Neutering without removal of testes?

ORIGINAL: dvet

to each his own...Had a client in Miami who would not neuter her dog because the dog  was the reincarnatiobn of her son, killed in the war

I'm sorry, but your response, even though it begins with 'to each his own' ends with an anecdote that makes me think that in truth you don't really respect 'to each his own' at all.

And in fact I'm not advocating keeping animals fertile, I'm asking for less invasive measures for sterilization. This is not a flaky discussion. Actually it reminds me of back in the day when human doctors reasoned that since a woman's uterus was only good for childbearing, that removal of it would only affect her ability to have children.  To be sure there are many women with hysterectomies that would beg to differ.


Paula

I think the important thing to remember is that a vasectomy can fail. There are countless cases where the vas reconnects and those little swimmers get free making a baby. As it is not 100% reliable I would not recommend given the insane amount of pets that are euthanized yearly. Or maybe I'm just feeling overly sappy since I just saw that darn purina comercial again, it gets me everytime.

I wonder what the failure rate with vasectomy is for dogs? I did a quick google and found a reported failure rate for humans of 0.02-.2% so a range of about 2/10000 to as high as 2/1000. Those are preeeeeetty low odds.

http://www.vasectomy.md/Alternatives.htm

Paula

Those are preeeeeetty low odds.

Not if you are the unlucky one, not worth the risk, the numbers are estimates remember, they don't know for sure. OCP's fail when taken correctly 1/100 to 1/500 so it's better then the pill, but still why take any risk with pet over population. Especially when there has not been good evidence that keeping the beans benefits your dog in the long term. Even if it's 1/2000 think of the 40 million dogs that are killed yearly that's a lot of failures I don't think are acceptable.

ORIGINAL: ottoluv

Those are preeeeeetty low odds.

Not if you are the unlucky one, not worth the risk, the numbers are estimates remember, they don't know for sure. OCP's fail when taken correctly 1/100 to 1/500 so it's better then the pill, but still why take any risk with pet over population. Especially when there has not been good evidence that keeping the beans benefits your dog in the long term. Even if it's 1/2000 think of the 40 million dogs that are killed yearly that's a lot of failures I don't think are acceptable.

I don't see your comparison. The HSUS estimates that we kill 4 million dogs and cats a year in shelters- what is the breakdown of dogs to cats, adults to pups I don't know. If my dog's vasectomy has a 1/5000chance of being fertile and is otherwise a well taken care of animal who is contained and trained, etc - that's not good enough? It is still more reasonable to castrate him? 

Paula

Human procedure is done A LOT more often than the dog one...there's a reason for increased failure right there.

f my dog's vasectomy has a 1/5000chance of being fertile and is otherwise a well taken care of animal who is contained and trained, etc - that's not good enough? It is still more reasonable to castrate him? 

No because of pet overpopulation, all the training in the world won't keep an "intact" (still with testicles) male away from a female in heat. You may keep your pet confined, never let him alone, never let him ouside where he can get away, but many people are not responsible. It's just not right with the statistics to do a procedure that has a failure rate at all when you can assure that they will not breed. This was on the this same board a while ago where someone was stating that their dog wouldn't breed because she/he knew he didn't want them to. That's just not the case, hormones take over. With people it's fine because the people who get vasectomies are usually married couples (many think it's unethical to do a vasectomy on a young man) who are discriminating with who they have sex with, if it fails they are well prepared to have/not have a child. Dogs clearly this isn't the case. You may not even know your dog impregnated another.

Honestly, I understand the "I don't want to operate on my pet if it isn't needed" attitude, I think we all share it, I personally think that it is my responsibility to not add to pet overpopulation and advocating a procedure that can fail is irresponsible in my opinion. Again, if thre was good evidence that keeping the beans was very beneficial to Otto, then I would reconsider, but this evidence isn't out there.

sorry for the offense I was just adding that comment  about the Miami client just as a bit of information...I do not really delve into peoples thoughts . If they want their dog  vasectomized I try to talk them out of it but I do not make a big issue of it...If they want the surgical proceedure done a different way that I think is harmfull, ie two incisions, I will not do it, nor will I tie tubes in a female...you have you thoughts and I have mine...If i think you are wrong I will not do the proceedure based on what I have learned...and I am sure  there are vets who will comply...just to add coal to the fire...I stopped cropping ears back int 60's.. I know lots of vets still do it and we had one vet in the neighborhood who we agreed would do it to those that insist...Same with  tail crops...I would do it if it were for the betterment of the breed, or the dog or for future problems..but not for cosmetic or show dogs desires.....
Friends ???

Fair enough dvet, thanks.

Paula

It's just not right with the statistics to do a procedure that has a failure rate at all when you can assure that they will not breed.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying the condom is not an acceptable form of contraception because it has a 10% failure rate so one just ought not have sex unless one wants a baby. Everything has a failure rate. So what are the odds that my dog vasectomized gets out of the yard, ties with a female and produces puppies. Remember that in probability calculations "and" is a product.  So if the odds of my dog's vasectomy failiing are 0.02 and the odds of him gtting out of the yard is (just for argument) averages 2 times a year (2/365) and say the odds of him finding a female dog in the population are 1 in 2 (assuming half the dogs he meets will be female) and the odds that that female is in heat are 1 in 2 (say at any given half of the year half the females are in heat) then the odds of him producing pups is (0.02)(0.005)(0.5)(0.5) = 0.000025 or 2.5 out of 10million.

