Cruelty to Humans

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a judgment that would have awarded “emotional” damages for pain and suffering resulting from a dog pound negligently killing a family's pet dog, 'Avery'. The owner had come to claim Avery, but didn't have enough money to pay the fines. He was told to return by the 10th of the month with the money, but on the seventh of the month, the shelter mistakenly and negligently killed Avery. When the owner returned, he found that his dog Avery had been killed. For most pet owners, this is our worst nightmare, and surely even more egregious an offense than the new laws popping up that require spay/neuter as a condition of release. Hey, at least you'd get your companion back alive, even if he or she was missing a few body parts.

Are companion animals worth more than their market value? Groups such as Nathan Winograd's No-Kill Advocacy Center believe that they are. On the other side of the fence we have the American Kennel Club, the Cat Fancier's Association, and the American Veterinary Veterinary Medical Association. Surprisingly, these prominent animal groups claim that pets should have no sentimental or emotional value in a court of law.

The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court was supported by “amici curiae”, or written briefs/petitions by third parties who offer their information as "friends of the court” in hope of influencing the eventual decision. These amici curiae were submitted by the AKC and the Cat Fanciers' Association, both of whom urged that NO “emotional” damages be awarded to Avery's owner. The high court's ruling upheld the view of dogs as property, and declared their value be limited solely to their economic worth. Presumably, that means literally NO value in the case of most pets, if the owner obtained them from a friend, neighbor or shelter/rescue as so many people do. Avery did not have any financial worth, and therefore, the family was unable to recover any monetary recompense for his loss.

One has to wonder about the motivation of these national organizations in aggressively supporting this ruling. There is a general consensus among members of the public that pets have a value to society above and beyond their market value. How can you put a price tag on an animal whose function is companionship? Is the mixed breed dog adopted from the shelter by a lonely senior citizen really worth less than the dog who is a champion and produces high-priced pups for the owner? The AKC says "yes". Perhaps they worry that mixed breed animals might garner monetary awards exceeding those for expensive, prizewinning purebreds? Perhaps they feel that pets really aren't all that important in the grand scheme of life? Maybe they don't believe that pets are irreplaceable companions who provide a source of comfort and joy in our otherwise mundane lives? I honestly don't understand WHAT is going through the minds of some of these folks.

Treading the line of neutral non-committalism we have the so-called "Animal Rights" groups like HSUS and PETA. Of course they can't support emotional or sentimental value for pets because they themselves kill so many of them. In fact, they actually hold seminars for shelters instructing them to kill pets swiftly and without remorse.

What are some typical scenarios that might be affected by this ruling?
A shelter wrongfully kills a pet even as they know the owner is on the way to come bail him out.
Police go to investigate at the wrong address, and kill the family dog in his own home or yard.
A veterinarian kills your 10-month-old puppy during a routine spay or dental procedure.
A pet food company includes toxic ingredients into their product, and thousands of animals die.
An animal control or animal rights agency performs an illegal raid and steals animals (which are NEVER returned, even if the person involved is eventually exonerated of any wrongdoing)

If you lose your dog as a result of one of these situations, you might not be so supportive of this court's decision. What happens when an SPCA wrongfully seizes your dogs? We have seen MANY cases where just this has happened, and usually before the owner can blink, the dogs are spayed and placed, leaving the owner with a huge emotional hole in his heart. Wendy Willard's Basset hounds were seized and some DIED during botched spay surgery done by the SPCA. No emotional distress there, was there? Cases of cruelty inflicted upon animal owners sometimes result in such severe emotional distress and despondency that suicide results. But we are led to believe that NO emotional damage occurs, or, if it does, TOO BAD SO SAD. No compensation. Why should these animal control agents restrain themselves from stealing your animals when they suffer virtually NO penalties as a result of the horrendous suffering they cause the people involved?

Let's address some of the objections of these organizations to the awarding of emotional damage in a case of negligent pet death. The AKC is worried that awarding emotional or sentimental damages might cause pets to lose their status as property. A pet's status as property would in no way be affected by a ruling for emotional damages. In fact, other types of property can merit sentimental or emotional damage awards. Grandma's quilt, an old photograph or an 'heirloom' doorstop can garner awards for their sentimental value. Is there less emotional damage to a pet owner from losing a pet than there is from losing a piece of furniture? Most pet owners, given the choice, would give up all their “heirlooms” just to keep their pet.

