0n (23 Feb 06) WAYNE CHIRNSIDE wrote to CINDY HAGLUND...

->  ALthough it's supposed to be 'good for them' to get sniped/fixed I
-> think it's actually better for us that they do. SO the idea of
-> 'they'll be healthier" might not be all together true.

 WC> Well dogs have testostrone too and that knocks 7 years of
 WC> a human male's life.

Yes.

 WC> We have the Catholic church of old to thank for this
 WC> tidbit as they neutered young choir boys so their sweet voices
 WC> wouldn't change.
 WC> Harems in the mideast to had their eunuchs.


 I've read of that. But you know you and I better not bring it up in
polite company. heh. I mean we'd be accused of church bashing instead
of simply stating facts.

-> Especially with female dogs. It's more convenient for US that they're
-> fixed/spayed/neutered. But it sounds better if said 'it's better for
-> the dog'.


Yep...  I have to agree with this ... after two months of having to
put sanitary napkin pants on my sweet dear Abbie so she wouldn't bleed
all over the carpet... She hated those pants.

In the nutshell it's best for both pet and owner. A female in heat
attracts male dogs in heat and you don't wanna be in th middle of
that encounter... :( (Say on a walk...)


 WC> Well Spanky once tried to mount a female in heat but with a single
 WC> verbal command I stopped him.


 Patches once/twice mounted Cosmo... two male fixed dogs... I'm told
it was an act of dominance. Funny thing is after the first startled
reaction I had seeing Patches do that, he never did it again... not
while I was looking. *(My daughter whipped around to see what I was
gasping "Patches!" at , fell to the floor and nearly died laughing.)

 WC> Now that's an example of proper training for a potentially dangerous
 WC> breed!!!


Yep! :) People blame dogs for bad behavior when the responsibility is
that of the owner.


Cindy

--- PPoint 3.01