I'm just saying. I appreciate that you understand that I'm trying to determine whether castration is necessary surgery or whether there are other effective ways to prevent unwanted puppies.  But the type A in me can't just accept this idea that the odds of failure are too great at 1/5000.

Paula

well, even if you are amazingly responsible and prevent puppies, what about the other drawbacks of unneutered males-- biting kids, fighting with other dogs, prostate cancer, marking? those reasons alone would convince me to neuter.

The one that I'm really thinking about is strong fence enclosure. I'd have to  probably run a couple more strands of hotwire at least (inside the fence line).

As for the biting children thing.  There is definitely a correlation between dog bite injuries to children and intact animals.  I would be interested to know whether the correlation holds up across the different scenarios in which there are intact animals. In other words is this correlation occuring because often the intact dog is also an untrained dog or a tied out dog - a dog basically in a circumstance where it's intact status is just part of a syndrome of neglect or poor planning, or is this correlation universal. Is the correlation as likely among dog bites to children with intact working dogs or intact hunting dogs?  In other words do intact dogs bite because they are sexually mature or because of other circumstances? I don't know.

Dog agression. I've seen dog agression in intact dogs and in castrated dogs. Some dog agression is personality and other dog agression is sex driven - I'm not sure how to portion it out. There are those who have more than one intact dog where the pack dynamic is established and the leader is respected. There are those who have more than one castrated dog and there's constant war. There must be other factors involved.

Prostate cancer.  I would not choose preventive surgery where healthy tissue is removed to eliminate the risk of one particular cancer (among all the different cancers that can occur) unless there was some huge risk - like human women who carry that breast cancer gene that pretty much garauntees they'll get breast cancer. We don't go around lopping off parts of ourselves for fear that at some later point that part might get diseased.

Marking. I think marking would make me castrate. How do show dog people deal with  intact males BTW?   Neither of the two ridgebacks I fostered marked my house.

And come to think of it Chester got along great with Milo - my N/M. And Yoshi my N/M gave Remus, another N/M no peace at all.

Like I said I'm still thinking about it.
Paula

"well, even if you are amazingly responsible and prevent puppies"  remember this discussion is about sterilization by castration vs sterilization by vasectomy.

I don't really understand the attraction of an intact male animal-- the "male" behaviors are just unpleasant to have to deal with. Intact male horses are a total pain. Give em the old snip and few weeks later you have a nice horse who can focus, pay attention, and work with you. I've never owned an intact male dog, because the day they start showing signs of "testosterone poisoning" I get irritated by their behaviors and send them in for snipping. Preventing puppies is just a side-benefit.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I don't really understand the attraction of an intact male animal-- the "male" behaviors are just unpleasant to have to deal with. Intact male horses are a total pain. Give em the old snip and few weeks later you have a nice horse who can focus, pay attention, and work with you. I've never owned an intact male dog, because the day they start showing signs of "testosterone poisoning" I get irritated by their behaviors and send them in for snipping. Preventing puppies is just a side-benefit.

I really love this answer. Testosterone poisoning... []

Testicular cancer is more common than people think.

The first time you watch someone go through the horror of getting a diagnosis for their dog when it comes in for peeing urine, you'll think twice again. The differentials for bloody urine in an 8 year old intact male are: Bladder infection (easily treated), bladder cancer (survival time of 100-200 days), prostatic hyperplasia (treated by neutering), or prostatic cancer (no prevention).  I'm not the vet, I don't know why it took this person  2 months to get his dog diagnosed... but considering the survival time for transitional carcinoma is as low as 100 days, and 60 of those days are spent getting a diagnosis, and the whole mess could have been prevented by neutering the dog (the dog has prostatic hyperplasia and recovered)... Up until the day of the diagnosis, the guy thought his dog had cancer, and now that he knows he could have prevented the entire ordeal by neutering, that owner swears he'll never have another intact dog again... Prostatic hyperplasia is incredibly common in intact dogs... it could be your dog too...

So tell me again, other than cosmetic reasons, why do you want to keep the dogs intact? Should it not be just as bad to keep a dog intact for cosmetic reasons as it is to crop ears for cosmetic reasons?

Testicular cancer is more common than people think.

The first time you watch someone go through the horror of getting a diagnosis for their dog when it comes in for peeing urine, you'll think twice again.

You are making that assumption.  I actually just went through a mast cell cancer diagnosis with my old dog. My truth is that our dogs grow old and die. There are many cancers that will meet the same conclusion as testicular cancer and still I am no more interested in lopping off  healthy parts of my dog to prevent future cancer than I am in lopping off healthy parts of me to prevent future cancer.

So tell me again, other than cosmetic reasons, why do you want to keep the dogs intact? Should it not be just as bad to keep a dog intact for cosmetic reasons as it is to crop ears for cosmetic reasons?

Interesting that you would use such an example because I do think that cuttng off a dog's balls because you don't like how they look or want a male dog but no male dog behavior ranks right up there with cutting off ears and tails.  Same example different point of view I suppose. But of course that is my opinion.

Paula