As usual you bring up obvious issues for females but hardly any real issues for males. This study is very important for those of us who want to alter but now know we do need to wait like the "old timer breeders" have been suggesting for centuries.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've read the paper and whilst it carries some important messages, I felt that aspects of it were poorly written and biased.
1) As has been mentioned, it is incorrect to state that early spaying in the USA is "in contrast to European countries". Here in Ireland, and in the UK, it is standard practice to spay/neuter dogs and cats when they are around six months of age.
2) No account seems to have been made for other factors that could influence some of the disease rates e.g. it is possible that some dogs were spay/neutered because they were not deemed suitable for breeding, and others were kept intact because they were better breeding candidates - this could affect the incidence of HD and elbow dysplasia in each group significantly.

The main issue that I have is that in countries like Ireland (and probably USA and many others), the over production of puppies and kittens is a major cause of animal suffering. Traditional attitudes push people towards NOT neutering, and for years, many of us have been working to change these attitudes. While studies like this bring up useful information that we need to deal with, it would be more helpful if the authors took time to address the possible over-population consequences of dissemination of the data.

Pete

I just want to comment on one thing in your comment. When we refer to early-age spay/neuter in USA, we generally mean 8 weeks old. Many vets do the procedure as soon as the animal is over 2 pounds.

That is terrible completely wrong Their organs are not developed enough to do the surgery until they are
at least 6 months old.

I have to agree In the 30 plus years I have been around dogs and raising dogs I myself have found it best to wait untill the females have thier first heat cycle and the males at least drop but honestly you have to talk to your vet if there is an issue or a timeing thing or agression this is something you need to adress I do not however believe that nutering always elevates the agression I had a dog that this did not cure his agression twards other dogs he loved people and kids and did not even mind cats or female dogs but another male forget it so not ever dog or probelm is the same and age is always something you should take into consideration this of course is just my opinion and I am no vet. Just a lover of dogs and a trainer of my service dogs !!

Well said, Pete.

There are many flaws in this study design:
*The population sample was taken from dogs that presented to a veterinary medical teaching hospital, which is not an accurate representation of the general population.
*No information is given in regard to the ages of the individuals. If the majority of the neutered pets were more than 5 years of age, and the intact were younger, neoplasia will appear to be more prevalent in the neutered group.
*There is also not enough information about other factors that can influence the diseases being discussed. What were their body condition scores? Their 'purpose' (breeding animals, canine athletes, companions)? What is the genetic profile of the lineage that each subject came from--is there an increased incidence of the disease for that entire lineage? For the orthopedic cases, how were they fed and exercised as pups? For the neoplasias, what were their environmental exposures?

It is true that in the US we encourage owners to have their pets neutered by 6 months of age, which means that any study attempting to compare incidence of disease in intact vs. neutered animals is prone to sampling bias. Percentage-wise, there are more neutered than intact pets visiting their veterinarians in this country, so it can seem like neutered pets have more problems. Also, intact pets tend to fall into two categories: 1) breeding animals, or 2) pets with owners who cannot afford (or don't value) veterinary care. Breeding animals will theoretically be genetically superior (and are likely to be so if they are valuable enough to be taken to a veterinary medical teaching hospital), hence have decreased incidence of the diseases examined in the article. Conversely, intact pets whose owners cannot afford neutering likely will not seek treatment for the diseases examined in this article--especially from a veterinary medical teaching hospital--and so will also be excluded from the study.

While I do feel it is important to continue to examine the long term effects of neutering on our patients, I see this article as an example of how NOT to research it.

As previously stated, for now the benefits of neutering clearly outweigh the risks, which are as yet unproven.

and those benefits are???