If dogs are even LESS valuable than inanimate possessions, as this Texas court has upheld, then why is animal cruelty any sort of criminal offense at all? Whose business is it WHAT you do with your “property”? Just sayin'.

The AVMA claims that lawsuits will drive up the costs of veterinary care for all of us. This concern, while valid, is negligible, because cases of veterinary incompetence remain relatively rare, and such cases would have to be proven in a court of law. Yet, if there IS genuine negligence, shouldn't the offender be held accountable? I say, YES. Sunlight is ALWAYS the best disinfectant for cases of medical or veterinary malpractice. Sunlight, as well as some sort of penalty to ensure that the perpetrator doesn't repeat the offense.

The hysterical claim that people will sue frivolously every time a dog is hit by a car is not credible. Anyone can sue NOW for such an event, but one would be laughed out of court with no possibility of attaining any sort of monetary compensation. In fact, courts are so fed up with frivolous lawsuits that judges who feel that a claim wastes valuable resources and time may sanction the parties involved, or even hold them in contempt of court.

This ruling is a victory only for the careless and cruel in our midst. It is a slap in the face to anyone who has suffered the emotional trauma of losing their pet under horrific circumstances. Even if there was a slight increase in litigation, does the possibility of rising costs for all offset the virtual disregard for an individual owner's pain and suffering in such cases? Monetary damages do not bring back your pet, but they DO serve as a deterrent to prevent the negligent killing of other folks' pets in the future.

In any event, it seems offensive for the very groups who claim to champion pets to trumpet their proud role in this ruling. Where is the care and concern they profess to possess? Have they genuinely NO qualms whatsoever in supporting inept animal control departments, malicious animal rights groups, unscrupulous pet food manufacturers, bumbling police, and careless veterinarians?

Perhaps it's best to concentrate on the criminal arena, where standardized penalties or fines are assessed once conviction for such egregious offenses occur. Stiff fines should be levied for shelters who kill animals without following their own protocol; or for police who shoot and kill your animal when they invade your property without a warrant or probable cause; or for veterinarians who are found to be grossly negligent by a review board of their peers upon a consumer complaint. Maybe a food company that either carelessly or intentionally poisons your pet should be fined heavily or even have their license to do business revoked, if they are not liable for the emotional trauma they cause to people who own pets.

We've seen already how government absolves itself of any liability in cases where its agencies are involved by writing exemptions in for those agencies from animal welfare statutes. Maybe it's time to start challenging such laws or lobbying to have them changed. Since courts are not going to uphold our rights as pet owners to be fairly compensated in civil court for our emotional distress, perhaps it's time to change the criminal laws to make these incompetent agencies squirm when they screw up royally.

Maybe, just maybe, they'll be a little more cautious if they have the threat of monetary penalties looming when their carelessness result in the death of someone's beloved pet.

Sorry, but I think that's a GOOD thing.

San Diego SPCA aims to Eliminate the Competition

Did you know that rescue groups in San Diego import dogs from outside the area, and even from Mexico? It's true. Helen Woodward has imported dogs from as far away as Romania on a regular basis. There is a shortage of adoptable dogs in San Diego. And now, these same "rescue" and "humane" groups are supporting a ban on the sales of puppies bred by licensed ethical breeders here in the US.

The animal rights fanatics prefer for NO animal to be purposefully bred, ever.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/may/02/san-diego-proposal-ban-retail-sale-dogs-cats-and-r/

"Gary Weitzman, president of the San Diego Humane Society and SPCA, said the ordinance would help find more homes for the 45,000 animals that come through the shelter system in San Diego County."

What a bald-faced liar!

This is not about finding homes for shelter animals. There is a grand total of ONE pet store in San Diego. Shutting them down will have vitually NO EFFECT on the shelter population, and will not help even ONE shelter dog find a home. No, this is an ideological issue. This is all about institutionalized prejudice against pet breeders. It's all about demonizing pet breeders. It's all about making pet ownership more restrictive.
But then this is the People's Republic of California we live in, so no surprise there.

Currently, no adoptable dogs are killed in San Diego's shelter system. Ever. Because THEY ALL FIND HOMES.

