Neuter/spay - Why? Why not?

Liesje

and show him as an adult before I decide whether to breed and/or keep showing for a VA (yeah right but we can dream...), then I might as well just keep him intact.

And rightfully so, as by the very words of your statement, you have an eye towards possibly breeding him. And certainly, the best qualities of a breed should be conserved by careful breeding. And, FWIW, a breedworthy Lab can't be considered breedworthy until two years because you have to wait until 2 years of age to get an accurate screening for Hip Dysplasia. You can do hips all you want but they don't really mean anything until after 2 years. So, a Lab that might be bred should be kept intact until at least two years, and obviously shown or titled, as well. And you are by far, not an average owner, breeder or not.

To another question that was asked, how could we neuter for our convenience? Dogs live in our lives, at our convenience, for our purpose. Even the purpose of continuing a breed is our desire, not the dog's. Given free reign, the dog might mate with a dog of any breed. But we decide he will mate only with this bitch from this line of the same breed, based on our dedicated research into the background and genetics of both dogs. That is all human-driven purpose. As was pointed out out, we also dock tails and ears. Mainly for our purposes, not evolution. Evolution gave them a tail and floppy ears. If you can dock, you can neuter, for your human purposes.

Keeping a pet at all is for our convenience. Such as companionship, livestock guardian, herd dog. Some spend a great deal of time choosing the right dog and expending energy to do agility or what have you. All that stuff is extra to the dog's primary initiative to eat and procreate, the drive of biology in all creatures. To a point, such activities are "unnatural" as wild and feral canids do not engage in such activities when choosing for themselves. For example, a big dog might choose to bound over an obstacle rather than climb through it, except that we cause them to do these things for points. Does the dog, happily munching on his treats or chewing on his tug towel really care that he won the trial or achieve SChH3? Of course not. But it makes a difference to the human. Especially if they want to breed more dogs that excel at this type of work. Unless you are the type that just lets the dog do whatever, aside from eating and drinking, then it's not all that different from neutering.

I said it before and I will say it again. Ranchers neuter the bulls they are not going to breed from. Why? A determined Brahma bull can do quite a bit. Yes, they can contain the animal somewhat. But what about grazing time? And an active sire will protect his cows, too. In fact, the same can be said for horses. My friend, David, owns three horses. Two of them are neutered. The third one is a racehorse that was produced from a winning mare and a champion sire. If his racing career pans out well, he will stud. For human purposes. Otherwise, he would be happy to graze on David's 15 acres that adjoins another 20.

I do not, for one minute, think that Chuffy, Kate, or Agile, or Liesje are irresponsible in keeping intact pets.  But when I feel that responsible people neuter pets that they are not going to breed, it does not imply that you gals are irresponsible or fall under my "judgement," either.

We've all made educated decisions to neuter, or not, based on what we can do, what are our goals. I might amend my statement and say that, barring health problems, a non-breeding animal should possibly be neutered or spayed.

I had Jade neutered. She went into heat at about 6 months and was presenting to everyone, including Shadow. (Yes, it was funny to see.) What if Shadow got tired of her proximity and decided to teach her a lesson? And segregate Jade for how long? Just to ensure her safety? I'll live with the unknown future she has by being spayed. Sure, it's not natural. Neither, according to some, is feeding kibble to a cat. Or a dog. It's also not natural to give them topical flea treatments. Or vaccinations. Or even just health check-ups. We own our pets. And must manage them as best as possible. And for many, that means speuter.

FIL had prostate cancer. They removed the prostate. Does he have variations in his life due to that operation? Sure. But not nearly as dire as letting the cancer proceed. True, one might not recommend removing it years earlier to avoid a chance of it. But I'm talking about a human.

I guess I suppose most people should neuter because, from what I can see in the land of ignorant yanks, most people live as I do. A dog, or two, in the backyard. Some dogs get out. Many of us have two working spouses, so's, whatever. And neither person can be home to monitor what they are doing. Ergo, speuter.

ron2

I do not, for one minute, think that Chuffy, Kate, or Agile, or Liesje are irresponsible in keeping intact pets.

Just to point out Ron, that while I do appreciate the sentiment, I don't have an intact pet. :)

Benedict

Just to point out Ron, that while I do appreciate the sentiment, I don't have an intact pet. :)

Thanks for reminding me. I should clarify and say that just because you may not believe in neutering non-breeding pets, doesn't mean you are irresponsible.

ron2

Benedict

Just to point out Ron, that while I do appreciate the sentiment, I don't have an intact pet. :)

Thanks for reminding me. I should clarify and say that just because you may not believe in neutering non-breeding pets, doesn't mean you are irresponsible.

I didn't say that either, but again, thanks.

To clarify, I have said several times on this thread and the aggression thread that I think neutering is the sensible choice for most dogs, but it is not the right choice for all dogs and all people, and that before taking such a decision careful thought should be put into whether it is right for the dog in question - rather than it simply being "the right thing to do" as is currently the message.  

I have one little problem with your original post, Ron.