Although it's not perfect, I am very pleased about the press this study has received just because it has helped further the discussion about the health risks of spay/neuter in pre-pubertal animals.
From a public policy standpoint, I still think it's a good idea for shelters and rescues to sterilize everything they adopt out. BUT for private owners, I think vets should be doing a better job of discussing the possible risks - at least for owners they estimate are responsible. Vets are pretty savvy at telling if an owner is an idiot or not, and obviously you strongly encourage the idiots to get their pets sterilized. Ditto with the lazy owners because the biggest reason to spay/neuter is convenience - it's a LOT easier to manage a sterilized pet.
But for the responsible owners, who are able to keep their pets appropriately confined and have some basic understanding of behavior and training it is usually a healthier option to leave the dogs intact for a while.
We do need to remember that a "responsible owner" is one who is able to prevent accidental breeding (among other things) - whether or not they accomplish this by surgical means is irrelevant.

We have a male Rottweiler pup that is due to be neutered in a couple of months. We live in the country so during daylight hours he runs free. My husband is retired so he is home most of the time. I have had Rottweilers before. They are basically home bodies. They don't roam much. However if there is another dog, male or female they tend to roam. I am afraid if we don't have him neutered that he will run off and get into trouble. If not for that concern I would leave him intact. Your article has made me have second thoughts. Now what should we do?

shocking answer as Rotties are most likely to get cancer at an early age due to castration..how about a fence.. or a lash ad your dog not dying form cancer.. seems like a no brainer.. not to mention that even a castrated dog can get into trouble .. garbage.. cars.. etc.. cutting off a dog nuts does not mean it will not run out the door if it is open.. what kind of vet gives this advice.. ?

No dog should "run free" regardless of being neutered or not. A dog that roams around tends to create many problems such as harrassing and injuring livestock and wildlife. Getting hit by cars. Harrassing people and their dogs who are hiking or horseback riding etc. The responsible thing to do is to keep the dog safely contained. Oh and I live in the country too and only too familiar with loose dogs that create problems.

My rescued dog was a farm dog that was allowed to roam free. He liked the cows. someone shot him. So no, I also would never allow my dog to run free, for his safety.

I'm betting if this study had different results the article author would be singing a different tune. There is a definite bias in the veterinary community toward indiscriminate neutering of pets, emphasizing what they perceive to be “benefits” while totally ignoring any risks....and failing to inform their clients about the true risks vs actual perceived “benefits”.

Let's address your stated “benefits” shall we?

“Getting rid of heat cycles”
This is a valid reason to choose spay for some owners. However, spay for convenience is totally unrelated to health. A common risk of spay is incontinence in up to 30% of cases, due to the effect of the estrogen deficit on the genitourinary system. The decision for spay should be left up to the individual owner to decide. There is also a recent study on Rottweilers that shows that bitches left intact or spayed after middle age lived about 30% longer, on average, than their spayed counterparts.

“Preventing unwanted litters”
We can also use the tools we have at hand, such as fences, doors and leashes. Very effective.

“Eliminating the dangers associated with whelping”

There are dangers to everything in life, including the danger of choking to death on kibble. Quite frankly, without whelping, we'd soon run out of dogs. A good vet can greatly reduce the risks associated with whelping...if you can find one. A red herring argument if I've ever heard one.

“Preventing potentially fatal uterine infections (pyometra)”

A large percentage of spay surgeries are associated with complications such as potentially fatal infection or bleeding. Pyometra can be effectively treated if and when it occurs. This is a risk that varies by breed: some breeds are predisposed to pyometra and the owner can certainly weigh the risk of pyometra against the other risks involved with spaying if they are fully informed. The risk of pyometra is greatest in an intact bitch who has never whelped a litter.

“Eliminating the chance of ovarian or testicular cancer”

Testicular cancer is rare in dogs and seldom a cause of death. When it occurs, surgical removal of the affected testicle is generally curative. According to the National Canine Cancer Foundation, ovarian cancer is almost unheard of in dogs.

“Significantly reducing the risk of prostatic hyperplasia and infection.”

