DATE:  SEPTEMBER 12, 2010

 

PLACE:  PAWS & PLAY DOG CARE

                 1058 NORTH ROAD

                  NORTH YARMOUTH ME

 

CONTACT: PAT GERRIE 207 872 7442

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

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

                THAT IS THE QUESTION

 

Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One Veterinarian's Opinion © 2005 Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP Those of us with responsibility for the health of canine athletes need to continually read and evaluate new scientific studies to ensure that we are taking the most appropriate care of our performance dogs. This article provides evidence through a number of recent studies to suggest that veterinarians and owners working with canine athletes should revisit the standard protocol in which all dogs that are not intended for breeding are spayed and neutered at or before 6 months of age. Orthopedic Considerations A study by Salmeri et al in 1991 found that bitches spayed at 7 weeks grew significantly taller than those spayed at 7 months, who were taller than those not spayed (or presumably spayed after the growth plates had closed).(1) A study of 1444 Golden Retrievers performed in 1998 and 1999 also found bitches and dogs spayed and neutered at less than a year of age were significantly taller than those spayed or neutered at more than a year of age.(2) The sex hormones, by communicating with a number of other growth-related hormones, promote the closure of the growth plates at puberty (3), so the bones of dogs or bitches neutered or spayed before puberty continue to grow. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered well before puberty can frequently be identified by their longer limbs, lighter bone structure, narrow chests and narrow skulls. This abnormal growth frequently results in significant alterations in body proportions and particularly the lengths (and therefore weights) of certain bones relative to others. For example, if the femur has achieved its genetically determined normal length at 8 months when a dog gets spayed or neutered, but the tibia, which normally stops growing at 12 to 14 months of age continues to grow, then an abnormal angle may develop at the stifle. In addition, with the extra growth, the lower leg below the stifle likely becomes heavier (because it is longer), and may cause increased stresses on the cranial cruciate ligament. In addition, sex hormones are critical for achieving peak bone density.(4) These structural and physiological alterations may be the reason why at least one recent study showed that spayed and neutered dogs had a higher incidence of CCL rupture.(5) Another recent study showed that dogs spayed or neutered before 5 1/2 months had a significantly higher incidence of hip dysplasia than those spayed or neutered after 5 1/2 months of age, although it should be noted that in this study there were no standard criteria for the diagnosis of hip dysplasia.(6) Nonetheless, breeders of purebred dogs should be cognizant of these studies and should consider whether or not pups they bred were spayed or neutered when considering breeding decisions. Cancer Considerations A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care. Behavioral Considerations The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12) Other Health Considerations A number of studies have shown that there is an increase in the incidence of female urinary incontinence in dogs spayed early (13), although this finding has not been universal. Certainly there is evidence that ovarian hormones are critical for maintenance of genital tissue structure and contractility.(14, 15) Neutering also has been associated with an increased likelihood of urethral sphincter incontinence in males.(16) This problem is an inconvenience, and not usually life-threatening, but nonetheless one that requires the dog to be medicated for life. A health survey of several thousand Golden Retrievers showed that spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to develop hypothyroidism.(2) This study is consistent with the results of another study in which neutering and spaying was determined to be the most significant gender-associated risk factor for development of hypothyroidism.(17) Infectious diseases were more common in dogs that were spayed or neutered at 24 weeks or less as opposed to those undergoing gonadectomy at more than 24 weeks.(18) Finally, the AKC-CHF report demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines in neutered dogs as compared to intact.(12) I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes. Currently, I have significant concerns with spaying or neutering canine athletes before puberty. But of course, there is the pet overpopulation problem. How can we prevent the production of unwanted dogs while still leaving the gonads to produce the hormones that are so important to canine growth and development? One answer would be to perform vasectomies in males and tubal ligation in females, to be followed after maturity by ovariohysterectomy in females to prevent mammary cancer and pyometra. One possible disadvantage is that vasectomy does not prevent some unwanted behaviors associated with males such as marking and humping. On the other hand, females and neutered males frequently participate in these behaviors too. Really, training is the best solution for these issues. Another possible disadvantage is finding a veterinarian who is experienced in performing these procedures. Nonetheless, some do, and if the procedures were in greater demand, more veterinarians would learn them. I believe it is important that we assess each situation individually. For canine athletes, I currently recommend that dogs and bitches be spayed or neutered after 14 months of age. References: Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203 http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55. Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21. Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5. Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387. Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2):95-103 Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40 Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9. Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7 http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575 Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001 Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9. Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50. Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996 Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994 Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21. This article is available for download in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Early Spay Considerations (pdf). Home | Articles & Book Excerpts | Books | Biographical Sketches

