SB 250 is dead, yay [whew!]

According to a nice phone person in Assemblymember Monning's office as of 7:35 or so.

I sure hope this is the final stake through the heart of [state-wide] mandatory spay/neuter. From my lips to doG's ear...

UPDATE: Then again... see Save Our Dogs for the latest.

UPDATE II: It's 10:15 PM, and darned if this crappy bit of legislation isn't being voted on again. Sheesh.

Aaaaaaand UPDATE III: SB 250 not only merely dead, it's really most sincerely dead.

Huge props to Laura S of Save Our Dogs for all she's done and continues to do for dogs and the Californians who care about them.

And so to bed.

ASPCA Position Statement on BSL

I heart this photo. Zippy Hernandez and family (clockwise from left): Vanessa, Berenice, Jesse, Francisco and Eliana. Awesome photo by Deanne Fitzmaurice for Sports Illustrated.

The ASPCA is totally against it. As a wise commenter on the Bad Rap blog mused this morning, "[W]on't it be interesting when pibble-killing legislators have only PETA on their side?" For those new to this whole issue, ASPCA is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and BSL stands for "ignorant chuckleheads who missed the news that phrenology is so terribly 1800s." PETA stands for "Ingrid Newkirk thinks I'm a thug and wants my dogs dead."

From the ASPCA position statement:

[T]he ASPCA advocates the implementation of a community dog bite prevention program encompassing media and educational outreach in conjunction with the enactment, and vigorous enforcement, of breed-neutral laws that focus on the irresponsible and dangerous behavior of individual guardians and their dogs. The ASPCA believes that this approach—promoting education in the appropriate care, training, and supervision of dogs as well as state and local laws that address licensing, reproductive status, chaining/improper confinement, cruel treatment, and at-large dogs; imposing civil and criminal liability on guardians for their negligent and reckless behavior; and targeting problematic dogs and guardians early with progressively escalating penalties—constitutes the most compassionate, fair, efficient, and ultimately effective means of resolving concerns related to dangerous dogs in the community.

Read the whole thing. It's excellent. And if you ever get a chance to hear Bill Bruce talk about Calgary Animal Services, don't miss him. Quite an education, in the best sense of the word: no BSL, no mandatory spay/neuter, no limit laws regulating the number of pets a person can keep — just the best animal control program in North America.

*************

Heartwarming story o' the day, from the fine folks at Our Pack: Life's Peachy for Peachy. Our Pack totally rocks.

*************

A final thought that should probably have its own post [damn you, vacation DIY projects]: as someone with a fair amount of experience with intact male dogs, I disagree with the ASPCA's implication that reproductive status is by itself a contributing factor to dog bites and "dominance aggression."

In North America, intact male dogs frequently belong to a class of people that might be categorized as "irresponsible pet owners": they tether their dogs, for example. They live in poor neighborhoods and keep dogs for protection. Their dogs are unsocialized and untrained. All these factors are far more likely to contribute to a bite or attack, IMHO, than is a dog's reproductive status. When a chained-up, untrained dog is driven nearly mad by social isolation and deprivation, and that poor, neglected dog bites someone, the fact that the dog was an intact male is one of the least important contributing factors, if you ask me.

Late night links

Too good not to share.

Dr. Lucy H. Spelman is a veterinarian and all 'round amazing and remarkable person, currently working with giant otters in Guyana. That's one of her charges on the left. Dr. Spelman's blog: Saving Otters.

*************

Storms are lining up and rain's on the way! Also: pretty maps! See Ken Clark's Western U.S. Weather Blog for all the deets. H/T: the awesome, essential Aquafornia.

*************

Wildfire in Yellowstone: NASA astronauts are there.

*************

What does it take to save a species? Sometimes, high-voltage power wires. From Green Lines, by Beth Daley of the Boston Globe:

Transmission corridors have long been considered symbols of environmental degradation, with their enormous steel skeletons and high-voltage lines slicing through forests, wetlands, and salt marshes; they divide the landscapes that thousands of species need to survive. Yet now they are gaining a new reputation: As critical homes for faltering species of birds, bees, butterflies, plants, and a host of other species.
[...]
“It’s hard to explain to conservation groups that [species] are being saved in the most unpopular and disturbed kinds of landscapes,” said Robert Askins, a biology professor at Connecticut College who has studied birds in transmission corridors. “I was shocked originally to be working in them myself.”