Yes, neutering is an effective treatment for refractory prostatitis and anal gland infections. However, neutering also dramatically increases the risk of prostate cancer and bladder cancer...conditions that can be fatal. Again, the choice for neutering should remain with the owner who should be informed of risks in addition to potential benefits.

“Lessening aggression and other unwanted behaviors like mounting, roaming and marking”

Studies to date show that neuter MAY reduce dog-to-dog aggression; however, it will increase dog-to-human aggression. Neutering often results in fearfulness. Other unwanted behaviors are not reliably reduced by neutering. Effective training is always the preferred method to handle behavior problems. Neutering should be a last resort.

Also, where is the evidence that other countries have more restrictions on breeding and owning dogs? Only here in the US do we require government permits to breed a litter. Only here in the US is neutering SADLY required by law in some places. Unless you mean the countries that have laws FORBIDDING spay/neuter unless medically necessary. Some European countries have restrictions for those who choose to breed within the confines of a kennel club, but by no means are people required to belong to a kennel club or follow their rules in order to breed their dog...in any country, except perhaps in certain areas here in the US.

A lot of the articles I have read about the disadvantages of desexing dogs relate to large breed dogs which are already at a longevity disadvantage compared to small breed dogs. I think this difference does have to be taken into consideration in considering desexing. Small breed dogs do not get osteosarcoma at anything like the rate that large breed dogs do, for example. On the other hand my experience with intact small breed male dogs has been that they seem to be a lot sexier in their behaviors, more likely to mount and mark.

I have been breeding a large breed dog, Borzoi, since 1980 or so and I have owned more than 100 by myself in that period. The majority of these dogs have been intact and our average longevity is over 11 years which is outstanding for dogs of this breed.

Of our dogs that die of cancer, the one that kills our dogs is osteosarcoma, bone cancer. It usually appears around 9 years of age in the dogs that get it. Mammary cancers appear in old bitches at 10 years or so and I get them spayed and the mammary tumors removed and most of them will have remission with surgery only. The tumors may reappear in 2 years but by then we have a 12 year old Borzoi bitch and there are many other things of old age that are inflicting damage on them.

However a number of the dogs sold as pets and desexed early developed bone cancer at 3 to 5 years of age and the long term survival of these dogs, usually following amputation, for our dogs, has been no more than 2 years.

Of the problems that desexing "solves" some are not applicable to Borzoi.

(1) Roaming. These are hunting dogs. It does not matter if they are desexed or not, you cannot let them run loose as they will eagerly embrace a hobby of seeking out and killing small animals. If you don't have a good fence you should not have a Borzoi. Also when they get loose they tend to roam at high speeds and generally are killed by a car. I do not include killed by car dogs in our calculations of longevity.

(2) Danger of pyometra. This is serious but monitoring the bitch and especially NOT giving her the anti coming into season medicine can prevent this. I have had only 2 bitches develop pyometra and both survived the surgery. To keep this in prospective, I have had a lot more Borzoi develop bloat and torsion and only some of those survive the surgery.

(3) Dangers associated with whelping. There are some especially with a single puppy litter - in that case the puppy is often too large to deliver without a caesarian.
However I have only had 5 bitches have serious whelping problems. I have only lost one which was due to my inexperience and failing to know danger signs. It is important for anyone who becomes involved in breeding dogs to have an experienced local mentor and to have what we refer to as a "breeders vet". That is a veterinarian who has many breeders as clients, a doggy obstetrician/pediatrician.

(4) Testicular cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. As long as this is a normal male dog, if his testicles swell get to your vet. Neutered male dogs are, according to this 2007 study, at increased risk of prostate cancer in comparison to intact males:

A population study of neutering status as a risk factor for canine prostate cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17516571

From the owner's prospective it seems to me it is easier to deal with testicular cancer in an adult male dog than to deal with prostate cancer.

