# Size of V's



## charliesfamily (Jan 26, 2016)

Hi everyone! I'm new to the forum, after kind of lurking as a guest for a while now.  I have 15mo old male vizsla named Charlie. My question is if anyone else out there has a really large vizsla. My boy is 90lbs and is quite tall. His dad was big, too, at 75lbs but my Charlie has passed him up. He's very muscular, so he's not flabby. He's just really big.

Oh, and one more thing. Do V's ever attachment themselves for a while family or is it typically just one family member? My kids and I love Charlie but he seems to gravitate to a couple of us more then the others. Has anyone else had this happen?

Thanks!


----------



## organicthoughts (Oct 9, 2012)

90 pounds!!! Wow that is huge for a V.

Post a picture and maybe it will shed some light.

Is he neutered, if so when was he snipped?

I thought my boy was big and he is at the top of the standard in height and weighs around 60 pounds.


----------



## Fcardoso (Sep 22, 2015)

My thought exactly, wow 90lbs!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hobbsy1010 (Jun 4, 2011)

Whooow that's a right old 'Charlie'.......

Get some pics up here Charliesfam!!!

We have a 7yr old male at 30kg's (sorry European scales!!!)

Think it works out at 66lbs or there abouts, we thought he was a big guy.....how wrong we were!!!

Welcome to the forum, get some pics up of him on here and your family, obviously using family members as some sort of Scale reference!!!  

Hobbsy


----------



## charliesfamily (Jan 26, 2016)

I'm not very good at uploading pictures, so let me see what I can do. :


----------



## charliesfamily (Jan 26, 2016)

Here's another picture. I'm sorry that they're so fuzzy. He has been fixed and was so when he was 9 months old. Even at 90lbs, he still thinks of himself as a lap dog. ;D


----------



## organicthoughts (Oct 9, 2012)

charliesfamily said:


> Here's another picture. I'm sorry that they're so fuzzy. He has been fixed and was so when he was 9 months old. Even at 90lbs, he still thinks of himself as a lap dog. ;D


The fixing at a young age could be the reason he is so tall and you mentioned that his father is big as well... so the early neutering combined with the genetics could be your answer.....


----------



## Fcardoso (Sep 22, 2015)

Beautiful V


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## charliesfamily (Jan 26, 2016)

I'm sure you're right about genetics and his neutering age. everyone is surprised by his size. He's one big boy.


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

There's just more there to cuddle with, that's all...

I always disliked it when folks refer to dogs without their manhood as "Fixed" as if somehow, having all the bit's 'n pieces makes them somehow "Broken". Maybe it's just a guy thing...


----------



## lord brush (Oct 22, 2015)

Although of the heavier Wirehaired variety, our Riley is coming up to 8 months old and is already ~35kg (93lb)! 

(And believe me, there aint no fat)

Makes Puppy _Zoomies_ interesting when he's indoors


----------



## einspänner (Sep 8, 2012)

Lord said:


> Although of the heavier Wirehaired variety, our Riley is coming up to 8 months old and is already ~35kg (93lb)!
> 
> (And believe me, there aint no fat)
> 
> Makes Puppy _Zoomies_ interesting when he's indoors


Wow! And I thought my 53 lb wire was big compared to the average V. You could ride him into battle!


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

Size doesn't change personality, so you've got one big pretty lap dog. 
Charlie has a beautiful male head, and looks to have a wide chest.
Some males neutered early look more feminine, I don't see that from the picture. 
I would think the early neutering may have added some height, but genetics had to play a bigger role.

Yes Vs can play favorites in a family. They may gravitate to one person, or another within a family.


----------



## charliesfamily (Jan 26, 2016)

Thank you, everyone for your input. It's nice to hear from so many other V families. I do find it a little interesting that many of you say that neutering at 9 months is young. My vet said to wait until he was about 10 most to a year old until I had it done. I did jump the gun a little bit.  Im curious, how old would you recommend that they get neutered? 

I do like that he's more...masculine, I guess, looking. He was the biggest in the liter and was 82lbs when he was neutered. He's our big lap dog. People can't believe it when he crawls up onto my lap.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

charliesfamily said:


> Thank you, everyone for your input. It's nice to hear from so many other V families. I do find it a little interesting that many of you say that neutering at 9 months is young. My vet said to wait until he was about 10 most to a year old until I had it done. I did jump the gun a little bit.  Im curious, how old would you recommend that they get neutered?
> 
> I do like that he's more...masculine, I guess, looking. He was the biggest in the liter and was 82lbs when he was neutered. He's our big lap dog. People can't believe it when he crawls up onto my lap.


