I found this site called "Not Lies" ( http://notlies.blogspot.com )
that mentions several reasons not to get your dog spayed or neutered.
They mention some negative health effects as one of the main reasons.
Is there any credibility to any of the claim this person makes? I'm
debating whether I want to do this to my new dog, and this person
presents some pretty strong evidence that it might not be the right
thing to do?

What is your opinion on their claims? Is it true?

---mmmmtmmmm

In article ,
wrote:
Is there any credibility to any of the claim this person makes?

Not about food, not about animal shelters, not about
anything, really. It's riddled with misinformation and
awful analogies (squirrels are not domesticated, for
starters), and so on. I see nothing of value there - the
guy seems to be a random crackpot. Er, a random uninformed
crackpot.

What is your opinion on their claims? Is it true?

Well, it's true that we don't neuter squirrels. The rest of
it is hokum. And remember, 3 times .000001 is .000003.
Numbers missing a context don't tell you much.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

wrote in message
...
I found this site called "Not Lies" ( http://notlies.blogspot.com )
that mentions several reasons not to get your dog spayed or neutered.
They mention some negative health effects as one of the main reasons.
...........If you're going to do serious reading on any subject, don't hang
out at blogs that spout diatribe and give you very few resources to look at.
Look for research. I haven't read this paper yet, but someone quoted parts
of it, which I'll include:

Long Term Health Effects of Spay/Neuter
http://www.naiaonline.org/library/white_papers.htm
"On the negative side, neutering male dogs
.. if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of
osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a
common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
.. increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
.. triples the risk of hypothyroidism
.. increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
.. triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many
associated health problems
.. quadruples the small risk (0.6%) of prostate cancer
.. doubles the small risk (1%) of urinary tract cancers
.. increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
.. increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations "

Surprising to see that neutered males seem to have an increased risk of some
cancers, including prostate and significant increased risk of
hypothyroidism. As I said, though, I haven't read this yet so don't know
what kind of studies these are from.

......I'm not fond of early spay/neuter. I think they need those sex
hormones to mature. I have one unneutered dog in my house, mostly because
hauling around nignags is not a burden to him. He has no aggressive
tendencies at all (unless you're an armadillo) and he doesn't roam.

buglady
take out the dog before replying

On Dec 21, 2:47 pm, (Melinda Shore) wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
Is there any credibility to any of the claim this person makes?

Not about food, not about animal shelters, not about
anything, really. It's riddled with misinformation and
awful analogies (squirrels are not domesticated, for
starters), and so on. I see nothing of value there - the
guy seems to be a random crackpot. Er, a random uninformed
crackpot.

What is your opinion on their claims? Is it true?

Well, it's true that we don't neuter squirrels. The rest of
it is hokum. And remember, 3 times .000001 is .000003.
Numbers missing a context don't tell you much.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Do you have any links to scientific papers or something that show that
none of it is true? I saw several sources at the bottom of the
wikipedia site he linked to, that claimed that some of the claims were
true. All of the sites supporting spaying and neutering seem to claim
that it's good, but don't really present actual scientific studies to
explain why. Do you know of any good resources for this sort of thing.

Thanks for your response.

In article ,
wrote:
Do you have any links to scientific papers or something that show that
none of it is true? I saw several sources at the bottom of the
wikipedia site he linked to, that claimed that some of the claims were
true.

I think that the stuff in the Wikipedia article was
misleading because of its failure to contextualize the
number. It's important to understand what they mean by
"increased risk" - typically it's something along the lines
of going from "teeny tiny itty bitty risk" to "teeny tiny
itty bitty risk." I.e. multiplying a negligible risk times
three results in - get this - a negligible risk. There are
reasons Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable information
source, and the failure of that article to contextualize its
numbers is one of them. If you're bound and determined to
rely on it anyway, you might want to check out the
discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutering

All of the sites supporting spaying and neutering seem to claim
that it's good, but don't really present actual scientific studies to
explain why.

That's because laypeople generally can't evaluate scientific
papers - they don't have the background in biology, in
research methodology, in statistics, in ...

The pet overpopulation problem in the US is awful. The
claims that the blog author was making were nonsense.
First, dogs are not wild animals. They've been domesticated
for millenia. Leaving large numbers of unneutered, stray
dogs roaming the streets would be a health problem. If
you're familiar at all with epidemiology you're probably
aware of threshhold effects or tipping points, and what that
guy was advocating would result in a major public health
problem, not to mention untold suffering for countless
homeless dogs. I think he's an idiot. But hey, if you want
to go ahead and take his advice, you go right ahead.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

The pet overpopulation problem in the US is awful.

Yes, but I think what he was saying does hold some weight. The HUMAN
overpopulation problem is a far more serious issue, but people don't
feel right about killing millions of humans per year. Of course, this
comes down to whether you believe dogs are a "lesser" species or not.
I can't speak for you, but personally, I don't feel like my new puppy
is "inferior" to me at all.

I personally don't support killing dogs at all, whatever the
justification. Nature would balance things out given the chance -- it
always does. Whenever a population gets out of control, natural events
such as disease and starvation bring it back to a sustainable size. Of
course, you could claim that you are just killing them so that they
don't have to suffer from dying of starvation and disease. But once
again, who are you to make that decision for them. Billions of people
are starving and dying of disease as a result of human overpopulation.
Should we start killing them?

This is one point I do agree with the author on. I don't agree with
genocide, and if you see your dog as a sentient being, then murdering
millions of them would qualify as such.


That's because laypeople generally can't evaluate scientific
papers - they don't have the background in biology, in
research methodology, in statistics, in ...

But it is good anyway to provide it for those that do. At least this
guy linked to some stuff that supports his point of view, however
skewed it may be. I have seen none of that from the other side. I
personally can read scientific papers, and am not the type to take
something as truth just because someone says so. I'm not saying I
believe all of the stuff this guy said, necessarily, but he DID
provide some good evidence for at least some of it. I don't think it
is fair to call him an 'idiot' just because his views are different
from those of the mainstream pet industry.



First, dogs are not wild animals.

But obviously, if they've reached adulthood and haven't starved to
death, then they are capable of surviving in the wild, whether you
want to classify them as "wild" or not.


Leaving large numbers of unneutered, stray
dogs roaming the streets would be a health problem.

How so?

In article ,
wrote:
But obviously, if they've reached adulthood and haven't starved to
death, then they are capable of surviving in the wild, whether you
want to classify them as "wild" or not.

Buh-bye! plonk
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Buh-bye! plonk

I take that to mean you don't have an intelligent response to my
statements? I think everything I said sounded quite reasonable. Your
sarcastic response is sounding quite immature and silly.

wrote:
Buh-bye! plonk


I take that to mean you don't have an intelligent response to my
statements? I think everything I said sounded quite reasonable. Your
sarcastic response is sounding quite immature and silly.




What she means is that we've already got a crack-headed, pompous windbag
in love with his own words (Paul Schoen). The position has been filled.

I heard the next village down the road is looking for an idiot, though.

wrote:
I found this site called "Not Lies" ( http://notlies.blogspot.com )
that mentions several reasons not to get your dog spayed or neutered.
They mention some negative health effects as one of the main reasons.
Is there any credibility to any of the claim this person makes? I'm
debating whether I want to do this to my new dog, and this person
presents some pretty strong evidence that it might not be the right
thing to do?

What is your opinion on their claims? Is it true?

---mmmmtmmmm

I dont know about the claims but i nuetered my boy at 1 year and he's as
healthy as a horse now at 3.