"Animal advocacy groups report 99 percent of canines sold in pet stores come from inhumane puppy mills, which fail to provide adequate veterinary care."

What utter CRAP. And this is published as if it were gospel by a San Diego news outlet. Commercial pet breeders are among the most highly regulated of industries. VPI pet insurance reduced the rates for pet store puppies by 30% as compared to pets obtained from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary care in the first 12 weeks of life than any other puppies, and, as a result, have fewer claims.

Responsible You

I cringe every time AKC sends out a notice about "responsible dog owners" and encourages us to have a day to celebrate them.

Why do we celebrate "Mother's Day" and not "Loving Mother's Day"?

Because there is a presumption of mother=love and nurture. Not always the case, I realize, but surely it is true most of the time.

Why do we have "President's Day" and not "Ethical President's Day"?

Again, there is a a presumption of ethics and honor among those who hold the highest office in our land. Not all of them, most likely, but the overwhelming majority have been ethical, honorable men.

Why do we have "Parents' Night" at school, instead of "Dependable Parents' Night"? After all, those who don't show up must surely be unreliable and uncaring! Why not infer that in the title of the event?

It's all in the nuance of the language we use, folks. Just including a feel-good adjective like "responsible" in the phrase "responsible dog owners" infers that there is a reciprocal and significantly large segment of irresponsible dog owners out there. And of course, we need more rules and regulations to deal with them! Just ask the animal rights groups, the humane societies and the "rescuers".

That's the short lesson for today. It seems so obvious and simple, yet very few people seem to have a grasp on life's self-evident truths.

So sorry, it was an "anesthesia reaction"

Either we dog breeders are turning out a bunch of severely defective dogs or our veterinarians are lying to us.

Can't count the number of times over the past few years that I have heard these stories:

Dog died getting teeth cleaned - anesthesia reaction

Dog died during spay/neuter surgery - anesthesia reaction

We are talking YOUNG dogs here, not old dogs with failing organs. Young dogs who were perfectly healthy prior to undergoing their procedures.

And if your vet says, it was an "anesthesia reaction" what are you to say? You weren't there, so you don't know what happened. You don't know if the dog was overdosed, or the tube came out before he was awake, or if it was really an "anesthesia reaction"; if your dog had some profound reaction to the anesthesia itself that killed him.

Would we accept our doctor's statement that our spouse/child/parent died during surgery due to an "anesthesia reaction"? You can bet the answer would be NO. There would be an investigation, and the parties involved would have to testify as to exactly what happened. Medical malpractice is the scenario, and thankfully is relatively uncommon. The threat of litigation keeps your doctor on his best behavior. He utilizes clinincal monitors and exercises his best judgement at all times. Anything less would be professional suicide.

But understandably, there is not the same standard of care for animals including our dogs. When the vet blames an "anesthesia reaction" you can suspect that possibly he didn't want to have to say, "I'm sorry, I didn't monitor him closely enough" or "Gosh darn it, I nicked an artery."

I hope to hear from some veterinarians on this, because I would love to be wrong on this. Are there many dogs who are so susceptible to anesthesia that it kills them outright, even while you have them intubated and on life support?

From Ron Hines, DVM: "We veterinarians are fortunate in that older, less predictable, anethesthetics have been replaced by compounds that are very predictable and safe when properly used."

http://www.2ndchance.info/anesthesia.htm

ASPCA - they're at it again

Hey, I was just sitting here, minding my own business, happily playing on Facebook, with Fox Business News on in the background, when WHAM! Suddenly I was subjected to a very disturbing interview. Some woman from the ASPCA was lecturing Lou Dobbs about pet store puppies.

You know, they are all from "puppy mills", they are selling sick dogs; rescued dogs are the way to go; 7 million dogs enter shelters each year and half are killed; and in surveys, 9 out of 10 dog owners prefers their "rescued" pet to a pet store pet. (A little bit of journalistic sarcasm there with the 9 out of 10 thing, but she did essentially state this, claiming this to be the result of some satisfaction survey)

Mind you, this is the ASPCA talking here. They just recently paid out a whopping $9.3 million settlement to Feld Entertainment (Ringling Bros Circus) when charged under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Seems they were involved in manufacturing evidence of animal abuse. Is it any surprise that their representative would LIE on national television?