H/T: 3 Quarks Daily.

*************

"How is Jo, a former fighting pit bull, different from other dogs?" A Rotta Love Plus spells it out. Good read.

*************

"[R]esearch out of Purdue University is suggesting that female dogs and, interestingly, female humans, live longer if they keep their ovaries," posts Christie at Pet Connection. A good discussion follows, with terrific comments from the most excellent Heather Houlahan. I mean, comments #34 and #35? Perfect.

In somewhat related news: Nature's Harmony Farm no longer castrates their pigs.

The controversy surrounding castration [of piglets] is one of humane treatment. In North American swine production, castration is essentially universal, although in the UK and Ireland, for welfare reasons pigs are not castrated. Additionally, legislation passed in Norway and Switzerland that banned castration of pigs starting in 2009. The majority of male pigs in Spain and Portugal are not castrated. McDonald’s & Burger King in the Netherlands both announced that they will no longer sell products containing pork from castrated pigs. According to The Pig Site, "There is substantial evidence that castration is painful and highly aversive to pigs and so is a significant welfare concern. The most painful part of castration appears to be the severing of the cords and vessels supplying testis. An assumption is often made that the procedure is less traumatic to younger piglets although the contrary maybe true."

*************

Finally, via The Ethicurean: "When a recent UC Santa Cruz study asked grocery shoppers on California's Central Coast to rank their concerns about the food system, respondents prioritized animal welfare above the treatment of human workers on the farms." Bay Guardian reporter Caitlin Donohue reports on the irony of it all in Out of reach: How the sustainable local food movement neglects poor workers and eaters.

The average salary of the estimated 900,000 farm workers in California — the birthplace of the organic and farm labor movements in the U.S. — is around $8,500, more than $2,000 below the federal poverty line.
[...]
[Jon] Hall’s customers [at the University of San Francisco food court], college students who may eat three meals a day here, often approach him with questions about their food. Queries range from where to how the food was grown, but in no instances that Hall has been aware of, about the workers who grew it.

Labor issues are not the popular cause these days, at least in the sustainable food movement. Unlike the “eat local” and organic food movements, equitable treatment of farm workers has yet to spawn trendy slogans for tote bags or a book on the best-seller list.

One UC Santa Cruz study found that, when asked to rank their concern about food system related topics, Central Coast grocery shoppers assigned higher concern levels to animal treatment on farms than that of humans. But Hall is confident this will change as Bon Appetit and others continue to bring attention to the economically disadvantaged on the front lines of our local and organic food systems.

“This is the next frontier,” he said. “I can see it brewing.”

Somewhere, Edward R. Murrow is shaking his head in despair.

Irony deficiency

Can't wait for their anti-spay/neuter campaign.

There is a law pending here in California that will prevent cities and counties from passing ordinances banning medical procedures. This law goes into effect on January 1. You'd figure that politicians who let kids die on their watch would so not give a damn, right?

You would be wrong.

County Supervisors in Los Angeles have put on their righteous faces, rolled up their sleeves and drafted an ordinance reforming and streamlining child protective services once and for all opposing elective veterinary procedures that cause “unnecessary pain, anguish and permanent disability” to pets.

Elective procedures like neutering, right? No, silly.

The L.A. Supes think neutering dogs should be mandatory. Opposition to mandatory spay/neuter would require, let's see... a heightened sense of irony, under the circumstances, and a certain amount of, gosh, I dunno, research, maybe. And a degree of... literacy, reading comprehension, that kind of thing. Don't take my word for it: if you want the straight dope on spay/neuter, ask your vet. She'll take a good look at you, and if she figures you're sane, she'll pull the door closed and lower her voice and say, "Based on all the science we have, most male dogs are probably healthiest if they're not neutered."

Hear that, Villaraigosa et al? Whoops! Sorry, dudes, didn't mean to interrupt the photo op.

