Age to Spay

[gypsy84]

Gypsy is 5 months right now, and I am planning to spay her. When should I get it done? Is 6 months about right? My know-it-all sister is an animal health technologist and she said that I should get it done as soon as possible to reduce the risk of cervical cancer etc, but I thought that it only became a greater risk if the dog has gone through her first heat? I asked her to elaborate but she wouldn't explain it to me.

 

Lisa

[BayouBC]

To have the least risk of mammary/cervical cancer, you just need to get her spayed before her first heat. Typically that's somewhere around 8-10 months, though it can happen earlier. 6-7 months is a pretty good age to spay. But you'll also get a lot of different opinions on this question.

[Kat's Dogs]

There is a lot of info that mainly makes a difference to working/competition dogs more than anything else. Spaying really early (like 2 months) is not recommended, or spaying really really late (like 12 years old or something). It depends on what Gypsy is going to do later (agility? flyball? major herding?). As a general guideline, 6 months or so seems pretty good, but for many competition dogs waiting till more like 1 year or more has several benefits. I don't know them all now but have read some great articles on that information (which I can't find now!! Arg!! I know I had the webpages somewhere....)

[bc4pack]

There has been a lot of discussion about this on the Clickersolutions Yahoo list.

Early spays,before first heat,increase the possibility of later incontinence.

Spaying and neutering early also affects bone growth. A lot of agility dogs with CL injuries were found

to have been neutered before a year old and growth plates hadn't finished growing.

In bitches there is a higher incidence of mammary cancer in unspayed dogs,but as observant as most responsible owners are that is found early and tumors benign.

Also found was a higher incidence of bone cancer,in both sexes,of dogs desexed before puberty.

 

All of this needs to be weighed against having to manage bitches in season and the hassle.Personally I would wait till she's a year old ,if at all possible.

 

BTW, everything above is paraphrased. I'll have to try to find a link to the paper I read.

[AK dog doc]

Yes, please do. When quoting medical information, it's really important to be accurate, and the source matters a lot (which I'm sure you already know). Anecdotal is one thing. Peer-reviewed medical journal is quite another. I know YOU are not wanting to be misleading, only helpful; however, I'm not always confident of that from all sources. In addition, if the article to which you refer has been distilled from actual peer-reviewed/reliable sources, but (perhaps innocently) misunderstood, it may inadvertantly misrepresent the facts. These things happen, which is why it's always good to check your source. I'd very much like to see the article you mention, so I do hope you can find the link!

 

As a BTW, to clarify (and as an example of the possibilty of accidental misrepresentation of facts) in dogs about 50% of mammary tumors are benign. The other 50% are not, and it has nothing to do with how vigilant the owner is or when the tumor is detected. The OUTCOME of a malignant tumor may (or may not, unfortunately, in the case of agressive malignancies) be significantly different if detected early; but the MALIGNANCY of it, not so much.

 

But, to answer the question about puberty-related diseases... if you want to avoid cancer risks that come from puberty, it IS true that spaying before puberty is the point, not spaying at an arbitrary age designated by the University of "They" (as in "They say that..." or "They did a study..." in the absence of an actual source.) The deal is that no one can predict for certain when your dog WILL go into puberty. The reason six months is chosen as the time to spay by so many hospitals is that it's quite unusual for dogs to go into puberty BEFORE six months. Anytime AFTER six months of age, even a day after six months, they certainly can (and sometimes do) go into heat. I had a receptionist whose Akita bitch went into heat at 6 months and 3 days, for instance. Also, you will occasionally see a dog have a silent heat, so they may actually HAVE gone into puberty without appearing to have done so. However - that said, the AVERAGE age of onset of puberty falls between 8 and 10 months. So the OP is right and the know-it-all sister is maybe a little fuzzy on her facts. (Sorry, sis.)

[Guest CleverDog]

I thought these two articles were interesting: (as a disclaimer, I have not personally looked up the discrepancies/non-discrepancies between the two articles)

 

An article by Chris Zink: http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

A rebuttal to that article: http://www.sheltermedicine.com/documents/Zink%20rebuttal.doc

[bc4pack]

Yep, Zinks was one of the articles being debated.This was the article I saw:

http://www.littleriverlabs.com/neuter.htm

[bc4pack]

Cr*p! Haven't figured how to do the link.Sorry.

[Anda]

Edit your post and leave a space between the : and the http then another space at the end, to recognize it as a link

[bc4pack]

THANKS.

