This website healthyandhappydog.wordpress.com/ explains in great detail the dangers of neutering and spaying and rebuts the myths that these procedures reduce cancer risk and decrease aggression. In fact, studies have shown the opposite is true.

The solution to keeping your husky's sex hormones intact, while making sure your husky is unable to reproduce, are procedures that have been available to humans for a long time, vasectomy and tubal ligation.

Here is Dr. Becker and Dr. Valente Talk About Spaying and Neutering interview with the site creator, Dr. Suzanne Valente and Dr. Becker from Mercola Healthy Pets.

I hope this turns into an educational experience - but after looking at the website and the video, I'm personally afraid that it's going to turn into a "*my* way is the only right way" type of discussion.

While the procedures being advocated *might* assist in the problems we encounter with the very early neutering that is common in the shelter community, I'm not sure - from an hours worth of reading - that as alternatives these are significantly better.

Veterinarians have a tool in their bag that has worked for centuries, while I would surmise that most are aware of alternatives, they aren't practiced nor seemingly available in many practices.  While I understand the argument of "accepting the norm" (spay/neuter) most medical folks I know are actively looking for safer, less invasive methods of providing their services.  I find it difficult to accept that those educated folks would be ignoring a "better alternative" out of hand - there must be significant reason that they are the "go to" methods of choice.

I sympathize with the good doctor and her dog Billy but I really cannot see from what they presented that the neuter was responsible for all his health issues.

In my mind - in *my* opinion! - the primary reason for neutering, however that is achieved, is two fold.  
First, of course, the number of dogs having puppies - there are too many in shelters, there are too many euthanized every day. However we humanely achieve the goal of reducing those numbers is to all our benefit.
Secondly, while it may sound contradictory, is breed purity.  I want my Husky (or lab or whatever) to look and act like a Husky.  Too many back yard breeders enter the arena with less than optimal dogs and then breed for quantity not quality.

There have been studies that EARLY spay/neuter is more harmful than good. Leaving dogs intact until they reach sexual maturity, typically age 2 or older for giant breeds is better for growth and physical maturity.

The problem is that most owners are not capable of keeping intact animals from reproducing.

Alternative methods such as ovary sparing spay and vasectomies for dogs are becoming more popular as it leaves the dogs hormones in tact but removes the reproduction factor. But the cost of these procedures typically are much more and harder to locate vets who will perform these surgeries.

So while it MAY be better to leave dogs intact, sadly, in the country we live in it's the better option to spay/neuter animals. We already have a huge pet overpopulation epidemic on our hands because of irresponsible owners who allow their intact dogs to roam and reproduce at will.

I've had a lot of huskies in my life, counting the two I grew up with, and my current two, Kohdi and Mishka, it's a total of 7 (6 Huskies and 1 Malamute) all were spayed/neutered "early" cuz that was the thing to do as part of being a responsible pet owner. I'll start with my two that I grew up with, Nikita was a male husky and Pasha was a male Malamute, both neutered at around 6 months of age...Nikita lived to be 17 years old with ZERO health issues, Pasha lived to be 16 years old, and his only health issue was a disc in his spine that would slip out of place or whatever, that caused him discomfort for a few days and only happened at the most, 3 times in his very long life. Next I had Blitz and Anuschka, two Siberian husky littermates (brother and sister) who were spayed/neutered VERY early, at 4 or 5 months old, my vet recommended it cuz they were both living in the same household and me, being very young, just trusted my vets advice. Both dogs developed idiopathic epilepsy, Blitz at only 11 months old while Anuschka at around 2-3 years old, Blitz lived a very short life of 4 1/2 years old on meds since he was 11 months old...now I *could* blame their seizures, especially since idiopathic, by definition, means there is no known cause, on being spayed/neutered early, except for one thing...I had gotten my next Husky, a male, Malukhai, who shared a genetic history with Blitz and Anuschka (they all had the same father). Malukhai did also develop seizures, but wasn't neutered as early as Blitz and Anuschka (I believe he was neutered at around 9-10 months old, not sure but he was almost a year old). Now I suppose it could still be argued that "early" neuter was the cause of seizuring but really, I don't think it could be blamed on anything but their genetics. All 3 dogs had ZERO health issues but the seizures so it was pretty devasting to lose,not only the dogs I loved so much, but they were SO HEALTHY! And so VERY well behaved. Next up is Kohdi and Mishka, Kohdi was neutered at 9 months old, Mishka was spayed at 7 months old. Kohdi will be 4 years old in a couple of weeks and to date, the only time he's been to the vet for anything other than check ups, was for a ear infection that he more than likely got after I went running with him in the rain (it was very light rain so I wasn't being cruel, haha) and didn't dry off his ears probably as well as I should have, while Mishka, phew! She's been to the vet more times in the past 5 months than ALL of my dogs put together! (UTI and associated conditions) can I blame her UTI's on being neutered too early? Certainly! But I won't. Not when I know of too many other things that were more likely contributing to them.