When you remember that Ed Boks and Judie Mancuso were able to lead the L.A. County Supervisors around by their noses, you'll understand why the Department of Children and Family Services, among other county agencies, is in such sad shape. But hey, we wrote that cat bill! Countywide epidemic of declawing stopped cold, yay us Supes!

[What's Judie Mancuso up to these days? Given the nature of her hubby's blog, I suspect she's not busy fostering abandoned pit bull puppies. Yeeesh.]

SB 250: As if California didn't have enough stupid shit to deal with right now

No, this isn't an artist's interpretation of SB 250. This is every sane person's interpretation of SB 250.

I'll cut to the chase: this giant inflatable poo rotten little mess of a mandatory spay/neuter bill could be voted on in the California State Senate as early as Monday, and yes, that's Monday, June 1. This week. Like, right now.

Here's a link to the Save Our Dogs site. Visit the link and then call and fax as if your dogs' lives depended on it, because they might just. Save Our Dogs has all the contact info you'll need.

If you have the time, you can check out my posts on the Dead Dog Act, AB 1634. Yes, the same chuckleheads are behind SB 250.

The when and if of spay neuter should be decided by pet owners and veterinarians, not politicians and dog killers. As Christie says, please act now.

The day I let a politician or animal control officer force me to perform a medical procedure on my dog or cat against my will be a cold day in hell. All my current pets are altered so it’s all hypothetical, but I would never, ever comply with this legislation. I find it profoundly offensive, and if you can find someone who loves animals more than I do, I have no idea who it is. [Christie Keith]

Of cow parts and dog parts

Body part puzzler of the day: why is it cruel to dock cows' tails, but kind to cut out the reproductive organs of young puppies?

I'm talking about the mandatory surgical removal of a puppy's reproductive organs — and you better get it done by six months, sez California's SB 250, because the minute your pup is six months old the existence of his reproductive organs will transform your irresponsible self into a for-reals dog breeder who must pay the state higher licensing fees on account of all the unplanned-for and unwanted puppies you'll be dropping off at the pound, you heartless witch, you. [Apologies for posting the SB 250 link: it's mainly a mashup of AB 1634 materials brought to you, once again, by Judie "if you have an intact animal, you're part of the problem" Mancuso.]

I'm wondering about the irony of it all because I'm not convinced dairy cows need their tails more than a Rottie mix, say, needs his balls. Cows use their tails to swat flies, which is certainly important. A Rottie needs his [or her] reproductive organs until he [or she] is at least a year old, to ward off a greatly-increased risk of bone cancer. Very, very important. [Don't take my word for it: read the PubMed link.]

I'm wondering because over in enlightened Scandinavia, Norway's Welfare of Animals Act prohibits the spay/neuter of dogs "unless it is necessary from a medical point of view." Sweden's Animal Protection Act concurs: it's unethical to spay/neuter without medical cause.

So what's up with animal welfare in the US? How is it that being a "responsible" pet owner here in California might soon involve mandatory surgery on your pet rather than, you know, actual responsibility? What kind of state mandates removal of your dog's reproductive parts - then turns around and punishes people for cutting tails off cows?

"The ASPCA does not support local laws that mandate the sterilization of all cats and dogs."

I would love to ask State Senator Dean Florez about all this, since he opposes the docking of cow tails and is the author of SB 250 -- the "Pet Responsibility Act" -- but the senator is a very busy man. Seriously, a state senator has so many things on his plate that he needs aides and lobbyists to help him examine all of the issues in depth, or "in depth."

Jennifer Fearing, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) [...] and her boss, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, sat down with Florez in December to talk strategy.

"Twenty years of attempting to pass modest reforms on animal welfare have gotten us nowhere," Fearing said. "Does it really have to be this way? We posed that question to Senator Florez as someone who had really supported Prop. 2."

Senator Florez reads Michael Pollan and comes to his position as chair of the Senate Food and Ag Committee with a farmworker's perspective, and I think that's great. Such a perspective is badly needed.

