> Sean > I wasn't meaning to come off that way, really and you know I can't > write for crap so people understand & you know that.
Hhm, I'm assuming this post is in reply to mine...Mary Jo, not Sean. For what it's worth, I respect your opinion and experience whether I disagree with your conclusions or not...but just as you feel that you should be given the respect of someone with years of education and experience is due, so too I feel that just because someone does not have the same level of experience and does not agree with your position, that does not automatically make them wrong, nor does it mean they are not due some respect as well. You may say it's just "personal opinion" as if it's not even worth listening to but this is an opinion shared by many other professionals and veterinarians, it is not one totally out from left field. Heck, I have several close friends who are vets and we are often discussing controversial topics like this (as well as some others I mentioned) and I guarantee you they would certainly correct me in a heartbeat if I was totally off-base in my understanding of the issues. > Like I said on an adult it will cause behavioral issues and will > be more painful but a neuter would do the same thing so I can't > justify one over the other. It's statements like this that I just don't get, because there is simply no scientific basis for them. I've never seen any study that has any negative behavioral results seen from neutering (quite the opposite) so I'm just not sure where you are coming from with it, as you seem to just have some beef with spay/neuter which is something that is overwhelmingly supported by most vets. We don't even see research these days on whether neutering is good or bad, it's all "how early can we safely neuter animals to maximize the benefits?" Here's a good article I found that studied the effects of neutering cats of varying ages: http://maxshouse.com/effects_of_neutering.htm So if you are going to keep making nutty statements like this about neuters, you need to provide some scientific context for it. > I learned that there is so much inbreeding within pure > breeds (mostly thanks to "back yard breeders") that their rates of > internal defects and especially cancer are sky rocketing and she and a > lot of vets I know recommend to clients to get mix breeds because of > so much less problems. And I am sure that can be debated. Ah genetics...actually something I have a more than passing interest in and studied extensively in college. Hybrid vigour is certainly a known genetic phenomenon and dogs certainly are not exempt. And actually in many cases, backyard breeders are not solely to blame for inbreeding...often even good breeders will overuse a particular stud and reduce the existing gene pool more than is healthy for the breed. But yes, you certainly can debate such a blanket statement as well. Certain types of cancer are known to be genetic in basis and thus we do tend to see much higher incidences in some breeds. Others are related to spaying (such as mammary cancer) and thus are more likely to show up in purebreds simply because they are more often intact. But just as in-breeding can concentrate the effect of a disease, it can also reduce it, so we have other breeds that are relatively cancer-free. Or there are some breeds with known issues are working to make the breed healthier by bringing in new dogs from other countries. Genetic studies of different breeds are also under way so that can even better understand which are genetically predisposed to certain diseases. I find your 99% stat a bit of a stretch as well...dogs get cancer a LOT in general, (other than accidents and euthanasia, it's the most common cause of death) and dogs are even more likely than people to get most types of cancer. Hybrid vigour will only do so much to address that. As I've been trying to point out before, outside of true scientific studies, you have to be careful about drawing conclusions based on solely anecdotal evidence. It could be that your friend sees more purebreds simply because those owners are more willing to pay the rather expensive cost of oncology treatment, or perhaps she lives somewhere that purebreds are far more common in general. Here's a cancer info site from a veterinary oncology department, their article on incidence in dogs actually states that mixed breeds are about average in terms of getting cancer (rather than being on the lower end of the scale): http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/oncology/faq/FAQ.html > you have no idea of the sacrifices I had made in order to help peoples > pets. vets & vet techs make huge sacrifices and have to try and keep > an even keel through things like this all the time, it's not an easy > career Well, I don't know about Sean, but since I even stated I went to vet school for several years I certainly know a great deal about what it takes to become a vet. I often say a prayer of thanks that I got out when I did when I talk to some of the friends I made while I was there and who now have the fun of dealing day in and day out with ungrateful, annoying clients (oh wait, I have those too! lol) But I'm not sure how that is germane to this issue in any way. I've gone out of my way to say that I agree with *some* of what you state, but if you want to whine about how no one is respecting you because we don't agree with everything you write (much of which *is* no more than personal opinion) well, you're not going to get much sympathy from me on that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249130 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