When weighing the scientific edivence from the major studies on neutering dogs (The Vizsla Study, The Golden Retriever Study, and the Rottweiler Study) the best answer is *never*.

Castrating male dogs has profoundly negative health repercussions including higher cancer rates, higher hip dysplasia rates, higher rates of CCL tears (torn ligaments has become near epidemic in early neutered dogs and require surgeries that can run $3000-6000 per side, and often come in pairs), higher obesity rates, reduced muscularity, loss of stamina, and increased fear and anxiety.

So the better question is should dogs be castrated at all? 

To minimize harm a dog should at least be fully developed, which in a V is about 2.5 years (or so). Early neuthering interferes with normal closure of the growth plates in bones (which are regulated by natural hormones) leading to irregular and overly long bone growth. The orthopedic problems that result are implicated in the ligament tears and hip problems, exacerbated by the weigh gains and muscle loss that follows from castration.

Reading the scientific studies gives compelling reasons to question the routine early castration of dogs that's become common-place in the United States.

Bill


----------



## bb101 (Mar 5, 2014)

@cherliesfamily, apparently the sweet spot for neutering is 12 to 18 months. It allows for the growth plates to mature, limiting their size.

Some people are very adamant about never neutering and others are equally adamant about neutering early, but both are a bit extreme and may not suit all situations (e.g. a family with an intact bitch), so as their guardian it's your choice in the end.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

bb101 said:


> @cherliesfamily, apparently the sweet spot for neutering is 1 . It allows for the growth plates to mature, limiting their size.
> 
> Some people are very adamant about never neutering and others are equally adamant about neutering early, but both are a bit extreme and may not suit all situations (e.g. a family with an intact bitch), so as their guardian it's your choice in the end.


Attempting to equate early neutering, which the afore-mentioned leading veterinary studies on the topic have all concluded is highly injurious to canine health, with not castrating males (which has demonstrable health benefits), and suggesting both are forms of "extremism" is unwarranted of the basis of canine medical science.

On the spectrum of very bad, to less bad, to optimal, delaying neutering until orthopedic growth is complete is better than early neither, but it isn't optimal for health. 

Vizslas are slow developing and highly athletic dogs. The muscle development of intact male Vizslas is not complete at 12 to 18 months, in fact those are the ages where they start process of packing on the extra muscle that results from conditioning and natural hormones. Neutering a dog at this age is not "the sweet spot," it is just preferable to the greater damage from doing it earlier.

My V at 22 months looks very different than he did at 12 months, or 18 months with respect to muscular development. This muscular development will continue for years. Neutering impacts natural muscular development negatively. Strong musculature, and lean bodies, helps keeps joints stable. Neutering lowers metabolism, cuts energy, and promotes obesity. The combination of factors are bad for joint health and risk CCL tears.

There may be reasons of human convenience (such as keeping a male dog with an intact female) that some may place as higher concerns that optimizing a dog's health, but let's not be mistaken about the nature of the choice.

Those who doubt it should read the scientific literature on the subject. The Rottweiler Study, the Golden Retriever Study, and the Vizsla Study are quite clear about the negative health repercussions of neutering dogs. 

Bill


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

d/p


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

There is no "Sweet spot" for neutering a V. 

Show me any scientific study that demonstrates the health benefits and I'll recant. Until then, leave 'em intact.

And I'll go against any vet anywhere with my Yale PhD. Sorry, I know how that sounds...


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Gingerling said:


> And I'll go against any vet anywhere with my Yale PhD. Sorry, I know how that sounds...


Sorry, but I prefer to take my advice from DVMs on this particular issue 

It's like expecting a professor to be able to help you after you've just broken your leg... "Dr." isn't an "MD".


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

Just my thoughts on it.
Yes, it is better (if you can) to wait until a dog is mature, before spay or neuter takes place.
My dogs didn't have the full skeleton frame of a mature dog, until around 2 1/2 -3 years old.
I say if you can, because in some places intact dogs have a very limited space to exercise, or socialize. That also effects a dogs physical, and mental development. A out of shape intact dog has a higher rate of injury, than and in shape intact dog.
Most of us just try and stay up with the research, and do the best we can.

I had Cash neutered at a little over 3 years old. If he had a better temperament, he might still be intact. I was never going to breed him, and he lives with two intact females. He had a one track mind when one of them was in heat, and it was never going to happen. Don't get me wrong, neutered males still get somewhat excited by females in heat, but its not all they think about.

