Spinoff: Intact males and aggression

 I'm absolutely not saying that the testosterone levels in intact males aren't responsible for a percentage, maybe quite a large one, of fights involving intact males.  What I'm wondering is whether there is more of a nature/nurture connection than is perhaps recognised.  Not all testosterone-filled human men go around starting fights, they may not even strike back when another male picks on them...a lot of that is going to be down to how they were raised and taught how to handle confrontation, whether they had a bad day at the office or a problem going on in their personal lives. 

All dogs can have a "bad day at the office" and react badly to something that otherwise might never have fazed them, and testosterone can definitely play a part in dictating the severity with which they react, the link between testosterone and aggression in all male animals is well-documented - all I am debating is whether testosterone is the cause of as much intact male aggression as it is blamed for, or whether it just turbo-boosts aggression that was there anyway, in some cases.

More later, need coffee....LOL.

Krissim Klaw

 I certainly wouldn't blame all the worlds fights on testostrone, but it is has been proven across the board in all types of critters that aggression is one of the byproducts of testosterone.  In the game of love, the males with more testostrone are often larger, more ampped up, and thus more fit to defend their kills, terrortry, and go on to win the ladies.

 

I can see it coming into play where a bunch of males are near each other and a bitch in heat, but other than that, I agree with Kate it's mostly a training/management issue.  And come to think of it there were bitches in heat at NASS and we never saw the males lose focus or start fights.  Actually we joked about turning them loose and letting the bitch pick the stud (to which someone said honestly it would probably be the biggest male b/c he'd win the fight). 

I don't know all the factors and I agree with Benedict that other factors could certainly have an effect. When Shadow was still intact, I took him to a dog park. I was an idiot. I didn't have much training in. But it was a learning experience. For one, it's a 1 acre park. Plenty of room to get to top speed which, for Shadow, was approaching 35 mph, if I can guage the motion of cars. He was simply the fastest dog there and it was awesome to see. As William H. Macy said in "Wild Hogs," "Man, he's really moving..." Shadow sniffed all the females and challenged most of the males. I don't know if the other males were intact but he may have been testing the waters for breeding rights. I could not catch him. He came back to a female Golden that he really liked for another sniff and that's when I managed to clip back on to his collar. I got us to the double stage gate where I could get the harness back on and we left. That was enough for both of us. I don't know if he would do the same thing after being neutered as we have not been to a dog park since then. Some things are hormone related and that can't be denied. Shadow quit humping after his snip op.

And I don't think it's necessary to keep a dog intact unless one is going to breed, with exception for large and giant breeds that, I think, should have their snip op later, if possible.

We got Shadow when he was 1 year and 2 months, intact. I had him neutered at 2.5, never having bred but I also never left him alone with other dogs.

Next time, I won't wait as long. Dogs don't understand planned parenthood like humans do so I think neuter/spay is the best way to manage reproduction. Unless I was a breeder and had pens, etc., to keep males and females separated during season.

 

ron2

Shadow sniffed all the females and challenged most of the males. I don't know if the other males were intact but he may have been testing the waters for breeding rights. I could not catch him. He came back to a female Golden that he really liked for another sniff and that's when I managed to clip back on to his collar. I got us to the double stage gate where I could get the harness back on and we left. That was enough for both of us

 

You got Shadow at an age when whatever formation he was going to get regarding behaving insofar as his manhood was concerned had already pretty much been fully formed.  I'm willing to bet that Shadow's breeder and his previous owners likely didn't put a lot of effort into teaching him proper etiquette on that particular front.  If he'd come from a good breeder and you'd had him as a puppy, his behaviour at the dog park may have been entirely different.  It wouldn't even necessarily have to have been YOU who taught him, if the previous owners had.  I know 2 intact male Maremmas that live together in harmony.  Their owners can walk them side by side, they hang around in the house together - but they weren't raised together, one of them didn't enter their house until he was 2, having lived in Italy prior to that.  Nor is it that the existing male Maremma in the house is tolerant in all circumstances, as he has demonstrated his willingness to fight with his own litter-brother because they just don't like each other and I don't think that would change if they were both fixed.  (I was holding the leash of the brother during one such episode, though the fight didn't go very far.)  Nevertheless, those 2 dogs happily coexist despite the supposed belief that keeping 2 male Maremmas together is a HUGE no-no.  The owners?  Very calm, capable, lovely people who know what they are doing, and I can't help but wonder whether their personalities have an effect on that.