I'm not saying there's no validity to the things on that site, or even to arguments for or against getting dogs spayed/neutered, but nothing on that site proved even the slightest bit, to me anyways, that her dogs health issues were because of being neutered too early.

Would I, knowing what I know *today* , get my "next" husky neutered or spayed *early*? I honestly can't answer that. I guess, for me anyways, I don't really trust *studies* all that much. In my life, I had 2 dogs that lived exceptionally long lives, being neutered "early" and not eating all these great grain free, limited ingredient, foods that are out now, then had 3 dogs that lived much shorter lives (Anushka, the female, did live to be 10 before she passed away from a seizure...and I'm convinced that she'd still be alive today, if not for Malukhai passing away 2 weeks before her) eating better food...but most of all,  they all were HEALTHY, normal huskies. I can't blame their epilepsy on a spay/neuter when I know that genetics were more than likely 100% responsible, nor can I blame Mishka's current UTI issues on a spay when I know that there are other issues at play that more than likely contributed to them.

aljones wrote:

 I find it difficult to accept that those educated folks would be ignoring a "better alternative" out of hand - there must be significant reason that they are the "go to" methods of choice.

I would say that as husky owners, we should always do our own research and not blindly accept what vets say is in the best interest of our pets. Sometimes vets practice based on what they were taught in vet school and probably don't have the time to always keep up on the latest research (although I don't think this is a valid excuse). When I go to a medical doctor I would expect the doctor to always keep up on the latest research and studies (within reason) and I would expect no less from a vet. Since neutering/spaying is one of the most common medical procedures vets perform, it is the duty of veterinarians to make sure they are doing right by pets and their owners by informing them of the risks of neutering/spaying as well as alternative procedures. Believe or not, there are vets who know how to perform vasectomies and tubal ligations. They are obviously a minority, but they are out there. All vets need to do is go to a seminar or just study up on the procedures. They are actually less complex and safer than the traditional neutering and spaying procedures.

aljones wrote:

First, of course, the number of dogs having puppies - there are too many in shelters, there are too many euthanized every day. However, we humanely achieve the goal of reducing those numbers is to all our benefit.

There is no arguing against that. The solution is very simple. Vets and especially shelter vets should be trained in vasectomies or tubal ligation techniques so animals may preserve their sex hormones. I think it is completely abhorrent how many shelter vets neuter and spay dogs so young (some less than 8 weeks). This will increase the probability of behavior problems, not to mention health issues, that will lead some of these dogs back to the shelters where they started propagating the vicious cycle.

aljones wrote:

Secondly, while it may sound contradictory, is breed purity.  I want my Husky (or lab or whatever) to look and act like a Husky.  Too many backyard breeders enter the arena with less than optimal dogs and then breed for quantity not quality.

One solution to this is regulating the whole dog breeding industry, and making it more difficult to own a dog in the sense that not any schmoe can purchase or adopt a dog. Maybe a licensing system that makes the owner pass some tests similar to a driver's license. It's too easy in this country to have a dog and so many people get dogs, not knowing what they are getting and so many shady breeders.

MartianHusky wrote:

One solution to this is regulating the whole dog breeding industry, and making it more difficult to own a dog in the sense that not any schmoe can purchase or adopt a dog. Maybe a licensing system that makes the owner pass some tests similar to a driver's license. It's too easy in this country to have a dog and so many people get dogs, not knowing what they are getting and so many shady breeders.

Ok, I haven't gotten through all the additional paperwork yet but right now I am going to address this. There is not jail space, court time, or money to pay for an extreme ownership litigation endeavor like this. One of the causes why people go to byb is because extreme vetting by some rescues disqualify perfectly good owners because they don't meet arbitrary requirements set by people looking for unicorn homes. There have been some crack down on puppy mills, regulating the number of dogs they can have and such, but there isn't funding to constantly check these operations nor time to prosecute. Many cities have dog registration ordinances already. All it does is make people break the law because there are too many hoops and then if an unregistered dog gets loose the people don't claim it because they are afraid of getting in trouble.