My females will probably be spayed over the summer. Just like humans, females can have some issues later in life. The difference is most humans aren't proactive. We have a problem, and then have surgery. Surgery is tough on a old dog, so I make sure its taken care of before they become seniors. 

All the above is just my personal opinion.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

The thing is, the evidence from multiple studies by the leading veterinary schools conducted by DVMs and veterinary medical researchers all points to the same conclusion: the castration of male dogs does significant harm to the dog's health, and places the dog at risk for multiple problems ranging from cancer, obesity, hip dysphasia, torn CCLs, muscle loss, and numerous negative behavior problems (like fear, anxiety, noise-related fears, and an increase in separation anxiety.

I'm one who looks to science and the best medical research, which I compare to my experience, when making choices like this one. In this case there is a 100% alignment between veteraniary science and long experience. 

Neutering dogs has many downsides for health, and next-to-no upsides. The medical science is clear. If an individual vet pushes neutering, it is the vet who is not being led by the science, not the owner who declines advise that runs against the research. 

The studies (or summaries) are available to read online. Reading them is eye-opening for those who've been convinced early spay-neuter is the thing "responsible" dog owners do. This routine practice is coming at a terrible cost.

I'm fortunate to have a lovely green "unofficial" (but long-established and well-loved) off-leash park in my neighborhood. The community of dog owners is really tight-knit. I know almost all the dogs and owners, we go nearly every day. It has been shocking to me to hear how many dogs in our group have had CCL tears, and expensive surgeries to correct them. 

People now talk about which method and which surgeon they used for their dog's CCL surgery the same way people would talk about which orthodontist did the kid's teeth. It is unbelievably common. The common link? People "rescuing" young dogs who are castrated prior to adoption (no matter how young).

A CCL surgery runs between 3 and 6 thousand dollars here (depending on the method). Very often when a dog blows one CCL the other follows, due to the stress transfer to the other leg.

While a good CCL surgery will get a dog up and moving again, those dogs are never the same. 

The public, and many vets, have been slow to absorb the results of the veterinary science. It's time to pay attention to the demonstrable risks to canine health that comes with early neuter and weigh them fully against other considerations. That isn't the practice now in the general culture. Dogs are paying for people (and some vets) not following the evidence.

Bill


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

It is true that an out of shape dog is more likely to suffer injury than one in great condition. But, all things being equal, an intact dog has all the advantages in this department.

Neutered dogs lose muscle mass, lose stamina, lose drive and tend to gain weight. All these are big negatives and make the injury rates much higher in castrated dogs.

This is shown in the scientific studies on the topic.

Bill


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

dextersmom said:


> Gingerling said:
> 
> 
> > And I'll go against any vet anywhere with my Yale PhD. Sorry, I know how that sounds...
> ...


Catchy... but inaccurate. You're confusing the science of treatment...fixing a broken leg....with understanding the science behind an elective procedure..neutering. Good clinical practice results from an adequate understanding of science. Sorry, being able to understand the results of the latter require a much different set of skills than the former. Or, as you'd put it, it's like expecting a plumber to explain to you how gravity works to get the water thru the pipes.

Again, I invite anyone to show me any rigorous scientific study that demonstrates the value of neutering, beyond the fertility issue.


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Spy said:


> I'm one who looks to science and the best medical research, which I compare to my experience, when making choices like this one. In this case there is a 100% alignment between veterinary science and long experience.
> 
> Neutering dogs has many downsides for health, and next-to-no upsides. The medical science is clear. If an individual vet pushes neutering, it is the vet who is not being led by the science, not the owner who declines advise that runs against the research.
> 
> ...


There are studies to support BOTH sides. For every study (like the golden retriever study, etc.) that I brought my vet (when considering whether to wait), she also had a study to back up her position (not waiting). I think it's a personal decision that should be researched both on the owner's end AND discussed with their vet. Just because the majority of vets do not agree with your stance, does not mean they are unaware or dismissing recent research.

In my personal opinion, the pros might outweigh the cons when it comes to leaving male dogs intact, but not for spaying females. But again... that's my *personal* opinion. I don't think there is the same right/wrong answer for everyone.


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Spy said:


> It has been shocking to me to hear how many dogs in our group have had CCL tears, and expensive surgeries to correct them.
> 
> People now talk about which method and which surgeon they used for their dog's CCL surgery the same way people would talk about which orthodontist did the kid's teeth. It is unbelievably common. The common link? People "rescuing" young dogs who are castrated prior to adoption (no matter how young).
> 
> ...


