Spinoff: Intact males and aggression

sillysally

Benedict

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.

 

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?  

 

IMHO, this a completely moot point.  The fact is that the majority of dog owners are not like the people on this board.  They can barely manage their own children much less an intact dog.  Most of the ones I've seen at the park have generally bullied other dogs/got into fights with other dogs.  I've met *one* intact male that has been pleasant to be around at the park.  Jack was recently attacked by our farrier's intact male ACD.  The most dog aggressive dog I know (would kill another dog if given the chance) is an intact male.  Would these dogs act this way with more experienced owners?  Perhaps.  However, this does not really matter, since they are *not* with different owners.

That having been said, I do not think that hormones are completely to blame, but I do think it takes the edge off and can make the dog easier for an owner who is not experienced to train. 

But it does matter....since if they WOULD act differently with different/more experienced/more knowledgeable owners, it's not being intact which is truly the problem, it's being owned by people who don't know what they are doing with an intact male which is the problem, and the resultant - if even accidental - shaping of the dog's behaviour by how the owners act.  Those kinds of problems do not, IMO, suddenly disappear with neutering, because the issue is with the owner, not the dog. 

Benedict

sillysally

'm not sure how it can be said that the neuter cased the issue when another dog has had the opposite experience.  Maybe it is neuter combined with personality? 

 

Yes, and that is exactly my point...that the "all dogs should be neutered" brush is so wide that it leaves no room for any other factors.   If neutering can affect different dogs in different ways because of varying existing personalities in those dogs, then it logically follows that leaving a dog intact is subject to those same variations. 

Imagine an experiment in which you could take 100 intact dogs who have all displayed some form of aggression, and an identical group of neutered dogs who have also displayed different types of aggression in the same proportions as the first group.   You can say for certain that it isn't being intact which is causing the aggression in the group of neutered dogs, but it IS being intact that will take the blame for all the dogs in the first group.  Then neuter the first group...I am willing to bet that it will not cure or even lessen aggression in all of the dogs, which means that the balls were never to blame.  There are just too many other factors for it to be a complete "fix". 

I think neutering is probably a sensible decision for most owners of pet dogs, I'm just questioning the validity of neutering ALL pet dogs because "it's the right thing to do" and because "intact dogs become aggressive".  I don't think that it will make a lick of difference in some cases of how the dog will eventually turn out, and in some cases - as with Chuffy's first dog - it may actually be detrimental. 

There are too many types of aggression, too many factors contributing to those, for there ever to be one cure.  Held up against all the other kinds, I'm slowly but surely forming the opinion that simply being intact as a direct and sole cause of aggression is actually responsible for a relatively small proportion of cases.  It IS responsible for some, I have no doubt.  I'm also not saying that neutering doesn't help with other antisocial/rude behaviours, I've witnessed with my own eyes that it does that, I'm speaking solely here of actual aggression. 

 

I didn't think that anyone argued that is was a total fix for aggression.  I think that if the behavior pattern is already there in most cases the aggression is still going to exist.  However, I suspect that things like fighting with other males, etc would be reduced based on my experience with horses--most colts/stallions once gelded are more social with other horses.

However, it does seem to prevent some problems, especially with owners who are not experienced/don't want to take the time and can make the dog easier to train.  Jack seemed to become more focused when we had him altered.  Call me a horrible lazy dog owner, but if there is no reason for my dog to have his boy parts, and removing them will help his focus less on sex and more on training, interacting socially, etc, then that's what I am going to do.  I feel the same way about horses.  If I ever got a young horse that was intact, I would have him gelded for similar reasons. 

Benedict

sillysally

Benedict

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.

 

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?  

 

IMHO, this a completely moot point.  The fact is that the majority of dog owners are not like the people on this board.  They can barely manage their own children much less an intact dog.  Most of the ones I've seen at the park have generally bullied other dogs/got into fights with other dogs.  I've met *one* intact male that has been pleasant to be around at the park.  Jack was recently attacked by our farrier's intact male ACD.  The most dog aggressive dog I know (would kill another dog if given the chance) is an intact male.  Would these dogs act this way with more experienced owners?  Perhaps.  However, this does not really matter, since they are *not* with different owners.

That having been said, I do not think that hormones are completely to blame, but I do think it takes the edge off and can make the dog easier for an owner who is not experienced to train. 