 

I think that's an odd take on it -

ron2

And I don't think it's necessary to keep a dog intact unless one is going to breed

*I* think it's more; "is it necessary to neuter this dog?"  Not; "Is it necessary to keep him intact?"  Let's face it, if a dog stays intact it's because the owner hasn't gone to the effort and expense of getting him neutered, but has rather ALLOWED him to remain, er, au naturelle... not KEPT him that way.  If all human beings disappeared off the planet, all dogs would be intact.  They don't have to be KEPT that way - they ARE that way, unless we intervene.  You may think "semantics" - but I think it's an important distinction. 

For some dogs, depending on their temperament and the owners, level of training, owner-knowledge... The dog being neutered is probably best for all concerned.  But IMO it should be a case-by-case thing, not just "Neuter if you're not going to breed". 

I honestly think that this NEUTER!!!!!!! crusade (I'm talking about male dogs specifically here) hasn't really done the dog-world any favours.  Are the shelters less full?  Do we really have less unwanted puppies?  And what about the behaviour problems that are caused or exacerbated by taking away those hormones?  What about the behaviour problems that arise, or are allowed to continue, because countless owners have been virtually brainwashed into thinking there is nothing they can do about it (other than neuter)?

Chuffy

*I* think it's more; "is it necessary to neuter this dog?"  Not; "Is it necessary to keep him intact?"  Let's face it, if a dog stays intact it's because the owner hasn't gone to the effort and expense of getting him neutered, but has rather ALLOWED him to remain, er, au naturelle... not KEPT him that way.  If all human beings disappeared off the planet, all dogs would be intact.  They don't have to be KEPT that way - they ARE that way, unless we intervene.  You may think "semantics" - but I think it's an important distinction.

I do too.  If all intact dogs were at a risk of fighting, or - according to some, including some vets I've known - 99% CERTAIN to fight, dogs would have extinguished themselves as a breed long before we ever got our hands on them.  Yes, there are fights and yes, that comes largely down to survival of the fittest - but it also comes down to the personality of the dog.  Your average omega dog or even some mid-pack dogs aren't going to start fights, they're just going to go about their business, intact or not.  Many won't even defend themselves when picked on.  

Chuffy

What about the behaviour problems that arise, or are allowed to continue, because countless owners have been virtually brainwashed into thinking there is nothing they can do about it (other than neuter)?

 

This really goes to the heart of what I'm trying to get at.  The wide "intact dogs are likely to fight" brush is used to paint over so many other problems that have entirely different causes.  Again, I'm not discounting the wealth of science linking testosterone to aggression - I'm only discounting the idea that testosterone is ALWAYS the cause in intact dogs, as seems to be a common belief.  If you can't blame testosterone for aggression in fixed dogs, you can't blame it all the time for the same behaviour in intact ones.

I know people who love that their dogs are "macho"...every single one of those people has an intact dog.  We discuss here every day the things that dogs can pick up on that we never intended them to, or realised they have.  I find it impossible to believe that those dogs don't pick up on the cues those owners are giving them about "being a man".  I know other people with intact dogs who believe that their intact dog would never start a fight and are surprised when the dogs do...because those owners aren't watching the signals their dog is giving off.  Since the owners have NEVER been watching the signals the dogs are giving off, they didn't manage the issues those signals were caused by.  To automatically blame them on testosterone is dismissive when, IMHO, there is overwhelming evidence that intact dogs can be handled responsibly by people who have reason to do so. 

I honestly think that this NEUTER!!!!!!! crusade (I'm talking about male dogs specifically here) hasn't really done the dog-world any favours.  Are the shelters less full?  Do we really have less unwanted puppies?  And what about the behaviour problems that are caused or exacerbated by taking away those hormones?  What about the behaviour problems that arise, or are allowed to continue, because countless owners have been virtually brainwashed into thinking there is nothing they can do about it (other than neuter)?

