Spay/ Neuter Ethics and Zoophilia

[Eagle]

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).

[battlecrops]

Good grief, why did I bother typing that up if you don't even glance at the "''evidence''' that you put in sarcasm quotes, that are literal scientific university-backed studies?  Looks like you're just wanting to start an argument and ignore most other's posts here.  Anyway, I didn't hear about any of this from zoos, I heard it from show and working dog owners.  Who are very anti-zoo, actually.  Here's another, cited article, about likelihood of behavior issues after neutering.




I don't care if you spay or neuter your animals, you do what works for you.  I don't care what the zoo community thinks of altering animals, as I'm not very involved in the community anymore.  I literally don't have sex with dogs, so I have no personal bias or reason to want my dogs intact.  All I'm trying to point out is, the absolutist statement of "spaying and neutering improves a dog's health" is not necessarily true.  I'm hoping the scientific community will continue to do more extensive studies on dogs and even other species so we can get some more conclusive answers, and thus be more educated pet owners that can provide the best for our animals' heath.

[30-30]

That "I was stupid and selfish, but then I became a fencehopper..." bit...is that satire? Or is it just another typical "WarCanine" bonmot to incite arguments , only to project his internal bullshit onto the outward world?  Anyway, I don´t think it matters at all with this special kind of "zoo" (Well, WarCanine, in one of your other many incarnations in here, you even told us yourself you´re not a zoo, so would you please make up your mind for once? Are you or are you not? ). What WarCanine seems incapable of grasping is that his entire mindset, the "I try to make you guys look bad on purpose by arguing with outsiders in the worst possible ways", the "germaphobe" soundbit although he happily licks a dog´s butthole (so, germs are germs, innit? Doesn´t matter if they are from another human´s hand or a dog´s butthole, right?) ...all of that simply because he seems to be what I´d call a "reverse zoo"...someone who doesn´t exactly "love" animals, but found them as his "refuge" only because of his massive misanthropy...literally "the next best thing". Love? No, animals are just what he hates the least. Weirdo magnet zoophilia, in a nutshell...don´t bother arguing with him, folks, it´s just not worth your time and effort. He doesn´t need a zoo community, he needs a professional shrink that can treat his over the top misanthropy and his sense of self entitlement, curb down those two to a tolerable level. Based on what I´ve read from him within the last years, such a shrink yet has to be born...right, WarCanine? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> 

[WinterGreenWolf]

On 10/23/2018 at 3:40 AM, covfefelake said:




While I'm open to both sides of this, it's pretty clear that your particular group has a...  ahem...  bias to one side for a particular reason.

You're not -entirely- wrong, as I said in my post above my reasons were twofold, though more based recently on the scientific research done, and in the past having experienced neutered / spayed vs unaltered. I much preferred the temperament, personality, communication and overall better health of an unmodified canine: this isn't even counting anything sexual.

16 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




You wanted an honest answer and got one, and you're insulted by it. As I said in my answer, I spayed the few others I had over the years to prevent unwanted breedings in their future homes. These were dogs I fostered and that was the ethical step to take given they were all rescues due to unwanted breedings themselves. 

I do appreciate the rare glimpses of honesty some people are willing to put forth as zoos, there's reasons to hide but I still feel honesty is the best policy: why I didn't bullshit in my post above. It is unfortunate, but for things like fosters and rescues: it's sort of necessary, especially considering a lot of them are unwanted already. Not to mention the cultural bias, stigma, and outright neglect on most pet owners' parts when it comes to animal sexuality. Sometimes risk v reward is more important: there -are- health issues with full spay / neuter, but it could end up even worse if a female starts grinding her hips on a stranger, 'putting out' for a male, or a male starts trying to hump you or anything around: they could end up unwanted and rescued -again- for the reasons I've mentioned above.

17 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




I loved Tippy and Shadow extremely, heart and soul. Had there been ANY health reason or benefit known to me to prompt spaying either of them they would have been spayed. There was not, so, selfishly, they remained whole and we remained enjoying sex. Admit? Like it's a crime? No. I simply state it, as it is what it is. As far as "Breaks the pattern of the rest of your posts..." I think you'll find ALL my posts honest and forthright like the above.

I felt the exact same way about Buck (my male German Shepherd lover) and I still miss him to this day, at times it can be a little painful to think about. He passed thirteen years ago or so, but that doesn't change the feelings I had for him, and what I can only assume he felt for me by his actions. I also don't 'admit' to anything regarding myself being a zoo or my acts of bestiality: I'm not ashamed, guilty, horrified, questioning my morality.. So why would it feel like confessing a crime? It may be criminal by the law, but in my case, and opinion our actions together spoke -much- louder than any words could have.

11 hours ago, Eagle said:




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.

Couldn't agree more Eagle. I quoted this because it stood out to me the most. The obvious ignorance of most 'pet owners' in the U.S. is just staggering. Hell most people don't even know what a canine mating looks like and will totally flip their shit if they see a sterile pair tied together. I want to clarify that I'm not calling out -all- pet owners, I'm not calling them all idiots or stupid: there are very good pet owners who simply don't know: and possibly don't care. What I am making reference to though, is that there's a -lot- more to owning, raising, caring for and loving an animal then most people are aware of and sometimes the creature involved can suffer for it: especially if it's a 'cool factor' pet like an exotic, or a large dog breed that's not trained (ex: 'Pit Bulls').




Also, I knew  Pyometra was a thing, but I had no idea Sterile Pyometra existed! Learn something new every day. That's a good thing to know / watch for then with a female.