But Senator Florez may not know that the HSUS leadership opposes animal agriculture. I suspect that when the ag industry reps worry about Florez, it's because they understand the HSUS goals and ideology better than he does.

And I'm not sure Senator Florez knows what it means to dog owners when HSUS CEO Pacelle tells author Ted Kerasote, "I don’t want to see another dog or cat born." When dog owners protest bills like Florez' SB 250, we are protesting, among other things, the involvement of lobbyists like Pacelle in decisions that should be left to individual dog owners and their veterinarians.

I'm opposed to the docking of cows' tails. I think it's terrific that Senator Florez has authored a bill to phase out the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animals meant for human consumption. I, too, read Michael Pollan. And as the granddaughter of Mexican migrant workers, I'm glad that Florez [who, like my dad, grew up picking crops] has a voice in California's ag policy.

I also love dogs. I adopt dogs and train dogs and read about dogs and spend lots of money on dog care. I wish there were some way I could sit down with Senator Florez and explain why the AVMA, the CVMA, the ASPCA, No-Kill leader Nathan Winograd [pdf link] and countless other groups and individuals - responsible, caring, educated groups and individuals - are so opposed to mandatory spay/neuter.

Because no matter what Judy Mancuso and Wayne Pacelle say, MSN doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere, and it doesn't help animals. All the spin in the world won't change that.


Oh, and did I ever tell you about the Aussie that I pulled from the pound up in Hanford? She was wormy and her coat was falling out and no one wanted her, but she was quite wonderful and now she lives a fine life with a nice man in San Diego and by the way, she'd been spayed before she wound up at the pound. Perhaps by the same "responsible" owners who never came looking for her, if such a thing can be believed.

Then again, I'm just a border collie & pit bull person who favors late spay/neuter and shudders at the thought of politicians telling me what medical procedures must be performed on my dogs, so what do I know.

Now living the life of Riley - thank you for your help, SoCal Aussie Rescue!

Link to AVMA position statement on dog and cat population control. Excerpt:

The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences.

Link to ASPCA position statement on mandatory spay/neuter laws. Excerpt:

To the knowledge of the ASPCA, the only method of population control that has demonstrated long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the number of animals entering animal shelters is the voluntary sterilization of owned pets (Clancy & Rowan 2003; FIREPAW, 2004; Secovich, 2003). There is also evidence that sterilizing very specific, at-risk sub-populations of companion animals such as feral cats and animals in shelters can also contribute to reductions in overpopulation (Zawistowski et al., 1998; Clancy & Rowan 2003; Levy et al., 2003; Lord et al., 2006; Natoli et al., 2006). In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.

CDOC sues L.A. over mandatory spay/neuter

Concerned Dog Owners of California is suing the City of Los Angeles in Superior Court. CDOC attorneys have asked that the city be enjoined from enforcing its spay/neuter law, which was brought to you by the same nitwits responsible for AB 1634. [The L.A. law is virtually identical to the first version of AB1634, in fact, though AB 1634 backers falsely claimed the assembly bill was "based on" Santa Cruz law.] The hearing will be on October 2.

On September 9th, attorneys acting for Concerned Dog Owners of California and funded through CDOC ACTION filed for a preliminary injunction against the City of Los Angeles asking that the City be enjoined from Enforcing any and all provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 179615; Enforcing any and all provisions of Los Angeles City Municipal Code Section 53.15.2(b); Mandating the spay/neuter of any and all owned dogs and cats within Los Angeles City.

CDOC is suing the City of Los Angeles in Superior Court. In its filing the brief points out that the City Controller's own numbers, which assumes a much lower rate of dog ownership than the national average, says there are 500,000 unlicensed dogs in Los Angeles which would be subject to immediate sterilization on 10/1/08. Animal Services own records show that in 2007 there were 580 adoptable dogs euthanized in the City of Los Angeles, a city of 3,800,000 people. While we are all working toward a time when no adoptable dogs are euthanized, that number hardly justifies the wholesale sterilization of the dogs in the City of Los Angeles.

CDOC will continue to work on programs to encourage voluntary spay and neuter of dogs when the time is appropriate as determined by owners and their veterinarians. [Source.]