 

But it does matter....since if they WOULD act differently with different/more experienced/more knowledgeable owners, it's not being intact which is truly the problem, it's being owned by people who don't know what they are doing with an intact male which is the problem, and the resultant - if even accidental - shaping of the dog's behaviour by how the owners act.  Those kinds of problems do not, IMO, suddenly disappear with neutering, because the issue is with the owner, not the dog. 

But being intact does make a difference, as the owner has to know how to manage the intact dog.  If someone cannot handle a stallion then it should be gelded--if someone cannot handle an intact dog then it should be fixed.

sillysally

If someone cannot handle a stallion then it should be gelded--if someone cannot handle an intact dog then it should be fixed.

 

Even the term - "fixed" -  speaks volumes to me.  It carries the implication that the dog isn't "right" until he's had the op.  I wonder who coined the term, and if this was a deliberate choice?

Also, don't get me STARTED on stallions.  Stallions are not the total psychos they are made out to be - again, husbandry, management and training all come in to play.  And again, expectations form reality....

Chuffy

sillysally

If someone cannot handle a stallion then it should be gelded--if someone cannot handle an intact dog then it should be fixed.

 

 

Even the term - "fixed" -  speaks volumes to me.  It carries the implication that the dog isn't "right" until he's had the op.  I wonder who coined the term, and if this was a deliberate choice?

Also, don't get me STARTED on stallions.  Stallions are not the total psychos they are made out to be - again, husbandry, management and training all come in to play.  And again, expectations form reality....

I never said that stallions are "total pychos" but they do present some definite management challenges that frankly not everyone wants to deal with/can deal with.  There are some very nice stallions, but they are still stallions, and their owners still recognize this and deal with the horse accordingly.

Sorry, but I think the idea that expectations form reality get many people into trouble because this simply is not true.  It would be unfair to take a stallion and *expect* him to act like a gelding.  Your expectation is not going to make him ignore the drive to breed.  If you buy an Akita I think most breed experts would recommend that you not expect him to behave like a typical golden retriever.

Again, I never said that a dog isn't right until he's had the operation and I never meant that (and I suspect you know this).  What I said was that if a person does not have the knowledge, the ability, or the desire to handled an intact animal then they should not keep said animal intact.  I'm not sure why this is so controversial.  

sillysally

Call me a horrible lazy dog owner, but if there is no reason for my dog to have his boy parts, and removing them will help his focus less on sex and more on training, interacting socially, etc, then that's what I am going to do.

I have a neutered dog for the same reasons....I'm not arguing against it.  I'm arguing against the idea, which I have witnessed in various environments in person and online, that aggression is a foregone conclusion for intact dogs, and that neutering is the best option for ALL male dogs.  I'm wondering why most of the "show people" I know have no issues with their males, but an intact pet dog is suddenly a fearsome beast. 

I don't support the theory that neutering is best for ALL dogs just because some owners can't handle intact ones (a belief demonstrated by mandatory s/n laws)...that's just dressing the argument for BSL in different clothing IMO.

sillysally

I never said that stallions are "total pychos" but they do present some definite management challenges that frankly not everyone wants to deal with/can deal with.  There are some very nice stallions, but they are still stallions, and their owners still recognize this and deal with the horse accordingly.

I didn't suggest that you had said that.  I said that is how they are made out to be and it is not an accurate representation.  Besides, horses are a wee bit different to dogs.  The sheer size and power and therefore safety concern, is a major factor. 

One COULD argue that if you can't handle an animal, get a different animal, rather than getting what you WANT and surgically altering the beast so you can "handle it".  While I think that's a bit extremist, it certainly offers us food for thought, no? 

Both you and Kate have a valid point - that in a lot of scenarios, the animal being neutered is for the best - but one would hope that the same owner would not make the same decision automatically for their next dog.  Maybe they have more knowledge and experience by then, or maybe they have a dog with a different temperament, or one that they have trained more thoroughly or what have you.  I am not saying "don't neuter!"  I am saying that I HOPE we can ALL, (on both sides of the pond) move towards a point where we don't neuter AUTOMATICALLY. 

sillysally

Sorry, but I think the idea that expectations form reality get many people into trouble because this simply is not true.