So naturally, I had to pipe up and write to Lou Dobbs. Do you know that the ASPCA is not trustworty? Using pejorative slurs when referring to breeders is offensive and just plain wrong. Do you know that "rescues" are importing hundred of thousands of dogs annually? Do you know that consumer protection "puppy lemon laws" do not apply to shelter and rescue pets? And, let me fill you in on something; there were 2.3 million animals killed in shelters..that's dogs and cats combined, roughly about a 50-50 mix. NOT half of 7 million, or 3.5 million DOGS ALONE, which she impled was the case. Perhaps a million adoptable dogs killed because shelters don't make the earnest effort to find them homes...of which there are over 20 million opening up for pets each and every year.

There is also evidence that the pet industry provides more veterinarian care for puppies than the public at large. DVM/VPI Insurance Group, the largest provider of animal health insurance, testified during a hearing in California that "preconceived notions" concerning pet store puppies "could not have been more wrong."

After insuring more than 89,000 pet store puppies and kittens and handling health claims from a pool of more than 500,000 insured animals, the insurance company reduced its premiums for pet store puppies and kittens substantially by as much as 22 percent compared to premiums charged for animals from other sources. Why? Pet store puppies receive more veterinary attention during the first 12 weeks of age than any other puppies and, as a result, have fewer claims.

In other words....pet store puppies are healthier than puppies from other sources.

I'll let you know if I get any feedback (not likely). Methinks Lou Dobbs has been hoodwinked. He took the lazy way out and let his "expert" do his research for him. Big mistake, but par for the course on television news lately.

Whatever happened to REAL investigative journalism, anyway?

Swap Meet Sales Targeted by Animal Rights Fanatics

I received the below message in my email inbox today. Here we have the quintessential example of the deception foisted upon society by animal rights fanatics. The message features pictures of puppies and kittens while imploring us to help stop sales of animals at swap meets.

 

Problem is, dogs and cats aren't generally sold at swap meets. What we would normally find sold at swap meets, auctions, fairs etc are various birds like parakeets, canaries and finches, along with assorted farm animals such as chickens, ducks, sheep, goats and so on. No puppies. No kittens.

 

But truth means nothing to these animal rights nuts. And even while we have come to expect them to routinely lie through their teeth about animal issues, still they needs to be taken to task occasionally.

 

What in the world is inherently "wrong" with offering animals for sale in a public place? This practice has existed since the dawn of human history, but now is suddenly taboo in the minds of a population that is increasingly urban and severed from agrarian roots. The very act of selling an animal is "abuse"? Absurd! And even one were to offer dogs and cats for sale in public, so what? There is nothing cruel about selling dogs and cats.

 

There is another arena targeted by AR groups as inherently "abusive" even when no blatant abuse is evident....the sales of animals in pet stores. Elizabeth Oreck of "Best Friends" is at all the hearings in southern California lobbying to prohibit sales of animals in pet shops. Instead of having purposely-bred dogs and cats available to consumers, she would like us to instead have only "rescued" animals available.

 

Because, you see, animals can be offered as impulse purchases in a pet store as long as they are from unscrupulous origins, with questionable genetic backgrounds and sketchy health histories. If originating from a known entity and  having received veterinary care since birth, the animals obviously would not be suitable for pets and should therefore be forbidden by law. Makes perfect sense.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding homes for animals that need them, but "rescue" is an industry that is completely unregulated. Dogs are imported from other areas, other states and even other countries to provide inventory for many shelters and rescues. (Check our post "It's Raining Dogs From Other Countries" for the proof of that statement.) With nationwide shelter intakes and death rates at the lowest point ever, we no longer can legitimately claim that "overpopulation" and "abandonment" are the pressing issues that they once were. Our nation is on the right track, and we need not fall for the animal rights propaganda to further their agenda of a future devoid of domestic animals.

 

The message below is a typical AR manipulative tool, rife with hypotheses contrary to fact and the overall "red herring" deception of conflating pets with livestock in the mind of the public. How much longer are we going to let them get away with their lies and deception? Enough already!

 

I believe the free market works, and it will work naturally to regulate the pets available for sale. Sick and overpriced pets don't sell very well (unless of course they are sold by "rescues" and shelters.) Allow consumers freedom of choice in the market and let the chips fall where they may.