[AK dog doc]

Thank you, this exactly illustrates my point. If you read only the first article, which DOES quote various studies and is well written, you would come to far different conclusions than if you read the rebuttal article. Unfortunately the first article IS written by a DVM, which makes it all the more misleading, since his degree confers a certain "believablilty" on his article. However, it is essential to correctly understand the conclusions of the article which one quotes before disseminating the information. This is, unfortunately, a bit of a weak link with many vets; many have no research background, and don't fully understand how to interpret data (lacking, as many do, an understanding of statistics.) You have to be meticulous in reading the authors' conclusions if you don't understand the statistical analysis. It's easy to misunderstand the data unless you do, and therefore easy to unintentionally mislead others. The rebuttal article addresses many erroneous conclusions in the Zink article, and that author DOES understand the statistics. (Most holders of an MS or a PhD will have to have taken statistics in order to complete their degrees, and AFAIK all holders of those degrees in the hard sciences have to have done some research project of their own, which requires that they do the statistical analysis - and understand it - to complete their research.)

 

I do, however, see why anyone reading only the Zink article would feel that they were being given hard data that was correctly interpreted. It's unfortunate that they are being misinformed - no doubt unintentionally, but misinformed none the less.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Chris Zink is a she ;~)

 

I've posted links to Dr. Zink's article on the BC Boards before, and have posted the rebuttal link to the pit bull forums as well --- sorry I didn't post the rebuttal link here. One of the author's chief gripes with Zink seems to be that many of the studies Zink cites aren't actually "relevant to a discussion of 'early age'" spay/neuter. The rebuttal raises as many concerns about spay/neuter as the Zink article, it seems to me.

 

For my money, the best take on this issue is Christie Keith's: http://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblog/2006/05/its_just_that_t.html

 

Her "big picture" opinion mirrors that of my holistic vet: that male dogs are probably healthiest if left intact, and "for most females the benefits of spaying outweigh the risks." My vet's recommendation, for someone who intends to spay a female pup, is to wait until she has had one heat.

 

And yes, I know this opinion is heresy in the current sociopolitical climate. My vet does, too, hence the closed door and lowered voice.

 

Two more essays:

http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200509.html

http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200511.html

 

Both Keith and Milani emphasize that this issue is complex and worthy of further study. Both lament that the spay/neuter discussion has become so emotional and so politicized.

 

Consider the "Healthy Pets Act" which requires that most dogs and cats in California be speutered by the age of four months. "Polarizing" doesn't begin to touch it. Those who support the bill are the good guys, who want to reduce shelter populations. Everyone who opposes the bill [Luisa, for example] is just a heartless dog-breeder who only cares about selling lots of puppies and avoiding any responsibility for homeless pets. "Why don't you care about the millions of animals killed in shelters each year?"

 

I do care about them. I share my home with three shelter adoptees.

 

I just really, really resent being told 1) that it's for the government, rather than for me and my vet, to decide when to speuter my dogs; 2) that I'm not responsible enough to keep an intact animal, and 3) that if I insist on speutering late [and I do, with my vets' blessings], then I will be paying an extra $150.00 a year or so [per purebred, registered animal] for the privilege, even though my dogs aren't having puppies and I am in no way, shape or form contributing to the shelter crisis.

 

And if I adopt a stray and choose not to neuter him until he's two years old [as I did with Sneak, who had health issues as a wee starving pup], I'll be paying fines out the wazoo. From the bill:

 

(2) If a person in violation of subdivision (a) provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian indicating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog within 30 days from the date of compliance under this section or

Article 3 (commencing with Section 122336.2), whichever is applicable, and indicating that arrangements have been made to alter the cat or dog within 75 days from that date of compliance, he or she shall have his or her cat or dog spayed or neutered within that 75-day period.

(3) Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall, for each animal for which a violation has occurred, be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) for each applicable period of noncompliance, as set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2). This penalty

shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction.

 

Yes, I imagine my vets and I could go through the paperwork charade necessary to keep my dogs intact until I choose to speuter, but how depressing that educated, responsible owners should have to take such steps in order to comply with a bad law. Most BYBs, I'm afraid, will simply go underground.

 

Sorry about the tangent

 

Lisa, read up on the subject and take your questions/concerns to your vet. I suspect that someone with a track record as an informed, responsible owner might hear a more measured reply than someone who looks as if he shouldn't own a goldfish... and that may be for the best

[AK dog doc]

Ooops, I'd meant to write "his/her" since Chris is a unisex name and I wasn't sure (missed that in the edit).

 

I agree it should not be up to the gov't to make this decision. It needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, IMO, and should be a decision arrived at between the owner and the vet. However, it's best decided upon based on accurate info, IMO. FWIW, at my clinic we DO charge extra to spay older dogs - neuters stay the same lifelong unless there's pathology - but that's because it's a harder surgery in older dogs. Takes longer, more complications, so more cost.

