10-26-2018, 07:57 PM
Most countries don't have such a steadfast hardcore spay/neuter mentality as much as the U.S. Its a puritanical thing. The "they'll be happier" thing is complete bubkis for anyone whom has known a critter before and after -- there's often signs of depression (particularly in spayed females), often lowered metabolism.
That said, way too many overlook the very real problem of overpopulation. Tens of thousands of cats and dogs are euthanized every month in the U.S. because they are unwanted.
There ARE alternatives to "spay/neuter" versus "unaltered." Males can get vasectomies, which means they'll be shooting blanks but won't suffer any hormonal changes and, thus, not likely to incur systemic problems like lethargy or depression as a result. There's a similar option for females, albeit surgically more, called an "Ovary Saving Spay" or commonly called a "partial spay" which removes the uterus but leaves the ovaries, so she can't have puppies, will still have heats but there'll be no blood, she can't get sterile pyometra (which is a real thing and, unfortunately, is more common than I once thought it was). There's still a risk of testicular cancer for males and ovarian for females, but those aren't too common.
There are other "pro-spay/castrate" arguments, but they don't really add up -- the claim that intact dogs will run away but spayed/castrated dogs won't (they certainly will, there is absolutely no substitute for solid containment and actually spending time with your critters you claim to love). Its really just affectations of the Puritanicalism of the U.S. which does, unfortunately, put a cultural bias even in veterinary medicine which is not shared in other cultures. Another example of this is how heavily circumcision has been pushed for human males in the U.S., even in the medical field despite the lack of solid evidence that it offered any real medical benefit (there were a number of hypothetical claims that had no peer-reviewed studies behind them, either).