Going to extremes aside, all of that isn't going to fix the issue of people breeding poor quality dogs. The akc needs to step in and revoke paperwork for out of standard dogs. They need to revoke paperwork for Miller's.

Now on the actual topic i need to do more reading but what comes to mind right now is how many human women have hysterectomies every day because their reproductive organs cause them to have life threatening issues. It mentions what we do differently but doesn't seem to take into account how prevalent it is. My own mother had to have a hysterectomy due to ovarian cysts. The ovarian cancer rate is through the roof. That's not counting how many human women live their lives on medication because of debilitating pain that occurs during that time of month. If they are going to compare humans to dogs, even casually, they need to look at the long term effects of what humans go through. They also need to look at male vs female.

I have had both male and female, fixed and unfixed of both genders. All were perfectly healthy for the entirety of their lives. There was a difference in the quality of life for my unfixed female since, similar to human females, heat was hard on her. For three weeks twice a year she was badgered by males and had to be confined from the world she loved. Female dogs also can experience cramps like human women. False pregnancies are no joke either.

While tying tubes and basic vasectomy is an option it is really difficult for a shelter receiving a dog they know nothing about to tell if a male especially has been altered which could up the rate that dogs are put unnecessarily under the knife or dogs that aren't fixed are missed and allowed to continue adding to the issue.

TwisterII wrote:

While tying tubes and basic vasectomy is an option it is really difficult for a shelter receiving a dog they know nothing about to tell if a male especially has been altered which could up the rate that dogs are put unnecessarily under the knife or dogs that aren't fixed are missed and allowed to continue adding to the issue.

I see several ways to resolve this issues. One could be a tiny tattoo on the dog to mark that he has had a vasectomy. The second option could be a code on chipped dogs to let the shelter know this procedure has been done.

To answer your statements about policy options to resolve overpopulation:

I completely agree with you that husky rescues have ridiculous criteria for adoption purposes. One of the most ludicrous is not allowing adoptions to owners who live in apartments. I would argue that city people are generally healthier, walk more, and do more outdoor activities with their pets than people in rural areas where it is more likely the dog is just kept in a backyard. Dogs need to be walked and city life is an infinitely more interesting life for a husky than being left in a backyard all the time. Dog's need to be walked, period.

That said, I do think one solution to the overbreeding problem is requiring all breeders to be licensed. The AKC does not regulate enough, so maybe there needs to be more governmental regulation specifically with regards to breeders. Secondly, all puppies must be chipped. This will cut down on dogs who get separated from their owners not being able to be reunited with their owners. Thirdly, all dogs who are not being bred should have vasectomies or their tubes tied. Fourthly, all dog owners must have a license similar to a driver's license where they would have to pass a basic test on dog care and training. The fees from this license would help pay for government regulators to crack down on puppy mills, Back Yard Breeders, and help fund shelters and alternative procedures to spay and neuter. Of course, this kind of system would not be perfect, but it would be better than whatever kind of scattered disjointed contradictory dog population control policy we have now and help tremendously IMO cut down on the overpopulation of pets.

Two thoughts... blatant generalization re rural pet owners.  Our dogs have wonderful environments for dogs to walk with critters, dirt, placess to dig, pounce, hillocks to bury their noses .  We don't have to keep dogs at heel out here and we DO walk our dogs.

Second... the amount of regulation you are suggesting is counter to the prevailing political environment at the moment.

In small doses, regulations could be introduced but doing mass regulations would only lead to pet genocide. Getting from what we have now to a full on crack down like dogs are assault weapons would lead to huge amounts of unwanted or lost pets being put down in the first several years of such an implementation as we attempt to cut down on the population enough that the people who are willing to go through that much work to own a dog has what they want.

I like the tattoo idea for fixed pets. I've seen it done. It's similar to ear tipping that we do for feral cats already. As for microchips. They just don't get updated for a lot of pets. My latest addition has a microchip. It wasn't updated and wasn't even completely filled out because vets aren't going to take/have the time to do it or the owners it falls on forget. People are lazy in all industries.

There is no doubt that changes need to be made to how pets and the protection, breeding, and rehoming of them is done. No one set of anything is going to work for the whole country. Licensing is something that is already done in most cities with mixed success.