It's not ALWAYS true.  But it is OFTEN true.  And I don't think the notion gets people into trouble because I think all too often, people are unaware of it and the very opposite gets them into trouble!  It's probably OT and I would be happy to start another thread if anyone else is interested.

sillysally

Your expectation is not going to make him ignore the drive to breed.

No it will not.  But your expectation that the drive to breed will make him unmanageable will be a self fulfilling prophecy, IMO.

sillysally

Again, I never said that a dog isn't right until he's had the operation and I never meant that (and I suspect you know this).

Of course I do!  I was speculating on the ORIGIN of the term.  The very point I was making was that you had, probably quite inadvertantly, picked the exact word which sums up all I don't like about the attitude towards neutering

sillysally

What I said was that if a person does not have the knowledge, the ability, or the desire to handled an intact animal then they should not keep said animal intact.

You are correct - but I suspect many people think "ooh I couldn't handle an intact male dog!" when this is actually COMPLETELY untrue.  The truth is either:

 - they COULD handle the animal, but BELIEVE they can't (thanks to propaganda)

 - they could handle the animal but it would cause far more inconvenience.

Besides which, your sentiment (if a person does not have the knowledge, the ability, or the desire to handled an intact animal then they should not keep said animal intact) is unfortunately not how the pet owning public are being encouraged to think.  We are being told, "If you are not going to breed - NEUTER!"

Benedict

sillysally

Call me a horrible lazy dog owner, but if there is no reason for my dog to have his boy parts, and removing them will help his focus less on sex and more on training, interacting socially, etc, then that's what I am going to do.

 

I have a neutered dog for the same reasons....I'm not arguing against it.  I'm arguing against the idea, which I have witnessed in various environments in person and online, that aggression is a foregone conclusion for intact dogs, and that neutering is the best option for ALL male dogs.  I'm wondering why most of the "show people" I know have no issues with their males, but an intact pet dog is suddenly a fearsome beast. 

I don't support the theory that neutering is best for ALL dogs just because some owners can't handle intact ones (a belief demonstrated by mandatory s/n laws)...that's just dressing the argument for BSL in different clothing IMO.

 

I general I agree with you.  However, I would argue that most, rather than some pet owners cannot handle the responsibility of intact dogs.  This is why while I do not agree that it should be a law, I do agree with making different licensing fees for intact dogs and have no issue with vets strongly recommending it.   Maybe pet owners in general are more responsible in the UK, but that is not my experience here in the states.
 

Chuffy

It's not ALWAYS true.  But it is OFTEN true.  And I don't think the notion gets people into trouble because I think all too often, people are unaware of it and the very opposite gets them into trouble!  It's probably OT and I would be happy to start another thread if anyone else is interested.

Yes please.  

Chuffy

It's probably OT and I would be happy to start another thread if anyone else is interested

I addressed that in the other thread I started.

sillysally

Maybe pet owners in general are more responsible in the UK, but that is not my experience here in the states.

This is a very good point.  I have seen on several thread others people mentioning how many dogs end up being tethered outside permanently and not in the best shape.... It's not something you see that much round here, if at all. 

sillysally

Maybe pet owners in general are more responsible in the UK, but that is not my experience here in the states.
 

Maybe...but in that case it's still the owners having an effect on the dog's aggression levels, because it's not the dogs themselves who are all different.  

I don't think anyone should be stupid about it...having a playdate with 2 intact Akitas is asking for trouble, for example....I'm just saying that it's just as easy to be clueless and neuter as it is to be clueless and keep a dog intact.  Know your dog, know what you want for your dog, do your utmost best to shape your reality according to that.  Sometimes that means neutering, sometimes it doesn't...but nothing bad ever happened from making educated decisions and debating ideas.  

 It annoys me slightly that "not being able to handle" a dog is used as an excuse for invasive, non reversible surgery. 

Some people really do believe that they can't handle the dog and in that case then YES I do think that the belief helps to shape reality.  And I think it's sad because I think those same people COULD "handle" the dog.  Just like people are led to believe they can't possibly feed their dog a balanced diet (despite the fact parents are entrusted with their human children's nutritional health and not urged to go out and buy "complete" dry nuggets). 

It's poppycock - of course you can!  Anyone can, if they WANT to and if they expend the effort!  (And I confess to being a hypocrite here because I feed kibble).  What it comes down to, the nub and crux of the matter is CONVENIENCE and I dislike the idea that dogs undergo surgery - "for our convenience".  Referencing the other thread - I see this as being as bad as, if not worse than, physically altering the dog for cosmetic reasons. 