I can also agree that while there -are- cancer risks, they are relatively small compared to the mass of problems that can arise by just 'ripping em' out' completely. I always tell people who want to argue spay / neuter with me (this is in a non-zoo conversation mind you): 'If the risk is that high, then sign me up too jack! Get them fucking things out of there before they eat my insides alive!', which usually results in a shit storm of rage along the lines of 'Oh, you're no vet! You don't know, dogs are different! Poor babies, you shouldn't ever own...' sort of shit, to which I reply 'Hey, we're all mammals. There's differences, but by and large the mechanics and mechanisms are largely the same.'.

[hey Beter]

16 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




It's a shame really, you have a chance to actually debate the one topic you claimed to be closest to your heart in this thread yet would rather melt down than even produce one study supporting your claim of longer lifespan or provide any debatable evidence at all. 

https://iheartdogs.com/why-spaying-and-n...ier-lives/




I always think it's extremely funny whenever another zoo asks for a study or evidence, yet there's no actual valid evidence proving bestiality is a right thing to do and they still participate in it.

16 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




Rescues fostered and re-homed have that new home obviously heavily vetted before the dog is sent there.

Yeah well if you had proper reading comprehension you'd have realized that I was talking about that and how it was unnecessary when it comes to preventing puppies. Read what I said next time.

17 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




Tippy was indeed a 2 and sometimes 3 times a day girl, and I kept up being in my late 20s-  30s. Sorry if you couldn't and are jealous.

I'm not sure why I should be jealous if I have infinite access to animals. It's just that this seems pretty much impossible because it seems like a very unnatural libido for the both of you. Sounds like complete nonsense or rape going on. Seriously, what kind of drugs were you both taking back then?

5 hours ago, 30-30 said:




That "I was stupid and selfish, but then I became a fencehopper..." bit...is that satire?

Are you implying fencehopping is selfish? If so, at least explain why. It's not any different from having sex with your own animals at all.




You've never even given valid arguments against fencehopping, so like I said it's just another opinion based on your feelings.

5 hours ago, 30-30 said:




Well, WarCanine, in one of your other many incarnations in here, you even told us yourself you´re not a zoo, so would you please make up your mind for once? Are you or are you not?

You're the gatekeeper of that word here, so why don't you decide?




But in all seriousness, I don't know if I am or not. How the fuck am I supposed to know? Even with the actual definition of the word, I have trouble deciding. Either my attraction is going on and off all the time (which no one else has...?), I have a very specific attraction, or I just don't know. I'd pull up a list of things about how I feel, but that's not what the thread is about.

5 hours ago, 30-30 said:




the "germaphobe" soundbit although he happily licks a dog´s butthole

I don't, though.

5 hours ago, 30-30 said:




(so, germs are germs, innit? Doesn´t matter if they are from another human´s hand or a dog´s butthole, right?)

Yes, I have a germaphobia of humans and seem to have an anti-germaphobia for animals, but I don't see why you're acting like this because germaphobia is already an extremely irrational thing to begin with.

5 hours ago, 30-30 said:




he seems to be what I´d call a "reverse zoo"...someone who doesn´t exactly "love" animals, but found them as his "refuge" only because of his massive misanthropy...literally "the next best thing". Love? No, animals are just what he hates the least. Weirdo magnet zoophilia, in a nutshell.

Yep, there's the gatekeeping. I thought about this way earlier though because you said this longer ago and I tried to give this argument of yours a chance, but I had ''weird'' feelings about animals when I was 10-12 and only considered myself a zoo when I was 13. I became misanthropic after my ''attraction'' or whatever it is for me, so I don't think it's entirely true.




 

[heavyhorse]

58 minutes ago, hey Beter said:




https://iheartdogs.com/why-spaying-and-n...ier-lives/

Did you even bother to read the study?  Or just look for a search hit to support your argument?




Because if you read it, you saw that s/n dogs usually had higher cancer rates.  The shorter lives found in the study for intact dogs were from injuries and infections from dogfights from dogs running at large.  And only total morons with no regard to their dogs, other people's dogs or livestock, let their dogs run at large.




So position completely NOT supported.   Learn how to do research before your next one-post-wonder account.  

[silverwolf1]

For folks interested, the full study WC referenced above which I have now read: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl...ne.0061082




I'd note there was no control group for this study, just an abstract of previously deceased dogs either altered or intact. I am interested in the higher cancer rates in altered dogs versus intact. I'd also note a high number of dogs in the intact group died not from health reasons but from enviromental (Trauma) reasons, thus making the study quite flawed in it's stated conclusion. It's actually likely those dogs where otherwise healthy at time of death.




On 30-30s reply to WC: this is EXACTLY what is not allowed. Engaging in personalities rather than the topic will get you warned. 

[silverwolf1]

HH: Beat me to it, lol.




sw

[littlejohn]

Currently, the available research shows early S/N to be detrimental to the animal's development and longevity.   Some individual breeds have studies which showlater spay neuter is detrimental to dogs and may or may not be harmful to bitches.  I leave it to the reader to hunt up the studies, the best probably being on Golden Retreivers.  There's also a large amout of time being spent on Berners and several other breeds.




 




Around here, cats are spayed/neutered because as someone said whole cats make lousy house pets.  Only one of my dogshas been neutered by me, for medical reasons.  The two bitches are spays, the rescue they're from spayed them... fortunately both as adults.




 

[littlejohn]

I'll point out also, much of the S/N calls come either overtly or covertly from animal rights organizations.  Remember, whether the individuals do or not, the organizations are dedicated to the end of animals as pets entirely.