 

 

THE COST OF FUEL & IT'S AFFECT ON DOG SHOWS

by Dr. Gerry G. Meisels

In June 24, 2007 diesel fuel was $2.82 a gallon. One year later to the day, it was $4.89 a gallon. The increase in gasoline was also substantial but not quite as dramatic (from $2.77 to $3.99). If you show out of a diesel pusher motorhome that gets 7 miles per gallon, fuel cost for a show that is 250 miles away is now about $350. Dry camping fees at two recent Florida shows were $30 a day and in the Florida summer heat the generator runs 24 hours a day. Let’s also not forget the typical entry fees for two dogs, and total costs for a two-day weekend can get up to $500.00. It’s not that different if you travel by car and stay in a hotel for two nights. What you save on fuel you spend on the hotel. The following table shows a comparison between costs for going to shows in a motorhome, driving and staying overnight, and commuting every day. Since no one would want to commute 7 or 8 hours a day, the last column is blank for a distance of 250 miles.

The conclusions from this table are compelling: if the shows are nearby, the length of the cluster makes little difference in cost no matter how one travels. If a show is further away, a multi-day cluster reduces the cost per show, especially for those showing out of a motorhome.

It isn’t just fuel that is increasing in price, so are groceries and many of the commodities that we need in our daily lives. Politically motivated claims notwithstanding, it’s pretty obvious that we are entering tough times economically and that almost everyone’s discretionary resources will decline in the foreseeable future. Understanding or bemoaning the reasons is not useful because we can’t change what is happening. It is a fact we must deal with: dog shows will have to compete for a shrinking pool of discretionary resources.

What this will do to dog shows has been a prevailing topic of discussion at every recent show and kennel club meeting, and on various listservs. Handlers, breeder-exhibitors, club officers, superintendents, judges, and AKC officials are all concerned. There are a few people who think the changing economic environment will have no significant effect because everyone in the sport is so closely vested in it, but there are many anecdotal stories that there will be some fairly profound short-term and long-term effects. For example, one professional handler says that even rather wealthy clients are reducing their commitments, have fewer dogs out, and promote their dogs less. Many exhibitors relate that they are curtailing their showing. Being Pollyanna-ish would be naïve. We are in a period of major change, and it is not going to be very pleasant for many of us.

Some handlers believe that individual exhibitors will just put their dogs with handlers because it is cheaper. One of them argued that “individual exhibitors will go away because they can only make it to nearby shows and why should they go there and lose when they can place their dog with a handler and win.” This statement by a prominent and successful handler is telling not only for its lack of understanding of what motivates many of us, but also for its arrogance and its observation as a fact that conformation shows are not a level playing field for all. Some breeder-exhibitors may put their dogs with handlers in the short run. But in the long run this could have dire consequences for the sport because it could destroy its future. Two considerations support the contention that this will not be a common solution.

First, the individual exhibitor does not show just to get points or promote their dog, they do it because they love their dogs and the special relationship with them that showing develops. I had a wonderful experience a couple of weeks ago at the end of a Sunday show when everyone was loading up. Back in the hall and away from the confusion sat a nice young woman with a very promising puppy she had bred. I accidentally glanced in that direction and saw her play with the puppy; the two were totally absorbed in each other, and she kept asking “who made you so cute” as they bounced a ball back and forth, alternating the play with cuddling and loving up the puppy. The puppy was equally absorbed. It struck me then that this is what it was all about: the human-dog interaction and the relationship between people committed to the same interest. People like that don’t place their dogs with handlers because it’s cheaper. Those who argue that it’s cheaper to use a handler than to show dogs yourselves just don’t get it: for most amateur-owners, it’s not about finishing dogs as cheaply as possible; it’s about them, their dogs, fellow exhibitors and the relationship between them all.