A "mongrel" is a despicable person. The word you're looking for is "bitser" which means a dog made up of bits of this and bits of that.

My decision to neuter was ultimately financial. In my state, dogs must be lifetime registered with the local council by 6 months of age. If they are desexed when you register them, it costs $40. If they are not desexed, it costs $150 unless you are a registered breeder, which brings the price back down to $40. Desexing Kivi cost me about $200, which means I still lost money and he was thoroughly, desperately miserable for the first few days afterwards. I would probably have gotten him desexed anyway, but I would have preferred to wait until he was lifting his leg. In the meantime, his one descended testicle disappeared into his abdomen and goodness knows when it and its friend would come back if they ever did. If they stayed up there they could cause a tumor. The reasons to desex at that point outweighed any reasons not to. I didn't want to pay the extra only to get him desexed later anyway, which seemed a likely choice.

corvus

A "mongrel" is a despicable person. The word you're looking for is "bitser" which means a dog made up of bits of this and bits of that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mongrel

Mongrel -  an individual resulting from interbreeding of various strains.

As opposed to wikipedia, the user defined source, that mentions that in Australia, it is used as a curse. I was using the official dictionary meaning. So, I'll leave it as it is.

I guess what it all boils down to is whether or not you view neutering/spaying as an invasive/dangerous procedure.  I don't.  I come from the horse world where it is virtually expected that you will geld colts ASAP unless they show true stud potential.  Most horse castrations are done in the pasture and take only a matter of minutes.  It's very simple and straight forward.

Dog castrations are not that different, provided there are no special circumstances such as the dog being cryptorchid.  I've seen video and photos of neutering.  Nothing about it bothered me in the least.

You can certainly argue that the spay procedure is more invasive by the pure nature of where the female sex organs are located.  The spay procedure in horses is VERY rare because the mass of organs located in the horse's belly is very hard on the suture line.  Only in severe cases will anyone remove the sex organs in a mare -- and generally they just go in laproscopically through the back to remove the ovaries.

Dogs are built differently than horses.  They are smaller and carry less weight through their abdomen.  There are fewer layers to go through to reach the sex organs.  With the introduction of laser surgery, there are even fewer complications these days than there used to be.

If you are a responsible pet owner and don't want to speuter your own dogs then that is up to you -- but I do feel that the vast majority of dog owners should be speutering their pets.  To go around trying to convince people that it is a medically invasive procedure is not helping anyone.  It is simply not that dangerous and in most cases, is for the good of the dog.

Liesje

I have a side question - in AKC or UKC, can you "finish" a puppy? 

 You can finish a dog in either at 6 months old, at least in theory. In some breeds it is more common than in others. Large breeds and very competive breeds can be very hard to finish as puppies. I would like to try to finish my next dog younger, just to get it out of the way and move on to more fun stuff. Of course it will depend on the shows I'm going to and if the judges are ones willing to put up puppies.

 Belgians in UKC are judges very differently and are rather competive, so I can't really say how most breeds work other than you can enter puppies 6 months and older.

Benedict

ron2

I do not, for one minute, think that Chuffy, Kate, or Agile, or Liesje are irresponsible in keeping intact pets.

 

Just to point out Ron, that while I do appreciate the sentiment, I don't have an intact pet. :)

Just to clarify - I neuter too!  But I do not think that my next dog will *definately* be neutered.  We will wait and see and it will depend on circumstances, the temperament of the dog and the health benefits carefully weighed against the risks and adverse changes that may occur.

KarissaKS

I guess what it all boils down to is whether or not you view neutering/spaying as an invasive/dangerous procedure. 

No, I don't think this is the heart of the matter - an important consideration, but one that appears to be subjective.  If theissue were simply that it was "too invasive" - THEN I would be arguing against neutering; if it's "too invasive" for one dog then it is for the next dog too.

I think it is more that I don't feel it's necessary for a dog owned by an owner who is caring for him and training him properly.  The risks of the op and possible adverse effects, as well as the invasiveness of the procedure, should be weighed against the necessity and possible benefits.  I don't think it is necessary for many dogs and for some it is down right inappropriate.  Unfortunately, it is also irreversible.

KarissaKS

I come from the horse world where it is virtually expected that you will geld colts ASAP unless they show true stud potential. 

Dog, cat and horse speuters all have different considerations and issues attached to them.

Ron, where I seem to disagree with you is such a harsh dichotomy between "regular" dog folk and people that keep intact dogs (which you seem to categorize as breeders and fanciers in a high level of sport or show).  I am not a breeder, I am not a professional handler or a professional trainer.  I have no aspirations to become any of those things.  I consider myself first and foremost a pet owner, just like you.  I got my dogs because I have always loved dogs and enjoy their companionship.  If I wanted to make extra money, I'd refurbish computers, not show, breed, and sell dogs.  I do not believe that it's not possible for pet owners to own intact dogs without them becomming aggressive, escaping, or unintentionally breeding.  I genuinely believe that many, if not most, pet owners in this country are capable of owning and containing intact dogs.  I guess where I see the dichotomy is simply between dog lovers and people who neglect, abuse, or exploit their dogs.  THOSE people are careless and irresponsible, but THOSE people are not in my "normal pet owner" category. 