Ironically, I do believe that THAT is what is causing the pet population issue... this convenience-hungry, throw-away society.  On one hand we are saying "Oh a pet is a huge responsibility, commitment for the lifetime of the animal, a lot of effort" etc. and then on the other hand we say (in not so many words) "If you don't get the dog neutered he will be far too much effort, oh he will MARK, he will ROAM, he will be aggressive blah blah blah... but neutering will FIX all that!"  Just seems kinda ... wrong.... to me.  I'm finding it hard to express myself here.

Also ironically - frequently it's the people who SHOULD neuter (who don't want to spend more time and effort) who DON'T.  No wonder intact males get a bad rep.

Chuffy

Ironically, I do believe that THAT is what is causing the pet population issue... this convenience-hungry, throw-away society.  On one hand we are saying "Oh a pet is a huge responsibility, commitment for the lifetime of the animal, a lot of effort" etc. and then on the other hand we say (in not so many words) "If you don't get the dog neutered he will be far too much effort, oh he will MARK, he will ROAM, he will be aggressive blah blah blah... but neutering will FIX all that!"  Just seems kinda ... wrong.... to me.  I'm finding it hard to express myself here.

YES.  

One of the reasons I started this thread was to educate myself.  If everyone had said "oh no, it's true, they are more aggressive and it is ALWAYS the result of being intact" then fine...at least I asked the question.  Don't feel like dealing with the non-aggressive antisocial behaviours that an intact dog is capable of?  Fine, neuter - I did.  Although it may be more accurate to say that at the time I felt like I couldn't handle them, not that I didn't want to.  I was frankly devastated about neutering Ben when I did, I really wanted to wait until he was over a year old.  

What bothers me is subjecting a dog to invasive, non-reversible surgery out of fear.  Fear is rarely a good base for decision making and in cases of dogs who are neutered because of displayed aggressive tendencies, it leads to a downward spiral.  Owner fears that the dog will become aggressive/more aggressive and they can't handle it so they have the dog neutered because of course it's being intact which is the problem - everyone says so.  Unfortunately, if that doesn't solve the problem, the owner STILL feels like they are incapable of dealing with it and they slowly but surely become fearful of their own dog.  Eventually the dog gets surrendered to a shelter for being aggressive, where he is assessed by someone who has seen it all before and is confident in their own abilities, which the dog picks up on, leaving the shelter worker to shake his/her head in wonder over why this sweet dog was ever labeled aggressive.  Is this the case in all situations?  No, but it is in some of them.  

There are a lot of great reasons for neutering, which I support.  There are also a lot of good reasons, IMO, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and not to let the immensely wonderful experience of owning a dog be tainted by being made to feel like you can't handle the dog you got unless you neuter it.  That's just not one of the good reasons. 

Chuffy

 It annoys me slightly that "not being able to handle" a dog is used as an excuse for invasive, non reversible surgery. 

Some people really do believe that they can't handle the dog and in that case then YES I do think that the belief helps to shape reality.  And I think it's sad because I think those same people COULD "handle" the dog.  Just like people are led to believe they can't possibly feed their dog a balanced diet (despite the fact parents are entrusted with their human children's nutritional health and not urged to go out and buy "complete" dry nuggets).

Also ironically - frequently it's the people who SHOULD neuter (who don't want to spend more time and effort) who DON'T.  No wonder intact males get a bad rep.

 I do agree with this and it is I think what started all these neutering threads. My reply on the crop/dock thread that I find it strange that the same people who say cropping, docking and debarking are "cruel" because are totally supportive of spaying and neutering. Altering is by far the most invasive of those surgeries, the one which has the most potential for health issues and the one which has the most effect on the dog as a whole.But it is ok to have that elective surgery performed because thanks to years of AR propaganda it is now considered politically incorrect to own intact animals.

 I will say it again - my family always owned intact male dogs and untiI became really involved with dogs we were very much average dog owners. But being people who liked our dogs, we kept them confined - nothing more to it really. We only had two males neutered because when I started 4HU we were "educated" that it was irresponsible and unhealthy to allow the dogs to remain intact. Except that the dogs were always responsibley kept and the health benefits, especially for male dogs have confl;icting health risks.