK are epileptic, vaccines are clearly causing horrendous damage. For statisticians, our Chi score for epilepsy is 96: any Chi test statistic higher than twelve gives a 95% confidence about the conclusions. Without doubt, then, the majority of epileptic dogs in our survey are vaccine damaged.
But perhaps most astonishing is the fact that a majority of dogs (64.9%) with behavioral problems appear to have developed their difficulties within three months of vaccination. Similarly, 72.5% per cent of dogs with nervous or worrying dispositions became nervous within three months of their jabs (with a Chi score of 112), and 73.1% per cent of dogs with short attention spans lost their attentiveness within three months of vaccination.
All of our evidence ties in with research in the human field, and a growing body of veterinary research, which says that vaccines cause allergies, hypersensitivity reactions, autoimmune disease, encephalitis, epilepsy, personality changes and brain damage.
The CHC results are statistically very significant, and carry with them very high statistical certainty. This means that the evidence is strong that the above diseases can be triggered or caused by vaccination.
Other diseases that were highly represented within three months post vaccination included cancer (35.1%) , chorea (81%), encephalitis (78.6%), heart conditions (39.2%), kidney damage (53.7%), liver damage/failure (61.5%), paralysis of the rear end (69.2%), and pancreas problems (54.2%).
Research conducted at Purdue University shows routinely vaccinated dogs developing auto antibodies to a vast range of normal canine biochemicals - which corroborates our findings.
Interestingly, our study showed that arthritis and Chronic Destructive Reticulo Myelopathy (CDRM - a degenerative disease affecting myelin in the spinal cord) occur in clusters nine months after vaccination, suggesting that the damage from vaccines resulting in these two diseases takes longer to develop or to show their symptoms.
Many contend that vaccines are a necessary evil; that we need them to protect our dogs against certain deadly canine diseases. However, our survey found that high percentages of dogs are developing the diseases we vaccinate against, soon after vaccination.
Of dogs with hepatitis, 64% contracted it within three months of being vaccinated and, of those with parainfluenza, 50% developed it within three months of their shots. Also, 69% of dogs with parvovirus, 56% of dogs with distemper, and every single dog with leptospirosis in the survey contracted the diseases within three months of vaccination.
Our figures support the view that vaccines don't confer guaranteed immunity and may actually cause the diseases they're designed to prevent. Our figures appear to demonstrate that vaccines cause illness in one in every hundred dogs - and this is a conservative estimate.
For human beings, the World Health Organization considers a reaction of one in 10,000 unacceptable. Surely the same statistics apply to dogs. Worse - and bordering on corporate dog slaughter - is the fact that we are urged to vaccinate companion animals every year. There is no scientific justification for this; it is a crime.
This research is ongoing. For further details or to participate, contact Canine Health Concern @ Box 6943, Forfar, Angus DD8 3WG, Scotland.
Canine Health Concern[/size]