Neutering without removal of testes?

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?

Do people really not understand this?

Hormones serve purposes other than reproduction. There are risks associated with every surgery. There are different behavior patterns from intact males than from neutered males.

Yes, it's a risk. Putting the dog under for neutering is a risk, as well. Trusting the vet to get the dosage right on the anesthesia is a risk. Feeding the dog every day is a risk. Walking across the street is a risk. Life is full of risks, and we all pick and choose which ones we'll take. If an educated, responsible pet owner chooses to smell intact male pee in her own yard, contains her dog, and trains him properly, why is it our business?

Hormones serve purposes other than reproduction. There are risks associated with every surgery. There are different behavior patterns from intact males than from neutered males.

Thank you.

Yes, it's a risk. Putting the dog under for neutering is a risk, as well. Trusting the vet to get the dosage right on the anesthesia is a risk. Feeding the dog every day is a risk. Walking across the street is a risk. Life is full of risks, and we all pick and choose which ones we'll take.

EXACTLY!  Everything is a risk analysis and where one person draws the line that separates reasonable risk from unreasonable risk is personal and arbitrary.

Paula

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.

I think you are missing the point, dogs are not people, they don't notice when they have missed a period, they don't really have the option to get an abortion. Also, people don't have 6 puppies and take off leaving them on the street to fend for themselves in a few months, in general we are held responsible for our actions. All physicians advise using a second method of birth control when using condoms as the failure rate is high, not that one should not have sex, one should be responsible while having sex and don't make babies unless you are prepared for them. You can't compare human ethics to dog ethics. Dogs aren't responsible when it comes to sex. Your statistical analysis isn't valid as well because we don't know the real incidence of failure for this procedure and you are assuming that your dog can't procreate with multiple females.

The reason I think that it is an issue is that we have let people make their own decisions in our country and look where we are, millions of dead pets every year. Even one failure can lead to 6 unwanted puppies, two twelve, etc.......People obviously are not making responsible decisions in this case.

I think you're missing the point. The point is that hormones aren't compartmentalized in either humans or dogs. Hormones or their lack affect all aspects of an animal's health (human or otherwise). An example, which I gave, for dogs would be spay incontence in females. An example in humans would be that women's risk for heart disease after menopause matches men's because it seems estrogen was affording us some protection. I am not talking about whether dogs will miss sex, I'm talking about additional consequences to the loss of hormones other than merely making them sterile.

Your statistical analysis isn't valid as well because we don't know the real incidence of failure for this procedure and you are assuming that your dog can't procreate with multiple females.

So you think those numbers will significantly differ from 2.5 out of 10 million?  The truth is that a vasectomized male dog is highly unllikely to make puppies. To insist that those who vasectomize as opposed to castrate are somehow irresponsible is not valid. There is a vast chasm between intact fertile male dog and intact sterile male dog.

The reason I think that it is an issue is that we have let people make their own decisions in our country and look where we are, millions of dead pets every year. Even one failure can lead to 6 unwanted puppies, two twelve, etc.......People obviously are not making responsible decisions in this case.

I must confess my politics are very much free market libertarian so I don't lament people being allowed to make their own decisions in our country.  And maybe that is why I buck against this party line that cutting off your dog's testicles is doing your dog a favor.

Paula

I forgot to post this before, sorry busy today
I'm not sure where you got your stats from, but normally we believe that vasectomies fail 1/200-300 and to see who is we test semen in people not that anyone is interested so people generally know if their surgery is effective so they can choose to use other forms of birth control if it was not.

Here is a fact sheet from AFP

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20061215/2076ph.html

Edit:
another one
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16984640&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

there's more, i'll post when I get a few seconds

I had to go back to that message to find the link I'd referenced.
Their cited sources were
"Adapted from:
[font="arial,helvetica, sans-serif"] 1. Trussell J, Hatcher RA, Cates W, Stewart FH, Kost K. A Guide to Interpreting Contraceptive Efficacy Studies. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990; 76:558-67. [font="arial,helvetica, sans-serif"]2. Mishell DR, Jr. Contraception. New England Journal of Medicine 1989; 320: 777-787."
[font="arial,helvetica, sans-serif"]
And the link was;

[font="arial,helvetica, sans-serif"]http://www.vasectomy.md/Alternatives.htm
[font="arial,helvetica, sans-serif"]
They separated the theoretical failure rates - 0.02% to 0.1% from actual failure rates in routine use over a year 0.02% to 0.2%. 
[font="arial,helvetica, sans-serif"]

Your failure rates are just a little higher than their high (yours are 0.3 to 0.5% )
Paula

That's a very old study, mine are quite new That information is more then 15 years old. Some of the recent literature suggests it actually can fail up to 2%, again this is in people. Not dogs, who knows in dogs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16263006&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

So are you saying that vasectomy efficacy has got worse over time? Your data isn't much different from their data btw. Their failure rates are from 0.02 -.2 yours are from .3-.5. So even if we use my made up equation and used 1/500 instead of 1/5000 or 1/300 it moves the decimal up 1 point so the odds become 2.5 in 1 million instead of 10 million.