From the link above:

The City Council was provided with health studies that detailed quite clearly the damage to dogs long-term physical and mental health with early spay and neuter. The City was not able to counter with any studies of their own.

The City was not able to counter with any studies of their own because the law was written by stupid people who don't know anything about dogs.

Good on ya, CDOC. To donate to the cause, visit this link -- and spread the word.

[H/T LA Animal Watch.]

Yet another post in opposition to AB 1634, the Dead Pet Act

Two things. First, it's arrogant and offensive beyond words to suggest that people who don't have a few spare twenties on the money tree to pay for a spay or neuter are somehow less deserving of a pet's companionship than someone who can afford to help put the vet's kids through college. The latest version of AB 1634 screws the poor.

Removing body parts as a punishment reminds one of cultures where they cut off the hands of thieves. I thought we don’t do those things in America. [Laura S.]

Second: what Laura said. In at least two Scandinavian countries it is against the law to spay or neuter a dog without medical cause, and no, those countries don't have overflowing shelters.

AB 1634, at this stage, is a last-gasp power play that has everything to do with political egos and nothing to do with pet health, pet populations or anything else that involves improving the lives and prospects of shelter animals. Nathan Winograd writes about the parties involved here. And once again, here is a repost of the definitive comment on AB 1634, from Christie Keith of Pet Connection:

The answer [to the problem of homeless cats and dogs] is not some bitterly divisive, hard to enforce, punitive legislation that doesn’t solve the problem in the first place and tramples on people’s dreams, goals, and relationship with their animals. The day I let a politician or animal control officer force me to perform a medical procedure on my dog or cat against my will be a cold day in hell. All my current pets are altered so it’s all hypothetical, but I would never, ever comply with this legislation. I find it profoundly offensive, and if you can find someone who loves animals more than I do, I have no idea who it is.

Return of the disaster that is AB 1634

This mess of a bill is scheduled to be heard on Monday, July 14. Contact the committee members, and please check out this terrific letter from Save Our Dogs — it's so terrific and so important, I'm reprinting the whole thing here:

RE: AB 1634 as amended June 18, 2008 — OPPOSE

Save Our Dogs opposes AB 1634 as amended June 18, 2008. We applaud the effort to narrow the bill to one that targets only irresponsible pet owners. Unfortunately, as written, this bill has several severe flaws that would leave millions of responsible dog and cat owners in California vulnerable to unsubstantiated complaints, would establish a system of penalties with no Due Process right to challenge them, and would establish into state law a false and counterproductive finding that spay/neuter is an appropriate remedy for a wide range of animal control infractions. Save Our Dogs is a grassroots coalition of over 120 organizations united to save California’s working dogs from AB 1634. Among our coalition are the two largest associations of K9 law enforcement officers in the nation, California’s largest K9 search-and-rescue organization, the world’s largest guide dog and assistance dog umbrella and advocacy organizations, as well as numerous stock dog and hunting dog organizations in California.

Save Our Dogs recommends the following modifications to AB 1634 to insure that it doesn’t have the unintended consequence of unfairly targeting responsible dog owners:

1. If a dog is picked up by Animal Control for being "at large", on the 1st or 2nd offence the owner who picks their dog up from impound would be ordered to pay a fine. The shelter may insert a microchip into the dog either in addition to the fine or in lieu of the fine, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. The owner will be notified that he has the right to a hearing and appeals process to challenge the "at large" finding and fine. After the 3rd time an intact dog is picked up by Animal Control for being "at large", the owner who picks the dog up from impound will be ordered to either pay a fine or spay/neuter the dog, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. The owner has a right to challenge the "at large" finding, fine, and sterilization order in a hearing and appeals process. A spay/neuter order would be voided with written notice from a California-licensed veterinarian that sterilization is medically ill-advised for the dog. Shelters may not hold dogs pending payment of the fine, pending proof of spay/neuter, or pending the hearing and appeals process.