I have to agree with this. There are almost no intact dogs around here yet the shelters are full. The vets keep coming up with more evidence that neutering, particularly before maturity, has adverse impacts on dog health.

 Like I said before, my first dog got MORE aggressive post-op.  Later, a trainer suggested this might have been because his aggression was actually fear based and by taking away his marbles, we took away the last shreds of his confidence - albeit pseudo-confidence, macho "attitude" that means males have got the, er, "balls", to contest over resources like territory or females.

I don't deny that testosterone and aggression are linked, but I think it needs to be examined more closely.  Think, chicken and egg.  Stay with me!

I have read that the level of testosterone fluctuates in the individual, based on successes and failures.  This makes sense to me.  A submissive dog has less "confidence" to challenge others over resources; he is not the type you would look at and say "oh, he is full of testosterone!".  So what if a dog's testosterone could be managed or lowered through practising certain behaviours?  (Er, we might call that, "training".)

If anyone has seen "Brainiac - Science Abuse" they might have seen the episode where a very "macho" man was assigned "non-macho" tasks (knitting was one I think).  Another, less macho, self effacing, weedy little man was assigned VERY macho tasks, like arm wrestling.  Testosterone levels were measured before and after and lo and behold, they had decreased and increased respectively.  OK, so it was all tongue in cheek and there's no telling how accurate the test really was, but what if they were on to something? 

Benedict

You got Shadow at an age when whatever formation he was going to get regarding behaving insofar as his manhood was concerned had already pretty much been fully formed.  I'm willing to bet that Shadow's breeder and his previous owners likely didn't put a lot of effort into teaching him proper etiquette on that particular front.

It's a fact, not just a bet. When we got Shadow, he only knew how to sit and shake paws. His previous owner had cats and one of their friends had a Jack Russell Terrier, Duke. So, by accident, Shadow was socialized to cats and small dogs. Duke was older and his best friend. Shadow had no recall. But, if you recalled Duke, Shadow would follow. It was "Mutt and Jeff." Shadow's previous owners, our friend's son T and his girfriend, J, never spent any time with significant training or socialization, or neutering when they probably should have. He was bought a pet store that makes sure that, while you may not be able to contact the listed breeder or the inherent dangers of buying from a pet store, you know that they do not guarantee mixed breeds. They are very clear on that. When we got Shadow, he was about 22 inches tall and about 50 lbs. And his food bowl was suitable for a puppy of less than 6 months. J, the girlfriend was the listed owner on the purchase receipt. She was used to feeding cats. Shadow was surrounded by people who were not educated or thinkingly clearly. I, too, did not have a clue. But I got one, and in a hurry, too. So, yes, I think background does have some affect. And just because Shadow is neutered doesn't mean he gets along with every dog or immediately likes every human. He is shy and that is a breed trait.

Perhaps not every fight is fueled by testerone but neither can that influence be disregarded. Not sure about dogs but in humans, a number of violent criminals have a lot of testosterone and some have an extra y-chromosone.

ron2

erhaps not every fight is fueled by testerone but neither can that influence be disregarded

 

I'm not disregarding the influence (see my "turbo boost" comment above) I am disregarding the logic of placing the blame of every intact dog fight at testosterone's door.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc - coexisting symptoms, not one as a sole cause of the other.  

mudpuppy

I honestly think that this NEUTER!!!!!!! crusade (I'm talking about male dogs specifically here) hasn't really done the dog-world any favours.  Are the shelters less full?  Do we really have less unwanted puppies?  And what about the behaviour problems that are caused or exacerbated by taking away those hormones?  What about the behaviour problems that arise, or are allowed to continue, because countless owners have been virtually brainwashed into thinking there is nothing they can do about it (other than neuter)?

I have to agree with this. There are almost no intact dogs around here yet the shelters are full.

 

This does not surprise me AT ALL! 

Let's talk about the reasons for neutering....

#1 Population Control.

Again, talking SPECIFICALLY about male dogs - say you have an intact female in your neighbourhood and you diligently take your male dog to the vet to be neutered.  It's not going to stop her becoming pregnant if your next door neighbour has not done exactly the same thing.  Neutering males ONLY works to control the population if it is mandatory and EVERY dog is neutered. 

