A good zoo friend of mine with a houseload of dogs regrettably has to rehome one, an intact bitch, because of fighting. I've been encouraged to foster her even as its acknowledged I'm not long-term prepared for a companion as yet (I had been getting close but have had a series of financial setbacks and a looming-on-the-horizon moving expense putting my net worth well below being able to set aside an emergency care fund I promised myself I would meet before accepting responsibility for a canine companion). I've decided to entertain this idea, short term fostering until a forever home could be found for her, but ... I would really want to get her a "partial spay," a hystorectomy which remove the uterus (simultaneously eliminating risks for pregnancy and pyometra) but leaves the ovaries (which are what generate the natural hormones in a bitch -- so she wouldn't lose her vibrancy, unlike a full spay).
Fostering an intact bitch I don't intend to keep, would it be wrong for me to impose a life-altering surgery on the bitch that may not align with the wishes of a future forever home for her?
Honestly if you're fostering and the goal is to find a new, non-zoo home for her, a regular spay would be the best option if you want to have her altered. It will be very hard to find a pet home for a hormonally intact female, as most people don't want to deal with heats, behavior, aggression to other pets, etc. So she'd likely just end up going through two surgeries: an expensive ovary saving spay with you, and then removal of the ovaries in a new home. Any surgery is inherently risky and unless you find a very unique, knowlegable home who would prefer a hormonally intact dog, it'd be double the surgery risk. So if it were me I'd say either do a regular spay, or keep her intact for now and let the new home have her spayed. If she's mature there's very little medical risk to a conventional spay.
I'm not a huge fan of spay and neuter personally but, the average pet owner honestly isn't usually responsible enough to handle an intact dog, fully or just hormonally. So for the sake of finding homes for dogs and preventing unwanted puppies in the care of irresponsible owners, altering is usually a "necessary evil" in my opinion. Better for a dog to be altered and have a loving home than no home at all if you ask me.
Eagle, unless I'm missing something, there seems to be an inconsistency here. You state first that your finances aren't as you'd like, but then you seem to be willing to pay for surgery on the dog, and no surgery is cheap. What am I missing? Seems like maybe, if you were willing to keep her, you could set aside the price of the surgery and have your emergency fund in fair shape. Also, there is pet health insurance, and although it may not cover the spay, it could be an added buffer against emergencies.
The standard I self-set for accepting a companion is to have $2,000 I can set aside strictly for an emergency surgery. I currently have $500, have around $2000/mo income after taxes, anticipate having $2,000 or so in moving expenses by October and my portion of rent and bills over 3 months would be $2500. There's also food and other expenses (fuel, etc.) for myself to consider as well as any more in my string of bad luck. Part of the reason I only have $500 is that I've had family and friends with some emergencies I've helped out with. I have e-mailed an inquiry to a local veterinary hospital listed on a site promoting OSS as willing to perform the operation, asking for a ballpark estimate of cost. I could probably get money together to afford it, but I don't have a clue as to what the actual cost would be until I get an answer.
The timeframe for deciding to foster the dog or not would be next week.
Just got a reply back from the vet hospital I e-mailed an inquiry to, they confirmed they will do an OSS (partial spay), will be $1008. I would be able to afford that after my next paycheck in a couple weeks. It would be another setback against my own eventual permanent companion, but ... if it works out I will be taking the dog home with me next week, I think I will do it. I had initial concerns with myself against what some future alteration-phobic zoo whom would otherwise adopt her permanently might think as I try to be tolerant of zoo ideologies different from my own, but thinking more on it ... I'll be selfish and impose my values here, if indeed I foster her if the zoo I would be adopting her from doesn't have an issue with it. He does make a living breeding dogs, but she's a mix.
Seems like they are taking advantage price-wise, though I have no idea what is customary where you are.
I tend to agree that if you don't plan to keep her, this might not be the best idea. If you want her that way, then absolutely. But if she's a cross, and bitch-aggressive, next owner is likely to spay to reduce aggression, if indeed you decide to not keep her. Thus putting her and you through unnecessary grief.
My 2 cents. (And 2 cents isn't worth much these days.)
I'd do a full spay, and thus make her more adoptable to non-zoo homes.
sw