Completely agree with you. But for instance, I'd rather risk orthopedic injuries than mammary cancer. (Talking about spaying a female here - because I admit, I've researched that more than neutering.) But some would argue mammary cancer is usually fairly easy to detect, so they don't take that into consideration as much as I would.

To me, it's about being as well informed as possible, and weighing the pros and cons for *yourself*.


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

Yes, everything is a personal decision, but it's how those decisions are made that matters. I'm not going to argue with you or anyone here, but let me say that mine are based on something other than mere opinion, or the opinion of the vet. Yes, they are clinicians..their training and credentials are for treatment, the actual surgery. Their training isn't in assessing the validity and rigor of the studies that they often use to justify their treatments. Diagnosing a broken leg and then knowing how to fix it isn't the same as understanding the many studies that show the results of the different ways of doing so. That is why so many have bad vet stories, they are clinicians...treaters...they are not always so good at assessing and determining which one of those treatments is the best on any specific situation. Again, I wouldn't expect a plumber to always explain why the pipes don't work, but rather how to fix them.

There's just no decent study on castration that I've seen...and I've really spent time on this....that indicates a health benefit....or is even health neutral. The only benefit is lowered aggression...not an issue with V's!...and a lower incidence of prostate issues in later years. If you want to look at spaying, if you choose to not breed, there's a higher incidence of breast cancer in intact females in later years as well. 

However, in addition to the growth issues mentioned, there's fairly clear data that supports increased cancer risk in neutered/spayed animals. The gonads are involved in producing necessary hormones that are found in every cell in the body and are essential parts of cellular metabolism in addition to fertility. And at least with V's who do not need lowered aggression, there's just no medical indication to remove healthy organs in an otherwise healthy animal.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

dextersmom said:


> There are studies to support BOTH sides. For every study (like the golden retriever study, etc.) that I brought my vet (when considering whether to wait), she also had a study to back up her position (not waiting). I think it's a personal decision that should be researched both on the owner's end AND discussed with their vet. Just because the majority of vets do not agree with your stance, does not mean they are unaware or dismissing recent research.
> 
> In my personal opinion, the pros might outweigh the cons when it comes to leaving male dogs intact, but not for spaying females. But again... that's my *personal* opinion. I don't think there is the same right/wrong answer for everyone.


Please cite the studies you claim support BOTH sides. I've studed the veterinary medical literature on neutering male dogs fairly extensively, and am unaware of any such studies. I don't believe they exist. Happy to be proven wrong, can you cite the studies?

When vets act against veterinary medical evidence, they are making decisions that don't put the health of dogs under their care the top priority. I understand that people on the front-lines of the "pet over-population" problem (including vets) have a degree of trauma seeing so many pets euthanized. It is heart-breaking. But jumping to the most radical means of birth control, a means that has serious health consequences, it a policy that needs further reflection. Neutering is injurious to the good health of dogs. 

Spay is more complicated. There are risks to keeping females intact (heightened if they don't breed) and risks to spay. Spay can, if done before the second heat, reduce common mammillary cancers. Later spaying reduces the advantages. Spay also has risks. Spay is not clear cut decision on the health front. But neutering males presents no such complexities.

I can think of two medical reasons to neuter. 

One is very rare, but always gets presented as a "benefit" for emotive reasons by pro-neutering groups, is to remove testicular cancer. Testicular cancer is easy to spot (especially in Vs), and slow to spread. And is very rare. And is very treatable. There is no medically justifiable reason to prophylacticly remove the testes on the remote chance a dog might develop testicular cancer (than can be easily treated) later in life.

The other condition, an enlarged prostate impeding urine flow, is (unlike testicular cancer) is a somewhat common problem. It is also something that is wary to monitor, and *if* a dog develops this condition removing the testes almost immediately reverses the condition (as the prostate engagement is testosterone sensitive). So in this case neutering is justifiable based on a diagnosed problem, but is not justifiable on a prophylactic basis.

Against these two reasons for neutering *if there is cause* there are a myriad of medical downsides to doing the procedure. It is not a matter of *opinion* but of clear evidence from multiple studies that all point to the same conclusions. There is no evidence of health benefits to male dogs from routine castration. None. 

Bil


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Gingerling said:


> Yes, they are clinicians..their training and credentials are for treatment, the actual surgery.
> 
> Their training isn't in assessing the validity and rigor of the studies they often use to justify their treatments.