Blanket statements against rural dog owners will start a fight. There are several of us on here who live in the middle of nowhere and have extremely healthy dogs. Far more healthy than a lot of city dogs who get minimal walks due to people not wanting to fight traffic and crowds or poor sidewalk availability. I suggest we steer clear of this debate.

We have wandered a bit from the actual topic though which is spay/neuter vs. tube tying/vasectomy. The latter is something that is taught in vet school. As with humans though these procedures can fail. A tube can come untied. A vasectomy can be undone. There's no going back on a full spay or neuter. The problem is gone and it's gone forever. Encouraging people to educate themselves is always a good thing. Saying that doing any kind of alteration to our dogs is wrong and bad for them is flagrant though and at times the article kinda leaned toward this mindset with their tone. The article seems to be written by an idealist and could really use a realists touch. In some fashions letting dogs have certain hormones for an extended period could be good for certain dogs. But I didn't see where breed or use was taken into consideration during the tests. I picked through the paperwork but if anyone got through more than me and saw where they did, please chime in. They cited a lot of papers that I could only half read due to websites wanting logins and junk. I think making a lot of reference to how it is for humans though is a bit of a crutch. Dogs aren't humans. They have different needs. Their body chemistry, while similar, is still very different. I also didn't see where they said that they had gone through and ensured that they started with genetically proven healthy dogs in their studies. Just getting dogs from the pound or breeders that check out at a general vet exam as healthy doesn't have value in my mind.

I believe that the original premise that dogs should have vasectomies/tube tying rather than ... is a valid educational discussion point.  Staying strictly on that topic will help keep this thread from wandering all over hell and back.

There have been some comments made about registering dogs/breeders and I think that, by itself, is also worthy of a topic if the OP wants to bring that to the fore ... this thread is not the place for it, however.

There was at least one opinion expressed - rural -vs- urban dogs - and as Jenn suggests, that should be left well alone.  You (OP) have already stepped on toes with that and I don't think it need go further.

---

changing hats, so to speak ....

When one considers the effect of a national database of licensed drivers* and how poorly that has been maintained this person thinks that any attempt to nationalize dog registration would result in a fiasco of grand proportions.  I'm, also, thinking that such an attempt would be challenged based on the 10^th Amendment and I think the challenge would succeed.  Such powers are best reserved for the state.
(*Uh, there is a national database of drivers licensed in the various states; I wasn't suggesting that there is a national drivers license [though as a past truck driver, I'm not sure that that wouldn't be appreciated by many])

Excuse my own wandering ... please.

In a perfect world we'd leave animals intact in every way...but this isn't a perfect world, and there is a need for population control in animals.
First thing first, tubal ligation and vasectomies are not full proof, nor are they perfectly safe. Spaying is 100% effective, Tubal Ligation is only 99.5%. That's pretty effective, by that small percentage difference could make a difference. 70 million cats, 70 million dogs (low estimates). Even if we assume only half are female and only half get spayed, you could have hundreds of thousands of extra unwanted animals if we did tubal ligation instead.
140million animals, reduce by half for sex, reduce for half by treatment number, reduce by half for responsible owners that don't allow the animal to breed despite desire, reduce by 99.5% for effectiveness and then multiply for litters....cut it in half two more times and you still have hundreds of thousands of extra animals.
Vasectomies are even less effective and would leave the animal able to reproduce for several weeks or even months. Again, your be in a situation with a lot of extra unwanted animals. Say goodbye to the idea of no-kill shelters. This country literally couldn't deal with hundreds of thousands of extra animals in need of homes.

Sure, again, in a perfect world...with responsible pet owners...but come on, lets be realistic. Responsible pet owners are the minority when it comes to pet owners. I live in a relatively rural small town in a very rural part of the country. I'd estimate that at least half the households in my town half at least 1 dog. I see owned dogs wandering loose quite often. I see dogs getting picked up from the pound frequently. I walk my dogs past dogs kept in relatively small enclosures outside and rarely ever see the dogs outside of these enclosures (keep in mind that these owners have large fenced in yards, large homes, large garages...and the dog gets a cement slab about 5ft by 10ft with a dog house and they are almost always devoid of toys/chews/etc). The majority of the dogs I see suffer from weight issues. Few of them are trained in any way when it comes to people and other animals. Many are very aggressive. We don't have a dog park, but we have dozens of walking paths and parks, yet I rarely see another person with an animal at any of them. I frequently see animals that appear to have at least minor untreated health issues. Few bother to even think about the food they give their animals, heck, our shelter buys the cheapest stuff with the most fillers. All of these owners would swear up and down that they LOVE their pets, but few of them honestly have much contact with their pets. For every 1 responsible pet owner, I can find you 2 or 3 that keep their pets in a situation only slightly better than a kill shelter.
You think you could somehow make these people responsible for their animal's reproductive desires? Leaving stuff intact even if the animal is not able to reproduce will likely create more aggression issues, more territorial issues, more strays and run-aways in addition to all the additional unwanted pets that would be created due to the increased statistical likelihood of conception.