 

My biggest problem with articles similar to the Zink article are that they don't accurately report what the studies cited actually SAY. I never know if that's because the person citing them really didn't understand them, or if it's because they have an agenda. The whole thing gives me a hinky feeling; there are OH so many people out there misquoting and misrepresenting the facts in order to support a personal agenda that I immeditately want to distance myself. I am by NO means suggesting that the Zink article IS such a deliberate misrepresentation; on the contrary, I would hope not, for the sake of my profession. But I don't KNOW. So what to do...?

 

But Luisa is right: the health issues alone (not even considering the rest of the can of worms) are complex, and there's no one right answer for all situations. Hence this should NOT be a decision legislated based on an arbitrary set of rules, IMO. But maybe that's just me; there's probably a reason why I ended up in AK....

[Black Watch Debatable]

Gah, I'm sorry for that rant Just a tiny tad unhappy about the Healthy Pets Act, apparently

 

The whole thing gives me a hinky feeling

["Hinky"! Luisa runs off to look for DVD of Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive ]

 

there are OH so many people out there misquoting and misrepresenting the facts in order to support a personal agenda that I immeditately want to distance myself

 

True, true. Unfortunately. Since canine sports medicine is Chris Zink's thing [here is her website ], I imagine keeping dogs sound tops her agenda. Since the rebuttal came from sheltermedicine.com -- a fine site hosted by UC Davis -- I imagine that reducing the number of unwanted pets takes precedence for them. A shame to think these goals might be in conflict. In any case, I'm grateful to AK dog doc for helping to keep us on our skeptical toes. [And thanks to cleverdog for posting the link to the rebuttal.]

[sharkie]

hmmm the shelter gave me 30 days to get 8wk clover spayed....i wont make it and my pet plan doesnt cover spaying at later date

 

I totally agree with AK. Sometimes "reputable" doesn't mean accurate. There are many studies, many of them supporting opposing views. One needs to evaluate the studies from different perspectives (clinicians v nonclinicians) and the result can sometimes by in the gray area with no clear advantages or disadvantages. Many studies are also poorly designed and the results can be misleading. With that said here are some additional things you can look for:

 

1) the journal/website it was published on

2) how many times the it was cited

3) editorials/commentaries

4) meta-analyses of all studies on a similar topic

 

 

Cheers,

bk

[MrSnappy]

Oh at long last, a rebuttal to the overquoted Chris Zink argument. Do you know how many people now tell me they WON'T ADOPT an agility candidate from BC Rescue because the dogs are all neutered before they leave our possession, and Chris Zink says that's 'bad' and that their agility dogs' legs will fall off, or other similar dire predictions?

 

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but urinary incontinence in females is related to spaying period, not to pediatric spaying specifically.

 

RDM

[Guest CleverDog]

their agility dogs' legs will fall off, or other similar dire predictions?

 

Not that I have anything particularly constructive to add, but that made me laugh! I neutered Caper at one year because his breeder suggested it, (plus, neuter + radiograph at same time = save money) but if I had a female I would spay her earlier -mainly because I would have absolutely no idea of what to do if the dog were to go into heat if she wasn't spayed yet, and previous female dogs we've owned don't have a bad track record for being spayed at 6 months. But it is interesting to hear both sides.

[diane allen]

I agree with Luisa - one should look at the goals behind various articles.

 

And for the record, Chris Zink does (or at least did) do human AIDS research at Johns Hopkins, so I think in addition to being a DVM and Ph.D., she has some credentials! She does write for the lay folks among us, so may have "abbreviated" some things that AKDoc might want to read.

 

I also think that Zink's statements might open up a discussion, vs. a disagreement:

"I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes."

 

diane

[AK dog doc]

Her having a PhD is actually more troubling under the circ's. That makes it look more like an agenda and deliberate misrepresentation than it would if there was just some honest confusion about how to present the results of the studies or what the studies actually say. Naturally without knowing Dr Zink in person, I would not contend that I know it IS a deliberate misrepresentation - but it LOOKS more like it. Feels hinky. Makes me wonder about the agenda. Makes me want nothing to do with it.

 

As BTW, one of the stated intentions behind the UC Davis article was to address the misrepresentations - whether intentional or otherwise - of some of the research quoted in the other article. That has nothing to do with a political or social agenda, that's about academic accuracy. Whether or not UC Davis or Dr. Zink have another agenda is not the point. The point is that no matter WHAT your agenda or lack thereof, it's cheating to misrepresent the research. If you have a valid point, fantastic! Let's hear it. By all means let's see your research, or that of others, that supports your position. But let's not "prove" it by spurious means.

 

FWIW, I'm not a hardcore "Must spay/neuter before puberty" person (and have not altered all of my own dogs before puberty, for various reasons.) But I want nothing to do with the misuse or misrepresentation of the studies on EITHER side of the argument. That doesn't feel clean, honest or above-board to me - and it would incline me to lean away from that side of the argument out of distaste for the practice.