#2 To stop the dog roaming/other unwanted behaviours

Answer:  Have you heard of leashes and fences?  Or training??!!! . 

Neutering does not really do ANYTHING that good husbandry and training doesn't do already.  Just because you neuter your dog does not mean you can leave a giant great hole in your fence.  Yet, scarily, there are people who DO have that mindset.... rather like some training aids (I'm thinking Gentle Leader here, sorry Mr Dunbar), people rely on it as a crutch and think it means they don't have to train the dog.  Sadly, once the dog starts the unwanted behaviour, training is usually still needed to get rid of it, as part of it is now learned and remembered and not just triggered by hormones.  It still puzzles me why the world and his wife rush out and neuter....

mudpuppy

There are almost no intact dogs around here yet the shelters are full.

And my thought is maybe people didn't manage or neuter their dogs when they should have.

If dogs lived wild, they might change to more wild canid social structure and the breeding would be controlled by the breeding pair and not by neutering. But, surprisingly enough, dogs live with humans and humans can't discourage unwanted breeding the way other canids can. And they can't control it completely. The beta or omega dog or canid will eventually leave that pack, find a breeding female and start their own pack, which is really a family. Also, I think we're confusing what is "natural." Humans are not unnatural. We are animals in the world, too. And dogs living with us must live differently than they would in the wild. Why is "natural" only applied to keeping dogs intact and not applied to breeding? If humans are unnatural, then the "pure" breeding we so love to hang on to is very unnatural. Boston Terrier and Pug would not have happened in the wild, "au naturale." So, if we can "pure" breed Labs and GSDs and go on and on about structure, color, etc., why can't we manage with neuter and spay?

Also, dogs in the shelter may have already been neutered or get neutered once they are there and I don't think it's a testament to neuter/spay failing to keep in check the dog population. That is once again a failure on the part of humans. "I don't want to neuter my dog because that will make him less male." Great, now there's another litter in the shelter and they will be neutered because someone, somewhere, bit the bullet and did what is necessary.

I think there is also some difference european and american health practices. Americans tend to circumcize their male children. Many europeans do not. I think circumcision is unnecessary and abusive. The modern invention of soap and water once a day solves the hygiene problem. A friend once read a study that uncircumcized males have a higher rate of penile cancer. Well, we can avoid all risk by just chopping the whole thing off.

There are risks with either choice. And possibly, neutering doesn't solve aggression like we might think it would. But I don't think that's a reason to keep a male intact.

Chuffy

I have read that the level of testosterone fluctuates in the individual, based on successes and failures.  This makes sense to me.

 

This could explain why a dog who goes years without fighting and then suddenly has one fight...and another...and another.....But is there any way to ever know whether that first fight could have been prevented by training and behaviour management alone?  I suspect in many cases it could indeed have been prevented, but I'm not sure how anyone would go about proving that.  

ron2

There are risks with either choice. And possibly, neutering doesn't solve aggression like we might think it would. But I don't think that's a reason to keep a male intact.

 

No, it's not, but the risk of assuming that neutering WILL cure aggression brings with it an entirely new set of problems.   Blaming everything on the hormones results in complacency:  "oh, if my dog ever has a fight I'll just fix him" instead of paying homage to, and aiming to prevent, all the myriad other causes of aggression that really might have nothing to do with testosterone at all. 

If every male dog owner on the planet started off assuming that they'd keep the dog intact for its lifetime and were armed with the tools to manage that - would intact males have the bad reputation they do?  

In humans, aggression has been associated with low testosterone levels. Normal testosterone levels appear to be important for mental well-being. Aggression in dogs is such a complexity of it's own, but whether or not the dog is intact, IME, makes little difference. Ares, 8 years old, neutered, has been getting more aggressive lately. My vet thinks it's because his testosterone levels may be decreasing. I think it's because he's in increasing pain. Much aggression in dogs is fear based. As for the "macho" thing that Kate mentions, yes, that is definitely a factor. People who think their male dog should be tough. They either are ignoring the warnings or are very possibly encouraging the aggressive displays. As for me, I don't neuter because I don't like to put my dog through surgery and remove internal organs. Managing the dog and his environment are viable ways to prevent unwanted litters and unwanted behaviors without neutering.