I spay and neuter my animals not because it's what I would want to do, but because I end up returning several pets a year to their owners. They wander the town, they jump our fence, dig into our yard, come in through an open gate, hide under the deck, take shelter under the shed. We feed them, give them water, contact their owners and return them. How many would go back pregnant, or would have gotten our pets pregnant. How many other yards have these animals visited? How many more would we get if they were sexually active, or in heat?

In a perfect world, leaving animals intact, or more intact would be ideal. But reality would show that it's just not a feasible idea.

I've seen shelters and rescues that have extreme vetting for certain breeds and dogs. But I think you are only seeing this from one perspective...yours, a responsible dog owner.
As I stated before, most pet owners are NOT responsible pet owners. I believe the animals for the most part are likely better off in these homes than in a shelter, they are still not ideal living conditions for the animals.
The reason there is extreme vetting is because some breeds have extremely high returns and abandonment issues. Huskies are one of those breeds.

Huskies need a lot of exercise. Most people don't exercise. Most dog owners in town don't walk their dogs. That creates a situation with a high energy breed takes out his energy on his small living space by destroying the home. The owners who got a dog because he looked cool without researching the breed have no desire to fix the issue and just abandon the dog, or take them back to a shelter.
Your perspective is that they are unreasonable. Their perspective is that they've seen the same Husky two or three times, and nearly half the time (totally made up statistic) a husky goes to a small apartment without a yard, the dog is abandoned or returned.

Some places won't do apartments because it seems like the household may not be stable. Some places won't give certain breeds to people under a certain age due to them being irresponsible. Some places won't give certain breeds to people that don't have experience with that breed (so how do you get it in the first place). These rules may seem silly from your perspective, but they've seen first hand how these issues cause repeat business for them...and a shelter is not a place that desires repeat business.

Again, in general, people are not responsible, and that negatively affects those of us that are.

amymeme wrote:

Two thoughts... blatant generalization re rural pet owners.  Our dogs have wonderful environments for dogs to walk with critters, dirt, placess to dig, pounce, hillocks to bury their noses .  We don't have to keep dogs at heel out here and we DO walk our dogs

My intention was not to say that rural areas are not good for dogs nor was it to pit city against rural. If this offended anyone, my apologies. It was more of a reaction against many rescue organizations and some breeders I contacted who immediately would have a knee-jerk reaction when I mentioned I lived in an apartment. It seemed like some breeders did not understand that San Francisco is the most dog-friendly city in the United States. You can take dogs everywhere in this city. Public transit, coffee shops, some bars. I take my husky with me when I go errands or get some work done at a coffee shop. He loves it. I also think that urbanites are also forced to walk their dogs. There is no way around it.

Lastly, I did grow up in a rural area. Yes, many people walked their dogs, but many did not and kept their dogs in their fenced backyards. Their only trip outside the property would be to the vet.

Again my point in bringing this up was an answer to rural breeders and other folks who blanket generalize dog owners who live in a city. I hope this better explains why I brought this side issue up.

TwisterII wrote:

TThey cited a lot of papers that I could only half read due to websites wanting logins and junk. I think making a lot of reference to how it is for humans though is a bit of a crutch. Dogs aren't humans. They have different needs. Their body chemistry, while similar, is still very different. I also didn't see where they said that they had gone through and ensured that they started with genetically proven healthy dogs in their studies. Just getting dogs from the pound or breeders that check out at a general vet exam as healthy doesn't have value in my mind.

The papers can be downloaded if you paste the URL or DOI into SCI-HUB http://sci-hub.cc/. This wonderful website allows citizen scientists to access the full journal articles/studies that researchers have access to.

I would say that you are correct that dogs and humans are not the same species, but I would also say that there are many similarities. That is why there is a whole field of comparative medicine, which seeks to exchange data and studies between dogs and humans. It goes both ways. Many of the advances in veterinary medicine have come directly from humans. Also, many therapeutic drugs have been tested on dogs first, then have been used on humans in clinical studies.