2. Dogs would not be classified as "at large" if they are SAR dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, detection dogs, herding dogs, or other working dogs who became loose while working or training for work. Dogs involved in competitive dog sports including but not limited to obedience, protection, agility, hunting, and flyball are not "at large" if they became loose while engaging in or training for those competitions in a setting where these events or training are allowed. Dogs are not "at large" if they became loose because of natural or man-made disasters, or the actions of someone other than the owner. Local governments may define other exemptions from "at large" status.

3. Save Our Dogs recommends that the impound fines not be increased from current law. While it appears logical that bigger fines will lead to better compliance, experience shows that bigger fines leads to fewer releases from impound because owners cannot afford to pay the fines. Bigger fines = more dogs euthanized in shelters.

4. The complaint-driven section of AB 1634 that refers to nearly all other animal control infractions should be deleted entirely. This section is without merit. It would not benefit society even if its very troubling due process deficiencies were corrected, and it establishes a false and dangerous precedent about the scope of the problems that spay/neuter can address.

5. The many references in AB 1634 to humane societies and SPCAs should be removed. They appear to grant sweeping animal control law enforcement powers to private organizations. It is already the case that some local governments contract animal control authority to their local humane society or SPCA. But this is done on a case-by-case basis, with prescribed limits, at the discretion of the local government. Removing references to humane societies and SPCAs from AB 1634 would maintain the status quo in this respect.

Save Our Dogs agrees that it is in the public's interest to sterilize the intact dog that is habitually "at large" due to owner negligence. The "at large" dog that is picked up and impounded 3 times by Animal Control has probably been "at large" not 3 times but dozens of times. “At large" intact male and intact female dogs are at risk of being a source of the unplanned litters that get relinquished to public animal shelters. The "at large" intact male dog is at risk of burdening responsible owners of intact females if these males roam until they find a female in estrus, jump a fence or through a window, and impregnate the female. It is in society's interest to prevent these outcomes of chronic irresponsible dog ownership. Sterilization will not stop dogs from being “at large” or make their owners responsible, but it will at least reduce the burden on society that these dogs impose.

Unlike the case of dogs that are "at large" due to owner negligence, there's no reason to believe that any other animal control infraction can be mitigated by sterilization. If an owner walks his dog on leash into areas where dogs aren't allowed, or doesn't clean up after his dog defecates, sterilization will not reduce the odds of this happening again. Owners cited because their dogs have expired rabies tags, are not wearing current rabies tags, or are unlicensed do not have any lower risk of repeating these infractions if their dogs are sterilized. In recent years a considerable body of conflicting evidence has been published in the scientific literature about the effects of sterilization on aggression in dogs. As such, no scientifically-defensible case can be made for the state to compel sterilization for aggressive dogs. Other remedies and punishments are appropriate in all of these cases, such as citations, fines, muzzling, confinement, etc. But sterilization is an inappropriate remedy for nearly all animal control infractions.

AB 1634 also contains no recognition of Californians’ Constitutional right to Due Process. In no circumstance may government fine or otherwise penalize its citizens without access to a process of administrative, civil, or criminal hearings to determine culpability and allow the accused to make their case. Yet AB 1634 establishes a system whereby unsubstantiated complaints, impoundments that had mitigating circumstances, and no system of Due Process would result in fines or government-ordered sterilization of dogs. This would amount to state-sanctioned vigilantism.

Save Our Dogs fully supports the section in AB 1634 that withholds state funding from local governments who fail to report their shelter statistics to the state. A first step to solving any problem is data. Complete and accurate shelter statistics are vital in efforts to identify the local programs that are enjoying success in reducing impounds and euthanasias. In recent years a large and increasing number of California jurisdictions have failed to report their shelter statistics to the state, as already mandated under state law. Apparently many local governments don’t perceive an incentive to obey this state law, since there is currently no penalty for violating it.

Save Our Dogs urges that AB 1634 either be defeated or amended as noted above. Thank you for your consideration.

Hat tip to Terrierman via the Pet Connection Blog. See y'all at the fax machine —

This just in [Sunday edition]

Dolittler has a preview of a hugely important JAVMA article. "The histories of 1,243,681 dogs were analyzed to determine risk factors for cruciate ligament deficiency and hip dysplasia," writes Dr. Patty Khuly, and check this out:

“Castrated males were significantly more likely than other dogs to have hip dysplasia, and castrated male and spayed female dogs were significantly more likely to have cranial cruciate ligament deficiency.”

Goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: the JAVMA report is the million-thousand-hundredth reason mandatory spay/neuter legislation, with all its creepy, fascist, nanny-state overtones, is terrible for dogs, and a nightmare for dog owners.

Rottweilers, bone cancer and mandatory spay/neuter laws

Got a slew of posts to add, and I hate to start with such a sad one. It's important, though. I'll make the message as clear as I can:

Male and female Rottweilers spayed/neutered before 1 year of age have an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and are significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that are sexually intact.

See this link for the abstract at PubMed. See this link for the complete study. From the abstract:

Endogenous gonadal hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk.
Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ.
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.

Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact [RR +/-95% CI = 3.8 (1.5-9.2) for males; RR +/-95% CI = 3.1 (1.1-8.3) for females]. Chi(2) test for trend showed a highly significant inverse dose-response relationship between duration of lifetime gonadal exposure and incidence rate of bone sarcoma (P = 0.008 for males, P = 0.006 for females). This association was independent of adult height or body weight.

And no, it isn't just Rottweilers. From the essential report on spay/neuter health effects, by Laura Sanborn:

Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)

A multi-breed case-control study of the risk factors for osteosarcoma found that spay/neutered dogs (males or females) had twice the risk of developing osteosarcoma as did intact dogs[13].

This risk was further studied in Rottweilers, a breed with a relatively high risk of osteosarcoma. This retrospective cohort study broke the risk down by age at spay/neuter, and found that the elevated risk of osteosarcoma is associated with spay/neuter of young dogs[14]. Rottweilers spayed/neutered before one year of age were 3.8 (males) or 3.1 (females) times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than intact dogs. Indeed, the combination of breed risk and early spay/neuter meant that Rottweilers spayed/neutered before one year of age had a 28.4% (males) and 25.1% (females) risk of developing osteosarcoma. These results are consistent with the earlier multi-breed study[13] but have an advantage of assessing risk as a function of age at neuter. A logical conclusion derived from combining the findings of these two studies is that spay/neuter of dogs before 1 year of age is associated with a significantly increased risk of osteosarcoma.

The researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, as sex hormones are known to influence the maintenance of skeletal structure and mass, and also because their findings showed an inverse relationship between time of exposure to sex hormones and risk of osteosarcoma.[14]

The risk of osteosarcoma increases with increasing breed size and especially height[13]. It is a common cause of death in medium/large, large, and giant breeds. Osteosarcoma is the third most common cause of death in Golden Retrievers[10] and is even more common in larger breeds[13].

Given the poor prognosis of osteosarcoma and its frequency in many breeds, spay/neuter of immature dogs in the medium/large, large, and giant breeds is apparently associated with a significant and elevated risk of death due to osteosarcoma.

Yes, Laura Sanborn is a leader in the fight against mandatory spay/neuter. Her review of the literature is evenhanded — quite the contrast with California's AB 1634 supporters, who are past masters at misinterpreting [I'm being kind, here] all types of data. And no, there is simply no way to spin the science and come up with anything that makes osteosarcoma appear less of a risk for medium size or larger dogs subjected to early spay/neuter.

If you support mandatory spay/neuter laws like AB 1634 or the recently passed spay/neuter law in the city of Los Angeles, you are apparently willing to condemn many dogs to an agonizing disease and a drastically shortened life on the entirely baseless speculation that this might somehow help reduce the number of dogs and cats in animal shelters.

God forbid individual citizens should make medical decisions based on what's best for individual animals — right, Lloyd Levine? Tell us again how your determination to mandate a dramatically increased risk of canine osteosarcoma is really no different from telling people to buckle their seat belts.


Related links:
Heartbreaking message posted in the Border Collie Boards In Memoriam section.
Dolittler post on amputation for dogs suffering from osteosarcoma. Nothing said about whether the Rottie was neutered — I'll ask.
Rottweiler Health Foundation.
.