Hmm well this seems like your post was meant just to vent, not to discuss, but I'll add my $0.02 anyway. I would personally wait till my own male dog was full grown before neutering him; I think the growth plate issue is probably not a big issue for most dogs, but it could be for some so I'd wait since I'm a responsible person

and will keep my dog from impregnating another dog. I'm interested in preventing testicular cancer in my dogs, and dramatically decreasing the chances of prostatitis, prostate cancer, and perianal hernias/fistulas (non-fatal but extremely ouchy). I have personally watched two men cry over a dog who died of metastatic testicular cancer, and their guilt and regret made an impact. They had both spent years scoffing at the need to neuter. There's also the matter of urinary tract infections and complications caused by
Re: "all the studies", unfortunately not only are some studies summarized improperly by others (willfully or not) but every study has to be looked at carefully. In the U.S., dogs who are well cared for tend to be dogs who are spayed or neutered. Saying "of XYZ amt of dogs who died of hemangiosarcoma, only 28% were intact" tells me only that, of XYZ amount of dogs who presented to a veterinary hospital with hemangiosarcoma, 28% were intact. [I just made up that statistic and example BTW.] There are no routine autopsies done on animals, so the neighbor's intact dog who died suddenly one day may have had hemangio--who knows? We only have info on those who presented to an animal hospital and had enough diagnostics done to determine cause of death.
can anyone explain to me why it is that whenever i ask about a vasectomy for dogs (no unwanted pups from the sire, his endocrine system isn't cored out, AND he can potentially prevent pregnancy in an intact female since *they* don't know he's shooting blanks!), everybody
acts like my head has started doing 360s while spewing pea soup and chanting the lord's prayer backward?
Probably because most veterinarians don't learn to do all types of surgery. In the US/Canada, consult a DACVS and you can find someone to do it.
This is a horrible mishmash of studies which the author did not understand, or is misconstruing for the most part. She needs to cite references if she wants to cite statistics.
AVMA article from 2005 citing increased likelihood of adverse reaction to vaccination in altered dogs: http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2005.227.1102?prevSearch=
Gee, maybe because the neutered dogs were older, meaning they'd previously had vaccines. You get your big reaction upon repeating exposure, not upon initial exposure. Note the link with age:
"
Risk was 27% to 38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35% to 64% greater for dogs approximately 1 to 3 years old versus 2 to 9 months old."
I betcha more of those older dogs were neutered, vs the ones who were a few months old i.e. more neutered dogs had repeated vaccine exposure.
I'm also sure the authors would be startled to know their article was being "summarized" in this way.
rutgers university study from 2007 on negative consequences of spay/neuter on dogs regardless of breed: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
I can't open this one for some reason, but I think I know the article. It suffers the same problem as others, in that we don't have autopsies on all dogs, and we only have numbers from those who get care for their animals. I do think the evidence for certain things -- like the growth plate closure's link with sex hormones -- is cumulatively growing, but the evidence elsewhere is weak.
UC Davis study published feb 13, 2013 showing negative consequences of spay/neuter in golden retrievers: http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10498
Studies like these --in which old records are examined-- are great for figuring out new lines of inquiry, but should be treated warily as the sole basis for a health decision. These were all dogs attending one hospital in one area, and given that the gene pool of purebred dogs is incredibly narrow, it'd be nice to know if the dogs who developed lymphoma early had a genetic link rather than just had 'neutering' in common. Lots of breeders have s/n contracts, and some don't--could be the dogs had a s/n in common along with a genetic predisposition to lymphoma, something that is already recognized in this breed. Heck, maybe they hit on an environmental hotspot for cancer -- only a further, carefully done prospective study would give more information here.
In the end, we have the incontrovertible fact that in this country, the #1 cause of death in dogs is overpopulation. More dogs die from lack of homes than die from hip dysplasia, lymphoma, or any other disease. I can't fault shelters and others for choosing the fastest and most foolproof way of making sure that more unwanted litters aren't born.