Does spaying really increase the lifespan of dogs? Interesting study?

Maybe it doesn't increase life span. But it increases my sanity.

There is no question there are positives and negatives on both sides of the coin, but the simple fact of the matter is that I don't really care to live with an intact dog if there is no reason for me to have them intact. An intact b*tch in the house is not enjoyable to deal with when she is in heat, and I'm not putting up with male hormones past two years if I don't have to. Period.

Also, most pet owners are neither educated enough nor responsible enough to keep intact dogs. Simple as that.

This study is certainly not without valuable information, but it is also seriously flawed in a number of ways. The researches may have proven correlation, but they certainly have not proven causality. The study is nowhere near controlled enough to possibly do so. It's very easy to get caught up in research and see correlation as evidence of cause and it's simply is not the case.

For example, if I wanted to, I could very easily do a study that would show correlation with longevity and AKC registration. Using the same methods as were used here, I could show that 4% more AKC registered dogs achieved this kind of longevity than non-AKC registered dogs. (made up numbers) That study essentially proves nothing because it ONLY proves correlation, NOT causation. It does not take into account the KIND of owner that gets and AKC registered dog, nor does it take into account the diet those dogs ate, etc, etc, etc. Correlation is a slippery slope, one must be very careful when on it.

I'm not saying the information is necessarily wrong, but I am saying there are far more variables here than just spay and neuter that matter significantly.

I think in the hands of responsible owners, spaying and neutering doesn't increase lifespan, it's proper care that determines a dog's longevity. However, in the case of less than caring owners, spaying and neutering can GREATLY increase a dog's lifespan. I know of many un-neutered dogs that have been hit and killed wandering looking for a female, I know of too many females that died early giving birth to an unwanted litter or developed pyometra that was not discovered in time or never treated. In fact, a friend of mine has an un-neutered dog that CONSTANTLY gets out, wanders around looking for a mate and it's just a matter of time until that dog has something happen to it. And I have to wonder how many dogs are dumped at shelters because they aren't spayed/neutered and develop behavioral issues as a result that the owner doesn't want to deal with or can't be bothered with to train.

There are great arguments both for and against spay/neuter and both sides have merit and need to be considered. But ultimately, I think whether it's best or not depends solely on the owner of the dog and their level of commitment.

I have had both spayed/neutered and intact animals and neither group was healthier or lived longer than the other. The spayed/neutered group is sure a lot easier to deal with though.

Interesting article for sure.

I have never been a fan of fixing dogs at 6 months...it just made no sense to me. I waited until my guy was 14 months and even then I found that early. In a perfect world either people would wait until the dogs were 2 years old, or every dog owner would be responsible and there would be no need for spay/neuter.

Keeping my dog intact was limiting him in what he could do - annoying dog owners with unspayed females that brought them to the dog park while they were in heat, doggy daycares didn't want intact males there and I honestly wouldn't trust him there with intact females.

Plus an intact Doberman clearly meant a psycho crazy dog - I was sick of the lectures too.

I'm glad I did it because he no longer "man drips" all over my house lol and I'm hoping it will slow down his need to dominate other males.

I don't think spaying/neutering has anything to do with lifespan though. Sure each has their own pros/cons but a dog's lifespan, to me, is determined by genes and care.

-Sigh-

Yea, I've seen that study and NO conclusions about the removal of ovaries can be drawn from it. Their sample population was extremely biased... They looked at a small number of older-than-average rottweilers and found that most of them still had their ovaries.

They completely ignored the "average" population of dogs and instead focused solely on the extreme. They would have passed over dogs who die young, dogs who die at a normal age, dogs who die of complications from not being spayed, etc. Nothing useful about the impact of spaying dogs can be drawn from this study; NONE. They found something in a *tiny* population that may have been statistically coincidental.

We KNOW that spaying increases the lifespan of dogs; there have been so many studies backing this, as well as years of accumulated veterinary and breeder experience. Here, I'll finish with an analogy:

A study looks at a small population of old men living in a group home. They find that most of the oldest men there have fought in a war. They then use that data to conclude that fighting in a war extends the life of men and therefore all young boys should be enlisted in the army. This is not a fair conclusion to make based on the available data, is it? And the same goes for the linked "study".

That is not to say that there may be reason to believe that removing the uterus while leaving the ovaries intact would be beneficial to the dog; but avoiding spaying altogether - which you and many other people are concluding from this article - is MORE DANGEROUS than spaying.

On average, dogs' lifespan are probably going up. This has to do with better diet and vaccinations, but also how we use our dogs. Most dogs used to have a job and were worn down much faster than the dogs today, who mainly live as house pets. I know the average life-span of well-used hunting dogs here is about 7-8 years, the weather (we have a lot of rain, frost and wind) gets to them, send them in the lake to get fowl on a winter's day and not be able to properly wipe them down before you reach the car, and this will, over the years, be very hard on their muscles and joints. If I were to use my herding dog for what she was bred to do, that is herding and guarding the herd every day, year in and year out in all sorts of weather, her lifespan probably wouldn't be much more than 6-7 years, although her breed is fairly long lived for a large dog, the European lines that I have averaging 12-15 years.

It is interesting to note that correlation does not equal causation. The only way to TRULY gain solid facts would be to take a large and completely randomized sample of dogs, alter half of them, and then subject all dogs to the exact same living environment. And then track when they passed on, what cancers they contracted, etc.

Since nobody is going to do that, all we have are studies. After doing a lot of reading, I have made the difficult decision to spay my *****. I think we will both be much happier.

Genetics & environment determine lifespan. I have never thought castration or a hysterectomy made much of a difference. I have had & still have both intact & fixed dogs, never seen much of a difference as far as increasing the odds of longevity.

I never believed that crap, people just say that so you will spay/nueter your dog. Even with it possibly decreasing lifespan I am still going to spay all of my dogs. Better that than have puppies running around and have to find them all homes.

Hi,

Spaying helps your dog live a longer, healthier life. It reduces, or can eliminate, a number of health problems that are difficult and/or expensive to treat. Here's more info:

http://lnk.nu/dogtime.com/ryc.html

That is TRUE TRUE TRUE.

Funny I have been posting the link for several weeks since my Veterinarian friend sent it to me. Finally someone has paid attention.

.

Good for you for reading and learning and posting!!!

Besides the information that is out there that there the long term health risks outweigh the benefits in neutering male dogs.

Here is another link from a Veterinary site that links the same article as you

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/ArticleStanda...

For those that want to see more research on spay and neuter that the animal rights whackos won't ever refer to please read this and learn.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffec...

Here is a tidbit from the study-

An objective reading of the veterinary medical literature reveals a complex situation with respect to the long-term health impacts of spay/neuter in dogs. The evidence shows that spay/neuter correlates with both positive and adverse health effects in dogs. It also suggests how much we really do not yet understand about this subject.

On balance, it appears that no compelling case can be made for neutering most male dogs, especially immature male dogs, in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.

On the negative side, neutering male dogs

if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) by a factor of 3.8; this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis

increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds

triples the risk of hypothyroidism

increases the risk of geriatric cognitive impairment

triples the risk of obesity, and with it many of the associated health problems

quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer

doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers

increases the risk of orthopedic disorders

increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations

On the positive side, neutering male dogs

eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer

reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders

reduces the risk of perianal fistulas

may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive)

It is time to make INFORMED decisions about our pets future health. Not what has been spoon fed by the AR folks.