Still no justification for me to embrace castration as the only effective form of sterilization in dogs.

Paula

You know what's interesting is that this discussion is not unlike the discussions that occured when people started reconsidering the need to vaccinate their dogs every year.  The establishment shook their heads and worried about dogs getting diseases, moaned about the irresponsibility of exposing the dogs un-necessarily to disease risk. There was back and forth much like this. No entrenched belief dies easy.

Paula

Nope, it fails in at least in 0.3%-2%, I don't agree with the rest of your statistical analysis as I already stated.

1/200-300

Those numbers are from your post; "I'm not sure where you got your stats from, but normally we believe that vasectomies fail 1/200-300 and to see who is we test semen in people not that anyone is interested so people generally know if their surgery is effective so they can choose to use other forms of birth control if it was not."

1/200 = 0.5%
1/300 = 0.33%

And regarding the numbers (I thought about this on the drive home and begin to understand the breakdown in communication), forget about the numbers - those are made up; I have no idea whether the gender distribution among dogs in my area is even, I have no idea what proportion of the female dogs are intact - look at the relationship between the probabilities.  Even if every dog my vasectomized dog met was female and every female that met was in heat (a highly unlikely scenario), if he got out once a month and we used the highest failure rate of human male vasectomy (say 1%) the odds of him being fertile and producing a litter are still very very small ( .01 x .03 x 1 x1) = 0.0003

So the numbers argument simply does not add up.

Paula

I agree that risk/reward is a choice.  We have to make that choice with so many things in life.
 
I can see the theory behind vasectomising a dog, and in theory I don't have a problem with it.  The reality is that there are dog owners out there who are equipped and responsible enough to handle an intact dog.  Many can't, but I'm not sure I buy this catering-to-the-lowest-common-denominator mentality when it comes to pets - or anything else.  Yes its true that neutered dogs are in general easier to manage, and yes it's true that neutering prevents certain health problems.  It may also cause some - it's tricky to know for sure and that's where each of us as a responsible owner put the risk/reward model into play.  That doesn't mean that because the majority can't handle an intact dog that neutering is always the best option. The fact remains that breeders, show dog owners, hunters, owners who make a concious choice and all kinds of other people who keep intact dogs do so successfully a great deal of the time.  And it is those people - who care about their animals, who strive to be responsible and who seek knowledge about their dogs - are the ones who will even explore options such as this, not the ignorant, dog owning idiots who don't give a damn whether their dog is neutered or not, as long as it doesn't shed.
 
I am the first to admit that part of my reasons for neutering Ben and thus getting rid of those hormones entirely were selfish ones.  He didn't mark in the house, fight with other dogs or act aggressively towards anyone.  But he was learning to like the ladies as he grew up and I have arthritis in my hands.  I physically couldn't hold him if he wanted to run after a bitch, out of sheer blinding agony.  That was no good for either of us, so I had him fixed. 
 
Others may have different reasons.  I, for one, am happy to entertain any theory, idea, action or non-action, provided the reasons behind them are the result of careful thought.  Neuter?  Fine.  Don't neuter? Fine.  Vasectomise?  Fine.  Just as long as the person making that decision is educated about what they are doing.  I encounter ignorance and stupidity every single day.  As a result I welcome intelligent decisions even if I don't agree with them.
 
[/soapbox]
 
Kate

I encounter ignorance and stupidity every single day. As a result I welcome intelligent decisions even if I don't agree with them.

AMEN!!! I do think that any surgery should be well thought out, rather than a compulsive "supposed to" response. It's a SURGERY! Eductated, thought out decisions (regardless of what is decided) are almost always better than ignorant or thoughtless decisions.

My next dog will be intact for at least a year, if all goes as planned. I want to give it a chance to grow properly. Emma was spayed at 8 weeks. When I got her, at 9 weeks, she was a "puddin" dog, with short little legs. Now, at 3 years, she's almost square. She grew an inch AFTER she turned two. I believe all that stuff about early spay/neuter and growth plates not closing, because I watched it with my own two eyes.

Kate,

I agree with your reasoning. I am sorry this discussion became some kind of quality declaration regarding the motives behind castration or vasectomy. I respect that some people, maybe even myself, choose to castrate, and others, maybe myself, choose to vasectomize, but for me mindfullness comes from weighing all the benefits and being honest with myself about whom this action benefits.

Paula

Jennie,

You are correct. Early neuter leads to a leggier appearance as the great bones grow longer and thinner. I could cite references but I have to do homework at some point tonight, homework that requires I read a number journal articles. But it is an easy google.

Paula