I have absolutely no problem with pets being altered.  Five of my six pets are altered, and the unaltered one is only 4 months old.  But, I think that the reason the majority of people alter their pets is not because they aren't capable of containing them and/or working out some issues that *might* (but often do not) crop up with hormones, but because they simply don't want to deal with these issues.  To me there's a difference between not being capable and not wanting to.  If people don't want to deal with those issues and neuter their dog, that's perfectly fine with me, just call it like it is.  But I see all these families with dogs and they have nice houses, fenced in yards, 2-3 card per family, spend thousands so their kids can play sports all year....I can't believe they aren't capable of living with an intact animal.  For most people that do it's really not THAT big of a deal.

And Liesje, I didn't have Shadow neutered until 2.5 years. I think temperment and really good food here kept him from wanting to get out for any old reason, save the desire to mate. And he definitely likes girl dogs. So, in my haphazard working man way, I managed to contain him successfully. Other than the one time at the dog park, I never once allowed him uncontrolled access to any other dog, except Duke, his old friend, who was also a male. But even I can't watch him every minute. I'm not a big fan of tie-outs and he can pull out of his id collar. When I first got him, I tied him out in harness and he chewed through the harness in a minute and was scratching at the door. I will not use shock collars or electric fences. With him, specifically, I can't use a kennel. Maybe, in time, I could get him over his kennel fear, maybe not. I think, in my own muddled opinion, that he associates it with being separated from momma and sitting in a crate in a pet store full of scary noises and weird smells.

But my neighbors are average. And their CGC hound mix kept getting over a 6 foot fence until they added some more pieces on to it. She could jump the 4 foot fence shared by my neighbor. What then. Shadow has free run of the yard. And he needs that much space to do his zoomies, especially when we're away at work. And you, Liesje, are not average. You might be a pet owner, but you are not average. You are above average and you will just have to accept that. Is it my imagination or is that something of a compliment that sounds like debating or arguing How does that happen?

I know with regard to training I'm probably not the "average" dog owner, but what I mean is I don't and won't DO anything differently than anyone else just because my dog might remain intact.  Say I didn't show Nikon or ever bring him out to the club, still how I manage and contain him would be the same.  That's why I don't see why it's such a big deal.  I don't and won't treat him any differently than Coke who is the "pet" dog (doesn't really do training or any dog events).  'No intact bitches in season' is really the only additional rule, and other threads have already established that this responsibility lies with the owner of the bitch.  If Nikon remains intact, he is still welcome at the pet store, the parks, the boarding kennels...  I guess I just don't understand why so many people feel they have to neuter their dog to contain and control him.  The breeding angle makes the most sense, if one's dog might have unsupervised access to intact dogs of the same sex.

Here is a document from the CDC you can tear up, as well. Though not specifically linked, their response to lowering dog bites is proper ownership, which includes neutering, by their definition of proper ownership. I think it's interesting because it treats the bite as a problem to be tabulated and resolved.

http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:akPVhrsf8qwJ:www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5226.pdf+statistics+om+neutering+and+aggression&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

And I know you and a few others are going to argue this and say that the CDC article is unbalanced or unfair, etc., etc. That you (in general) know more than the CDC. Yet are "average."

Ah, sweet irony.

And here's another article that looks at neuter and aggression.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/517287

Granted, neuter does not automatically cure aggression for every dog. That any number of neutered dogs could have genetic defects and/or ineffective owners, leading to instances of aggression. In the case of genetics, isn't it better that the animal is neutered so that there is no chance of continuing that specific branch of the line? In this vet's opinion and experience, a number of owners who handle intact dogs with no problems are also not novices. Some are quite expert in their abilities, even if they are private owners.

Whether through containment and management or surgery, dog procreation is through human control.

I think another supposition of this second article is that not neutering is not a sufficient guard against behavior problems. That is, just because a person has a dog that seemed to develop problems after neuter is not a reason to not neuter in the future with other pet animals.

In my own simile, neutering is like using a condom to stop conception. You can best depend on it by using it every time, without fail.

I once read from a doctor what the technical term is for females that rely on the rhythm method (counting days) for contraception. The technical term is "mothers."

No, my position remains the same (assuming that altered dogs really ARE more aggressive, which is something I would disbute.  I would concede that there are going to be a higher number of incidents of intact dogs with a bite history, but I think that has more to do with ownership than inherent behaviors).  It's a band-aid solution.  You could also give the dog away, euthanize the dog....there are any number of "solutions" to aggression that involve anything but actually dealing with the aggression.  Maybe I feel differently because I have an altered pet that will bite a human so this is something I've had to deal with beyond the scope of alteration.  I've always believe that ALL dogs will bite, it's a matter of knowing what the trigger is and how far you can push before the bite happens.  Manage the dog's environment while desensitizing the dog, so the threshold is pushed farther back.