02-26-2016, 10:16 AM
Join Date: Jun 2014
Mentioned: 715 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I can't imagine there being any massive benefit that would justify throwing another litter of puppies out into the world.
The thing with cancer is there are so many causes, it's insane. Nearly everything could potentially be carcinogenic. And genetics plays a big role too - so it may have nothing to do with life circumstances. I know of people who have gotten lung cancer who haven't smoked a day in their lives (or even been around any irritants for an extended period of time). Go figure.
Generally, I agree with you that everyone should make an informed decision whether or not to spay/neuter. But, it should be an educated one and not taken lightly. If you choose not to spay your female - fine - but you have to commit to paying attention to heat cycles and preventing your dog from being bred, which is sometimes easier said than done.
I think the reason spay/neuter is touted so highly by vets and rescues is that 90+% of the populated ISN'T educated or making a conscious decision. Most who elect not to spay/neuter either want to breed, aren't bothered with their dog becoming pregnant, or just don't want to pay the cost or see it as necessary. So it's easier to push it as a good thing because they probably don't care about the research in the first place.
For the record, I have an intact female, had an intact male (and at the same time - but no litters or even scares!) in addition to a few rescue dogs who were spayed/neutered at various ages due to the rescue's policies. I haven't yet noticed any massively negative effects to either situation, but it'd be hard to compare anyway because it's not like I can go back in time and "undo" just to see if there would be a different outcome.
In short, I think as long as the decision is intelligently made and consequences are prepared for, there's nothing wrong with going either way.