petorama

Ask Yvette

Dear Yvette
A friend at work was sharing a story with me about her decision not to get a puppy. She said that the person she was going to get the puppy from had informed her that if she was going to get a female, she MUST let her have one litter before having her spayed.

This person told her that she would reduce the chance of the dog having cancer by letting it have a litter. Through my studies, my understanding was the more heats a dog goes through, the higher the chance of a number of cancers a dog can contract eg. breast, uterus, ovaries etc.

Gail

First, let me state that I am not a veterinarian. When it comes to medical issues, I recommend that people speak with their veterinarian. That being said, I would say that most veterinarians agree that altering an animal decreases certain types of cancer. If the body part is removed, it cannot develop cancer can it?

There are many reasons why some people avoid altering their pet. Some fall under the myth category. Altered dogs do not look ugly or turn mean.

Some people hear worst-case stories where a surgery has gone wrong. Yes, it is possible that complications can arise from a surgical procedure. But that doesn't stop people from having cosmetic surgery, so why should it stop a pet owner from making a decision based on responsibility?

There are cultural factors that come into play on this issue. When writing material for European markets, I would face an entirely different culture. In Europe I might warn of the hazards of over exercise. Altering an animal is seen as unnecessary and cruel. But, many European nations have people that hike for hours, and take their animals into restaurants. Training is mandatory, and a person that drops the ball faces the wrath of society. It would be irresponsible for intact animals to be bred without a purpose.

We do not have that mindset here. We have a pet overpopulation. Backyard breeders and mills are the norm where the general public falls prey to poor animal practices. “When in Rome,” as the saying goes.

My concerns with a mandatory litter fall elsewhere. Yes, pet overpopulation is an important issue. And yes, the health of the dog is important. But the dilemma I have seen with mandatory breeding contracts involves the health and behaviour of the next generation of dogs.

Owners with an intact animal and a legal contract can face a large moral dilemma. A responsible breeder will only breed animals with sound bodies and sound temperament. As an owner, you may see fearful, or a developing health issue. Do you break the contract or do you potentially pass those traits to more dogs?

Is it fair or right for the breeder of your animal to force you via contract to produce unhealthy or unstable animals? Is it right for you to pass on that suffering to the puppies and their new prospective owners?

A contract is a legally binding document. When you accept those terms and conditions, good or bad. With all the backyard breeders and mills, it's not a contract I would ever agree to. It takes away your choice to make a moral and right decision.

Yvette is an award winning pet writer and pet behavior columnist. She also is the author of Meeting Milo, a North American dog bite prevention program to reduce the approximately 2 million children bit by dogs annually. She is the owner of AwesomeDogs.ca and works as a behavior consultant in London, Ontario.

This column was originally featured in The Londoner
See more of Yvette... www.awesomedogs.ca
www.meetingmilo.com

Yvette has 2 dogs of her own, KIKI and KAYA. Take a look...

Previous Questions

• Dear Yvette, I am almost 7 months pregnant and...
• Dear Yvette, My dog pulls. What type of colla...
• Dear Yvette Our dog ducks his head when we rea...
• Dear Yvette, We back onto a large green spac...
• Dear Yvette: Our dog is prejudice. I know tha...
• View All Questions