 

These AR groups are allowed to blatantly LIE in their advertising and their lobbying. No other group of sales people could get away with such unethical behavior. Where is the California Attorney General?

 

 

 

 

 

CA: Let's Put an End to Swap Meet Animal Sales     Dear Friends,   Existing law in California prohibits the sale of animals in most unregulated public venues, such as parking lots, alleys and highways. However, the law does not include swap meets and flea markets, which has created a major loophole for irresponsible and unscrupulous breeders to sell their animals virtually under the radar. These sales contribute to unhealthy animals and breeding practices, overpopulation and animal abandonment.   Fortunately, Assembly Bill 339 has been introduced to close that loophole by prohibiting the sale of animals at swap meets and flea markets. This bill is designed to protect purchasers who may unknowingly buy an animal that is unhealthy or too young, or from a pet mill or backyard breeder who doesn't provide safe and humane conditions for the animals bred and sold.   Your representatives need to hear that you care about the way animals are treated and that you support this important bill to protect pets and consumers. Please urge your representatives to support Assembly Bill 339.     Click here to take action now.   Thank you for all you do for animals.     Warmest regards,   Elizabeth Oreck National Manager, puppy mill initiatives puppymills.bestfriends.org

 

 

 

__._,_.___

 

   

.

__,_._,___

AVMA Surrendered to the Dark Side

As an owner of multiple dogs I was surprised to find that the American Veterinary Medical Association has position statements on their website, including a position statement in support of PUPS. PUPS is the federal bill that would subject many more breeders to APHIS guidelines. You know, those rules that force breeders to keep their dogs and puppies in sterile environments, to log all activity including any interaction with their dogs/puppies (thereby discouraging such interaction) and to submit to unannounced inspection of their property at any time.

 

Naturally, such unreasonable requirements discourage most reasonable people from breeding and would drastically reduce the ranks of dog breeders; but, of course, that is the whole intention of the new rules. The are certainly not intended to support and encourage dog breeding. I was pleased to see my friend post this note to the AVMA.

 

March 19, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Hi AVMA/Animal Rights Group:

 Do you have a list of vets who do NOT belong to AVMA? If so I would like to have it so I can find a vet that supports my rights to own, breed and co-own my chosen breed. A vet who realizes that I could own NO breeding animal on my own property and still fall under the PUPS guidelines. A vet who realizes that my home environment cannot be washed down with 180 degree water and that I have soft surfaces that are not "impervious to moisture" so I would never be able to comply with PUPS. A vet who knows that rally, obedience and flyball involve "repetitive exercise' and that I would not be in compliance with PUPS if I used these as forms of exercise for my dogs. A vet who knows that when I write him/her a check for thousands or dollars or slap down my open-ended credit card to save my dog's life that I am a caring breeder no matter how many "breedable' females I own or co-own or how many puppies I sell in one year. A vet who knows that without me, he/she would not be in business, or that their business would be sadly curtailed.

 Please send me that list of non-AVMA veterinarians so I can support that person.. the one who respects my rights, and my dogs, and my brain.

Thank you

 

 

BRAVO!!! I'll be asking for that list myself; or perhaps using the AVMA website function of "find a member" to determine who NOT to support with my hard-earned dollars.

 

This position statement of the AVMA is rather foolish, because after all, veterinarians are ultimately the ones who actually profit from dogs, not the vast majority of breeders. And where would pet lovers be without breeders? Petless and lonely, that's where.

 

Elimination of pet ownership is the dream of the animal rights extremists. It seems AVMA has already surrendered to the Dark Side. Let's hope for the good of society that they will wise up sooner rather than later.

 
 

I Have a Headache

Today I read a veterinary blog post where the author, a Jennifer Coates, criticizes the Golden Retriever study referenced here earlier this month. Her criticism centers on the claim that the study doesn't talk about the "benefits" of spay and neuter. She states that the study gave her a headache! Gosh darn those scientists, they only give the facts without any animal rights spin. How dare they!!

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 all the facts.

Let's address the stated "benefits" listed in this article, 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 risks 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 done 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. Owners should confine their dogs. If they don't, then the dog has bigger problems than an unwanted litter. Like being hit by a car, or killed by a coyote.