I think any surgeon (MD or DVM) would disagree with you. They've read hundreds, if not thousands, of studies and know what constitutes a valuable study and what doesn't (just like any PhD). 



Gingerling said:


> Diagnosing a broken leg and then knowing how to fix it isn't the same as understanding the many studies that show the results of the different ways of doing so.
> 
> Again, I wouldn't expect a plumber to always explain why the pipes don't work, but rather how to fix them.


Take a look at a medical journal sometime? If you think vets, surgeons, etc. aren't staying up to date with the latest research or don't know the science behind their treatments... that is just astonishing to me. Any halfway decent vet should be reading journals, attending conferences and continuing their education. I can't speak for all vets - but any study you could show my vet, she's seen already. 



Gingerling said:


> That is why so many have bad vet stories, they are clinicians...treaters...they are not always so good at assessing and determining which one of those treatments is the best on any specific situation. Again, I wouldn't expect a plumber to always explain why the pipes don't work, but rather how to fix them.


There are good & bad people in any profession. And if the plumber couldn't tell me why my pipes didn't work but thought he could fix them anyways... I wouldn't hire him  How's he know how to fix what he doesn't truly understand??


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

dextersmom said:


> Spy said:
> 
> 
> > It has been shocking to me to hear how many dogs in our group have had CCL tears, and expensive surgeries to correct them.
> ...


As I stated in my last post, there are pros and cons to spay. There is s good chance, since I'm not a breeder, that I'd lean towards spay after first heat if I had a female. It is a complex decision medically.

There is no similar complexity on medical grounds when it comes to dogs. There are not medical pros, and a long list of cons.

I'm also for people being fully informed. I do not think the general public is aware of the results of the 3 major studies showing the injury done to canine health by early neuter, and most vets don't lay out the evidence to clients. If one goes to website run my so-called "animal rights groups" like PETA or the US Humane Society, one will not find honest discussions of the established health consequences of neutering. The evidence threatens the polity objectives of de-sexing every dog in America.

If you have the time, read the studies. You may say, "Wow! I had no idea the evidence was so clear or so damning."

Bill


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Spy said:


> Please cite the studies you claim support BOTH sides. I've studed the veterinary medical literature on neutering male dogs fairly extensively, and am unaware of any such studies. I don't believe they exist. Happy to be proven wrong, can you cite the studies?
> 
> When vets act against veterinary medical evidence, they are making decisions that don't put the health of dogs under their care the top priority.
> 
> ...


I will see if I saved the printed literature from my vet when discussing spaying with her - it was over a year ago though and I'm not sure if I still have it. 

I did not personally research neutering nearly as much, and from what I did, I would tend to agree with you on that front anyways.

I guess my stance is this - there are studies to support both sides of spaying. Not necessarily neutering.


----------



## Bob Engelhardt (Feb 14, 2012)

I agree that dogs should be allowed to fully develop before being sterilized. But the consequences of early surgery are not absolute. It's a matter of degree, of probability. Not every early-neutered male will develop cancer, or have joint problems. It''s more likely they will, but not certain. It's also true that some fully developed dogs will get cancer or will have joint problems.

So, keep things in proportion. Yeah, it's better to wait. If you don't, don't worry about it.

Bob (who's not worrying about his early neutered Charlie)


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Spy said:


> As I stated in my last post, there are pros and cons to spay. There is s good chance, since I'm not a breeder, that I'd lean towards spay after first heat if I had a female. It is a complex decision medically.
> 
> There is no similar complexity on medical grounds when it comes to dogs. There are not medical pros, and a long list of cons.
> 
> I'm also for people being fully informed. I do not think the general public is aware of the results of the 3 major studies showing the injury done to canine health by early neuter, and most vets don't lay out the evidence to clients. If one goes to website run my so-called "animal rights groups" like PETA or the US Humane Society, one will not find honest discussions of the established health consequences of neutering. The evidence threatens the polity objectives of de-sexing every dog in America.


Again, I agree.



Spy said:


> If you have the time, read the studies. You may say, "Wow! I had no idea the evidence was so clear or so damning."


I'm not sure if you're talking to me here - but I've read the studies. I've then discussed them with my vet, who sent me home with a whole load of additional studies. 

I agree with you though - everyone should read those studies. I just also believe most vets are qualified to not only discuss those studies, but also present others that need to be considered as well.


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

Some of the spay/neuter post in the past have become pretty heated.
Lets make sure we keep it civil, and it can keep going. We are already borderline off topic, with the original posters question. If we go way off topic, I'll have to split the post with a new one.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

dextersmom said:


> I think any surgeon (MD or DVM) would disagree with you. They've read hundreds, if not thousands, of studies and know what constitutes a valuable study and what doesn't (just like any PhD).