We see prostatic hyperplasia most often in the males that are not used in breeding and in intact males that are living with females in season. When my females come in season they go to live in an area on the property where the males are not close at all. Friends of mine who have a single male and a couple of females and crate the in season females in the same "scent space" as the male will have the male develop prostate problems. These can be managed with a human medicine called Proscar. I warn people with intact males kept in scent contact but not bred to in season bitches, to watch their urinary habits carefully as prostate problems can be very serious if left untreated.

(5) Behavior. Early spayed females are more likely to have urinary incontinence which can lead to the owner turning them in to a shelter. Spayed females are more masculine is some behaviors so they may be more dominate an bullying compared to how that individual would be if left intact.However the range of personalities is so great that the base personality is more important than wether she is spayed. In many breeds neutered males are more tractable and less reactive, probably because testosterone is associated with higher energy levels. Reactiveness relates to the propensity for sudden or unexpected biting when startled. Males that show this sort of testosterone reactive behavior will be much more tractable pets but neutering alone does not solve problems with dominant male dogs. Neutered or not they need careful training.

Even neutered males can still mark and mount. In dogs mounting is also an aspect of dominance. I have an intact male who has sired many litters. He is a sweet and low key dog and one of the problems we have with him is that amny of the females like to mount him and they seem to want to do it when we have human visitors, who become concerned of course.
As a dog breeder with multiple dogs I have had to select for male dogs who have reasonable and pleasant personalities when left intact. It is natural selection, if they do not get along with the other dogs they do not remain as part of the gene pool.

(6) Unwanted litters and heat cycles. Do not walk your in season bitch outside of your fenced yard and do not leave her alone in the yard. Having lived in cities with intact bitches I learned that it is not the scent carrying long distances in the air, it is stray male dogs tracking her home. Now that we are in the country with a bitch in season area we do not see problems with random male dogs going after our bitches. One of the services I offer to people who have purchased breeding quality bitches from me is that I will board them safely for a minimal fee. Of course we are lucky with Borzois because reproductively they are a primitive breed and as with wolves, the average female does not have her first season until at least a year old and many of them do not do it until 18 to 24 months of age and these late maturing females often continue to mimic wolves and only have one season a year.

There are some hormonal treatments a bitch can be given if there is an accidental mating. However in some cases these treatments are associated with increased incidence of pyometra if she is not bred on the next season. So you keep your bitch from being bred by keeping her away from intact males. For many dog owners this can be a difficult thing.

The final thing to be thought of is of course the problem of unwanted litters and dog overpopulation and individual dog poor veterinary care.

It is the caring and careful owner who is probably the most distressed by having a beloved pet die at 5 or 6 from one of the conditions associated with early desexing. But it is also this person who is most likely to think that desexing their dog was the best thing to do for long term health. What should be done in relation to this sort of owner is to discuss the risks of conditions that significantly shorten the lifespan of large breed dogs vs the problems relating to keeping large breed dogs intact.

I think that many veterinarians do not have that conversations with these owners. The people who had pets from me that died early of bone cancer have kept their subsequent pets intact at least until middle age (5 to 6 years), and have had the dogs live at least twice as long as the desexed dogs.

Finally - for pure bred dogs in the majority of AKC registered breeds - where less than 10,000 pups are registered in a year - early desexing greatly reduces the pool from which healthy long lived individuals can be selected to be the parents of the next generation.

See this article:

Using the simple AKC registrations statistics to understand genetic diversity in pure bred dogs.

http://www.dogdimension.org/2008PopularityStats.html

As another commentator noted:
This is a complex matter.

it is very disheartening to see two powerful posts by experienced people that make sense written by people who make more sense than a veterinarian who says if your dog roams it should be castrated. That gave me a headache..
know what else gives me a headache.. aver how post things like this:
"The authors of this paper cite the differences between policies in the U.S. that promote early age spay/neuter and other developed countries where intact pets are the norm, but fails to mention the much stricter regulations surrounding pet ownership and breeding that are in effect in many of those same countries."
without citing sources.. not only gives me a headache.. but makes me wonder about the quality of acre this vet provides.

why would a woman write it is a good thing to "get rid of heat cycles"? amazing. is it a "benefit' do "get rid of' a natural occurrence in animals and humans??