"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. Again, it boils down to a matter of risk vs. benefit. Pyometra can be effectively treated if and when it occurs. Pyometra is a risk that varies by breed: some breeds are predisposed to pyometra and the owner can certainly weight the risk of pyometra against the other risks involved with spaying prophylactically if they are fully informed. The risk of developing 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 canines.

"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. If a dog develops a refractory genitourinary infection, he can certainly be neutered at that time, there is no rush to go in a neuter with the idea of preventing an infection.

"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 tend to actually INCREASE dog-to-human aggression. Neutering often results in increased 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 if the goal is behavior modification.

Also, this author claims that other countries spay and neuter less because they have more restrictive ownership and breeding laws. Where is the evidence for this totally unsubstantiated and untrue assertion? 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. 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.

In fact, in some countries, like Norway, it is legally forbidden to neuter your pet without proof of medical necessity.

This whiney blog post on PetMD is just more of the same propaganda from the animal rightist section of the veterinary community.

A headache that I have been dealing with for many years now.

Think Twice



Avoid Spay/Neuter. His life may depend on it.

 According to a piece of email propaganda that I received today from the HSUS, Californians took ample advantage of a feature on the state income tax form to donate to spay/neuter programs in our state. And donate they did, to the tune of approximately $250,000.

Spay/neuter tax fund. Spay/neuter laws. spay/neuter license plates. Spay/neuter advertising. Spay-neuter promotion in veterinary schools.

We are subjected to so much brainwashing, it's no wonder we mutilate our animals unnecessarily more and more every year.

Like dutiful little citizens, we comply in droves with societal pressures to neuter our pets. 4 out of 5 dogs....sterilized. 19 out of 20 cats....sterilized.

Veterinarians surely should rejoice at this trend, as it assures them abundant work. It's the ultimate "job security".

More and more dogs with incontinence, bladder stones, hypothyroidism, hip and knee joint problems, and life-robbing cancers of various types including bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, prostate cancer and bladder cancer.

More dogs sickened with weak immune systems, unable to tolerate simple vaccinations or recover from infectious diseases. More fearfulness, more anxiety and more dog-human aggression.

Naw, let's ignore all these scientifically proven facts and believe the politically correct mantra. SPAY NEUTER. BE RESPONSIBLE. Just ask the paradoxically-named "animal rights" groups like HSUS, PETA and Best Friends.

Spay/Neuter. It's dandy. It's the responsible thing to do. After all, if we told you the truth, you'd never voluntarily choose such a course of action.

So, the lies trip off our tongues so often that you believe them. After all, everyone says spay/neuter is beneficial, so it must be.

Ignore those pesky studies that show how much longer intact animals live. That show how much healthier they are.

Now I expect to hear from the normal pack of animal-rightist people who will recount how their neutered pet lived a long and healthy life. Who believe that everyone's pets should ALL be sterilized.

Rational people will draw the obvious conclusion; that pets will go extinct and/or suffer immensely from dangerously narrowed gene pools produced as a result of mass sterilization. But, your veganized, vitamin-deprived pea-brain just doesn't "get it" because you are incapable of independent thought and reason. 

Besides, your individual, anecdotal experience in meaningless. The STUDIES that compare vast groups of animals in a scientific manner are what provide us with useful information.

Those studies show that dogs are healthier and live longer when they remain intact. They have all their organs for very specific reasons, and those reasons extend beyond simple reproduction.

In my humble opinion, it is criminal to do something to your dog that will likely result in painful problems like arthritis and cancer. Don't our companions deserve to live their optimal lifespans, without our inflicting pain and early death upon them? After all, companions, we want them around us as long as possible.

Look it up. Study. Read. Make your own decisions.

Don't let AR nuts with their misanthropist, nihilist world views dictate our policies and our societal norms.

If you love animals, think twice.  

New Study: Neutering Affects Dog Health

University of California, Davis


February 13, 2013



GOLDEN RETRIEVER STUDY SUGGESTS NEUTERING AFFECTS DOG HEALTH



Neutering, and the age at which a dog is neutered, may affect the animal's risk

for developing certain cancers and joint diseases, according to a new study of

golden retrievers by a team of researchers at the University of California,

Davis.