The second point is that even those who want to finish their dogs as cheaply as possible must first have become involved in the sport and committed to it. Recent statistics provided by AKC show that most new exhibitors stay for only up to six shows and then disappear. They never get to the point of wanting to finish their dogs let alone to want to hire a handler. The superficial solution in the long run destroys the development of new generations of fanciers, and thus endangers the future of the sport. Besides, there is no savings unless the owners stay home and how can breeders and owners grow in their understanding of their own and other breeds and their dogs if they do?

Don’t get me wrong – handlers play an important role and have their place. For many enthusiasts, participating in the sport has become a way of life, but as they get older the work involved becomes too much for them. Besides, some people just can’t develop the skills and approach to present their dogs well, but they still love the beauty of their dogs and the involvement in the sport. That’s no reason for handlers to become arrogant. There are amateur handlers who handle as well as the best professionals.

The money to show our dogs ourselves, or with handlers, comes from our discretionary sources, and those are shrinking for almost everyone.

What is therefore likely to evolve is a system of a few large cluster shows and national specialties where there are majors, and a secondary system of smaller shows where dogs may earn single points and be trained for majors where it really counts. This is strikingly similar to the British System, with majors becoming similar to Challenge Certificates. The result will be a substantial reduction in the number of championships earned, and an increasing tendency for the sport to become more elite.

The impact of change will not be the same throughout the country. The effect should be least noticeable in the high population density areas such as the Eastern Seaboard. It will be greatest in sparsely populated areas such as in the western and northern Midwest.

Some outcomes are not that hard to predict. Majors are already harder and harder to find. We have a dog and a bitch that are singled out and have one major, but have not been able to find a major within 300 miles for four months! According to a few handlers I have talked to recently, there are more than a few dogs sitting in their kennels waiting for shows where there might be majors.

Entries are likely to decline overall because exhibitors will look more critically at a combination of factors. Shows will become more strongly differentiated into clusters with larger entries and smaller “neighborhood” shows that will draw less than 1000 dogs. The conformation sport itself will differentiate even more into the “haves” who will continue to chase the ratings, the serious fanciers who will show at local shows and save their money and vacation time for two or three major cluster shows and specialties a year, and the casual exhibitors who come to a few shows a year with the family. Serious fanciers will look for judges who are solid. Casual exhibitors are likely to fade away and become a declining component of the sport, one of several factors that will lead to a decline in entries overall. The loss of casual exhibitors will put at risk the attraction of new serious participants who usually begin casually until they are “bitten by the bug”.

Perhaps the best outcome could be an increase in the proportion of exhibitors who are discerning about the judges and show only to those who are courteous, knowledgeable, and objective. Many experienced exhibitors already have lists of judges under whom they will not show, judges they respect, and judges who are favorable to them no matter what they show. But there is also the rub: almost by definition, judges in that last category are political, but are sought out by those who win under them anyway, who thus support the objectionable practice they are glad to grumble about when someone else benefits. Meanwhile, the neophyte sees the transgression and wants no part of a sport that condones such practice.

It is perhaps unrealistic but there could be promise for the future if we, who fervently want this sport to survive and flourish, take action. The action plan is “cleaning up the sport.” There should be zero tolerance for discourteous judges, rude exhibitors, and offensive handlers. There should be zero tolerance for judging that is not based on knowledge of dog quality and not conducted impartially. There should be zero tolerance for badmouthing fellow exhibitors, their dogs, or judges. Zero tolerance means that there should be no room for compromise or leniency.

We must do our best to make dog shows pleasant and enjoyable for everyone. We need to establish and use forceful mechanisms to eliminate from the sport those who will not follow these principles. This is a challenge to AKC and its member clubs that goes beyond judges approval. If we can all remember that with everything we say and do we are messengers and salespeople for dog shows and for purebred dogs, we will develop the environment at our shows that will dramatically improve the image of dog shows and help assure their future.

 

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

ANNUAL DOG SHOW LABOR DAY !!

 

AGAIN, MCKC IS IN THE BEGINNING PROCESS OF PLANNING  IT'S ANNUAL (4 DAY) AKC DOG SHOW LABOR DAY 2008  (in conjunction with Central Maine KC's  at the same site). The site will again this year be the Union Fairgrounds, RT 17, Union, Me.  VISIT US AUGUST 28TH

THRU AUGUST 31ST, 2008  !!

SHOW CLOSES :

SUPERINTENDENT IS:  JIM RAU DOG SHOWS

 

 

 

ridgeview@hughes.net

 

Webmaster