Off topic (because it relates to humans), but of interest in relation to "natural reproductive cycles - studies done with women from hunter gatherer societies where infants are suckled until several years of age and are always with the mother have shown that the continuous suckling prevents the menstral/ovulation cycle so the woman does not conceive until the child is weaned. The suckling has to be frequent or this tactic does not work:

See this extract from "Human Reproductive Biology
By Richard E. Jones, Kristin H. Lopez"

http://books.google.com/books?id=pfiZfui2XLIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=menstrual+cycle+in+hunter+gatherer+humans&source=bl&ots=XpfQS7c0dt&sig=K53eoNBny6_oqLXRMErWjlkABI0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z6kvUYe3JtO60AHEm4HwBA&ved=0CGYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=menstrual%20cycle%20in%20hunter%20gatherer%20humans&f=false

of google "menstrual cycle in hunter gatherer humans" if the link does not work.

I don't have anything to add to this charged topic, but am posting a comment so subsequent comments will come via email.

reading my comments I have to laugh.. spelling etc is horrible.. can you guess i just had eye surgery? meanwhile
neutering animals for convenience is wrong and very bad for the animal 'getting rid of heat cycles" should ever be a reason to remove healthy organs from any living being

The German animal protection law defines cruelty as causing unjustified pain and suffering. This is why cutting off any body parts or organs is considered unacceptable unless it is medically necessary. Now when we look at many American laws in regards to animals, cruelty is defined just about the same as in Germany, however people think it is acceptable to cut out the reproductive organs which alters the hormonal status of an animal for the rest of its life. However there are now laws in place to ban debarking, which is a fairly simple procedure to lower the volume of a dog's bark, quite often this procedure prevents the dog from losing its home or its life (if fed up neighbors take matters into their own hands) or lifelong punishment because of barking or confinement. Why is it that removing hormone producing organs is promoted to be beneficial but lowering a dog's volume of barking is considered cruel?

"Why is it that removing hormone producing organs is promoted to be beneficial but lowering a dog's volume of barking is considered cruel? "

terrific question let's see what Dr Coates has to say on this issue

might also apply to cropping and docking

yes, this also applies to cropping and docking and I am curious to see if they ban those procedures how anybody will continue to justify spay/neuter. Spaying is major surgery, cropping is not (even though I would not crop myself).

so you consider bark softening cosmetic???

Ah, cropping ears and docking tails. This is also actually a controversial subject that can impact health of the animal. The current strong feelings against ear cropping are, in my opinion and from my observation, triggered by (1) Dislike of "altering the animal from its natural state" and (2) The use of "long ear" style cropping in older puppies and the subsequent need to put the cropped ears in some sort of brace so that they will stand in a manner similar to the natural ear carriage of a wild canid.

Ok - first those floppy ears we have bred into many modern breeds are not "the natural state". So what happens is that with the ear canal flapped closed the dog may be at greater risk of ear canal infections. Secondly in dogs actually used in capturing the sort of prey that fights back (boar, carnivores, rats) large floppy ears can be grabbed and torn which will result in a lot of bleeding.

So the ears in the great Dane were probably originally cropped to prevent a hog snagging them. It should be noted that the majority of breeds used to capture prey (as opposed to flushing prey out so the human can shoot it) are breeds with relatively small ears that fold back, the "rose ear" of greyhounds, whippets, deerhounds, borzoi, and several of the small hunting terriers.

I have seen some photos of Salukis from nomadic tribes that had cropped ears. These were not cropped in the Dane Doberman fashion but close to the head as is seen in pit bulls, Cane Corso and some other breeds often thought of as fighting breeds.

These short cropped ears do not get the braces and may be able to be done with the pups are very young.