Respectfully, the studies on neutering are conclusive. The Golden Study was conducted by UC Davis. Not fly-by-night groups or opinions from blog sites.

There is no evidence that supports health benefits to neutering, and massive evidence showing serious medical downsides. 

This evidence is not typically presented to owners weighing their decisions. 

Bill


----------



## dextersmom (Oct 29, 2013)

Spy said:


> Respectfully, the studies on neutering are conclusive. The Golden Study was conducted by UC Davis. Not fly-by-night groups or opinions from blog sites.
> 
> There is no evidence that supports health benefits to neutering, and massive evidence showing serious medical downsides.
> 
> ...





dextersmom said:


> I agree with you though - everyone should read those studies. I just also believe most vets are qualified to not only discuss those studies, but also present others that need to be considered as well.





dextersmom said:


> I guess my stance is this - there are studies to support both sides of spaying. Not necessarily neutering.


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

Spy said:


> dextersmom said:
> 
> 
> > I think any surgeon (MD or DVM) would disagree with you. They've read hundreds, if not thousands, of studies and know what constitutes a valuable study and what doesn't (just like any PhD).
> ...


^This.

Dex, what point are you arguing here and why?

There's no doubt vets are qualified to discuss the studies, they're not just necessarily qualified to assess the validity of the conclusions.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

dextersmom said:


> I will see if I saved the printed literature from my vet when discussing spaying with her - it was over a year ago though and I'm not sure if I still have it.
> 
> I did not personally research neutering nearly as much, and from what I did, I would tend to agree with you on that front anyways.
> 
> I guess my stance is this - there are studies to support both sides of spaying. Not necessarily neutering.


There are pros and cons to spay. I'm in a similar to position with you (just reversed) in that I've concentrated my research on neutering (having a male dog), but I know I would have a struggle wrestling with the pros and cons of spay. Mammillary cancers are a significant risk in not spaying (although there is some controversy I'd need to explore more on the issue before having a definitive view). I'd also be very concerned by the odds of Pyometra in females that are not used to breed. It think weighing the medical issues and the realities of having an intact female (and especially the chances of unwanted pregnancies) that I would *probabally* spay after the first heat, or maybe after the second if the first came very early. Not a *definitive* choice, and one I'd need to struggle with more. There are downsides with removing natural hormones with females too. Not a slam-dunk either way.

With males there is no upside from a health perspective. The complexities that one has with spay, are not present in neutering. Medically it is all cons.

The exacerbation of fear, anxiety, noise-based fears, separation anxieties, and the like is an especially important consideration with Vizslas, who as a breed tend to struggle with these issues.

I own a V because I want a highly athletic dog who gets to maximize his physical potential. Reducing the muscularity, stamina, and performance when it is entirely unnecessary from a medical perspective is not the choice I'd make. As a society we have the responsibility to make sure our animals don't reproduce (without design), but there are other ways to do this other than the drastic act of neutering.

I think we will look back on this era with some shame for not making more health preserving options, like vasectomies, affordable and easily available options for pet owners.

Bill


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

We need to try to keep the posts to how it effects size of male dogs.
Slightly off topic is fine, but way off, and I have to split it.
Either way is fine with me.


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

dextersmom said:


> I'm not sure if you're talking to me here - but I've read the studies. I've then discussed them with my vet, who sent me home with a whole load of additional studies.
> 
> I agree with you though - everyone should read those studies. I just also believe most vets are qualified to not only discuss those studies, but also present others that need to be considered as well.


However, there are "no other studies." If you are aware of any study that shows either health benefits from neutering or health risks from keeping a dog intact (with the two narrow exceptions noted above that don't justify routine early neuter) please cite those studies. I've looked, and firmly believe they do not exist.

The medical literature on spay makes the decision a tough one. But there is no such complexity on neutering. If you have evidence or a study that suggests otherwise, please cite it. 

Bill


----------



## Spy Car (Sep 3, 2014)

TexasRed said:


> We need to try to keep the posts to how it effects size of male dogs.
> Slightly off topic is fine, but way off, and I have to split it.
> Either way is fine with me.


It has been a civil discussion. We all should be concerned with the health of Vizslas. Over-growth due to early neuter is one aspect of neutering that arose organically in the thread. The Vizsla Study showed it isn't the only issue. We are adults.

Bill


----------