The study, which examined the health records of 759 golden retrievers, found a

surprising doubling of hip dysplasia among male dogs neutered before one year of

age. This and other results will be published today (Feb. 13) in the online

scientific journal PLOS ONE at http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055937



"The study results indicate that dog owners and service-dog trainers should

carefully consider when to have their male or female dogs neutered," said lead

investigator Benjamin Hart, a distinguished professor emeritus in the UC Davis

School of Veterinary Medicine.



"It is important to remember, however, that because different dog breeds have

different vulnerabilities to various diseases, the effects of early and late

neutering also may vary from breed to breed," he said.



While results of the new study are revealing, Hart said the relationship between

neutering and disease-risk remains a complex issue. For example, the increased

incidence of joint diseases among early-neutered dogs is likely a combination of

the effect of neutering on the young dog's growth plates as well as the increase

in weight on the joints that is commonly seen in neutered dogs.



Dog owners in the United States are overwhelmingly choosing to neuter their

dogs, in large part to prevent pet overpopulation or avoid unwanted behaviors.

In the U.S., surgical neutering -- known as spaying in females -- is usually

done when the dog is less than one year old.



In Europe, however, neutering is generally avoided by owners and trainers and

not promoted by animal health authorities, Hart said.



During the past decade, some studies have indicated that neutering can have

several adverse health effects for certain dog breeds. Those studies examined

individual diseases using data drawn from one breed or pooled from several

breeds.



Against that backdrop, Hart and colleagues launched their study, using a single

hospital database. The study was designed to examine the effects of neutering on

the risks of several diseases in the same breed, distinguishing between males

and females and between early or late neutering and non-neutering.



The researchers chose to focus on the golden retriever because it is one of the

most popular breeds in the U.S. and Europe and is vulnerable to various cancers

and joint disorders. The breed also is favored for work as a service dog.



The research team reviewed the records of female and male golden retrievers,

ranging in age from 1 to 8 years, that had been examined at UC Davis' William R.

Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital for two joint disorders and three

cancers: hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear, lymphosarcoma,

hemangiosarcoma and mast cell tumor. The dogs were classified as intact (not

neutered), neutered early (before 12 months age), or neutered late (at or after

12 months age).



Joint disorders and cancers are of particular interest because neutering removes

the male dog's testes and the female's ovaries, interrupting production of

certain hormones that play key roles in important body processes such as closure

of bone growth plates, and regulation of the estrous cycle in female dogs.



The study revealed that, for all five diseases analyzed, the disease rates were

significantly higher in both males and females that were neutered either early

or late compared with intact (non-neutered) dogs.



Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence

of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear and lymphosarcoma in males and

of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females. Late neutering was associated with

the subsequent occurrence of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma in females.



In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with earlier studies,

suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The new study, however, was the

first to specifically report an increased risk of late neutering for mast cell

tumors and hemangiosarcoma.



Furthermore, the new study showed a surprising 100 percent increase, or

doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males. Earlier

studies had reported a 17 percent increase among all neutered dogs compared to

all non-neutered dogs, indicating the importance of the new study in making

gender and age-of-neutering comparisons.



Other researchers on this UC Davis study were: Gretel Torres de la Riva, Thomas

Farver and Lynette Hart, School of Veterinary Medicine; Anita Oberbauer,

Department of Animal Science; Locksley Messam, Department of Public Health

Sciences; and Neil Willits, Department of Statistics.



About UC Davis



For more than 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public

service that matter to California and transform the world.

Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has more than 33,000 students, more

than 2,500 faculty and more than 21,000 staff, an annual research budget of

nearly $750 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research

centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than

100 undergraduate majors in four colleges -- Agricultural and Environmental

Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science. It also

houses six professional schools -- Education, Law, Management, Medicine,

Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing.



Media contact(s):

* Benjamin Hart, School of Veterinary Medicine, (530) 752-1555,

blhart@ucdavis.edu

* Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, pjbailey@ucdavis.edu



View this story on the Web at

http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10498



Trina Wood, Communications Officer

UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine

Office: 530-752-5257

tjwood@ucdavis.edu



UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine -- Leading veterinary medicine,

addressing societal needs

www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu

www.Facebook.com/UCDavisVetMed

www.twitter.com/ucdavisvetmed