Now I am not a great proponent of ear cropping. The inheritance of the erect ear is pretty simple. it appears to be an incomplete dominant condition. However to bring erect ears back into a breed one would have to do some out crossing to a related erect ear breed and also work to reduce overall ear size. If avoidance of ear infections is desired and erect ear is not needed then breeding for a smaller ear and accepting the rose ear form will also work.

But if a person owns a floppy eared dog and that individual dog consistently gets ear infections - that owner should not be condemned if they have to have the ears on the dog cropped.

Before the development of antibiotics in modern medicine persistent infections were associated with death.
This may have fueled the adoption of ear cropping in some breeds also.

Another breeding strategy that can help reduce the heavy sealed ear canal problem with a cropped ear is to breed for less profusion of hair on the ears. In individual dogs the long heavy ear fringes can be shaved off of course.

Except for the scent hounds - where there is (as far as I know) an untested by research belief that the long ears help stir up the scent of the trail - there is little practical reason to select for heavy floppy ears in any breed of dog other than human
esthetic choices.

And I think the esthetic has two components, (1) lowered ears in a dog are associated with submission, while erect ears may be seen in aggression and (2) Dogs and rabbits with floppy drooping ears look more human since the ears blend in with the contour of the head.

So the solution to the ear cropping dilemma is complex and probably will never be implemented. (1) Change human reaction to erect ears and (2) Use selective outcrossing to bring erect or rose ears back into floppy eared breeds while also breeding for smaller ear sizes and reduced mass of the ear leather.

I doubt it this is going to happen.

Now to move on to tail docking. This is normally done shortly after birth in tail docked breeds.

How many of the people who are appalled at tail docking have ever owned a dog with a long whip like tail that was a tail wagger? I will bet very few. And by long tailed I mean around 2 times the tail length seen in a wolf.

Long whip like tails are actually quite prone to injury of the dog is a dedicated tail wagger. I will give several real examples from my own personal experience.

One of my greyhounds, Galaxy Linda, would regularly scatter blood all over the kitchen (we kept her out of rooms which were not easily washed down) because she was so happy to see us and would repeatedly bang her tail tip against anything hard causing it to bleed and then of course because it was wagging to spray blood all over. I seriously considered docking (and I know several greyhounds that had this done for the same reason) but Linda was very food motivated and we were eventually able to teach her to sit consistently when she saw a person she wanted to wag at. She could not wag nearly as violently when seated.

Last year one of my friends who has a Catahoula x Lab cross with an amazingly long tail had the dog get a tail tip injury. I is very hard to bandage the tip of a tail. The tail became infected and the dog ill from the infection. My friend spent over $2000 at his vet trying to "save the tail" over a period of 6 months. I kept telling him to have it docked to around 8 inches. Then it would heal fairly quickly and the dog would not have to continue live in the cone collar that was needed to keep him from going after his tail. The dog hated the cone collar incidentally.

My friend is not a person with a lot of money. But the aversion to "mutilation" prompted him and his wife to continue to try and save end of the tail.

Again - in an world before antibiotics this infected tail would probably have killed the dog.

Doberman certainly have the potential to have long whip like tails if left undocked . Since they were originally bred to be a working dog I suspect that cropping started as an adjunct to ease of maintenance in a working dog.

The other breeds commonly docked include a lot of small working spaniels. These breeds carry the coat pattern called feathering and heavily feathered tails certainly can become matted and tangled with burrs and weeds and can also stick to the hind legs creating a mess if the dog defecates with the tail matted to a leg.

As with any controversial subject there are strong proponents on both sides and this web page presents the pro docking side with pictures.

Council of Docked Breeds

http://www.cdb.org/

It should be noted as in the case of my friend's mixed breed, that docking an adult dog after injury is a more serious surgery than docking a whelp. Of course no one would have thought of docking the catahoula x lab pups.

Well then why not breed for naturally docked tails?

As has been well discussed at the excellent Border Collie
blog Border Wars

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/11/without-a-tail-to-sit-on.html

In dogs the gene that cause natural bobbed tail is lethal in homozygotes. There may be some variable penetrance, but breeding natural bob tail to natural bob tail is goign to produce a percentage of puppies that are not viable in the long run, even if they are born alive.

The other solution in the long run of course is to try and return the traditionally docked breeds to the sort of tail length seen in wolves (where the natural tail does not extend to the hock when the animal is standing). In the mean time in traditionally docked breeds the very long tailed puppies should be considered candidates for prophylactic docking.

It suprises me than People who are horrified at tail docking are not also horrified at the breeding of dogs with such flat faces that they cannot breath.

Yes, all medical treatments have risks, whether they have bvenefits or not. However, surgical intervention to 'fix' these problem is not, to my mind, appropriate.

You say:

Neutering has its benefits, such as:


getting rid of heat cycles,

Why not just own a dog?
I don't consider this a good reason to destroy the animal's hormonal system, surgically or otherwise.

preventing unwanted litters

Again, overkill. Preventing unwanted litters is as simple as confining the bitch when she is in season. It's not rocket science. If it can be done with mixed gender housepets, (and it can) it can be done by anyone, and that's a much better solution. If the owner seems disinterested or unreliable ... see my fix for issue #1 - get a dog, not a bitch.

eliminating the dangers associated with whelping

See my comments above, but this is an educational issue, not a surgical intervention issue. And if the real issue is that people won't take their pregnant bitch to a vet for fear that said vet will suggest abortion combined with the ubiquitious insistance on immediate spay - perhaps you should consider *why* this reluctance exists. It has gotten very difficult to find a vet whose interest in repro medicine is not confined to sterilization.

I agree that litters should be planned, not accidental, but then, it is beyond me why veterinary professionals should treat their human clients as criminals if their bitch gets into a whoopsie. As a vet, wouldn't it be preferable for the next generation of pets to be bred from a dog in your own practise you know to be healthy? Do you really think the best pets are street bred in Puerto Rico or Romania?

preventing potentially fatal uterine infections (pyometra)

A few breeds do seem particularly susceptible to pyo. However, in most it's not a major risk. This is an educational issue again; people should find out before committing to a breed what its vulnerabilities are. I wouldn't consider risk of pyo a reason for prophpylactic spay unless the vet was a substantial distance from the pet, but pyo can kill so quickly I'd want my vet pretty handy if I had a vulnerable bitch.

liminating the chance of ovarian or testicular cancer

If eliminating mammary, ovarian and/or testicular cancers was the only consideration, well, it sounds good. But if it means an increased risk of hemaniosarcomas or osteosarcomas ... well, you lost me on that one. It seems like a poor tradeoff to me, and it IS a tradeoff, not a freebie.

significantly reducing the risk of prostatic hyperplasia and infection

This one is controversial. I've seen studies citing increased prostatic issues from neutering, and certainly the risk of incontinence stands.

lessening aggression and other unwanted behaviors like mounting, roaming, and marking

Again, this is controversial at best. There are studies out there showing increased aggression in dogs and increased fear in bitches after s/n, and in my observation mounting tends to be worse in s/n, both sexes.

The roaming thing is a non-issue. There are leash laws just about all over the country. NO dogs, regardless of gender, unless they are being actively hunted or working stock should be running loose.

I think we should perhaps ask if people for whom these concerns are paramount are people who should be keeping pets at all. All the issues mentioned here are actually *management* issues, not health issues. All these issues are natural ones to the animals in question; they should not require medical intervention, and particularly not such destructive intervention, nor intervention which is irreversible. If these are seen to be 'benefits' of these surgeries, perhaps we need to look at the whole pet keeping issue more closely.

Also - pet owners are NOT being informed of possible negative outcomes. Informed consent means *all* available information, or it does to me, but the common understanding out there is that s/n is a 'healthy' option.

Obviously, I disagree.