Quick Post

Neutering without removal of testes?

New Topic
Neutering without removal of testes?
  • I read there is a way to do this. Is this as effective as teste removal in all the ways put forward for neutering in the first place? Does the ideal time to do this differ from the ideal time for removal of testes?
  • Well there's the vasectomy..but it wouldn't prevent the testosterone based behaviors or excessive marking that can sometimes occur in intact dogs, nor would  it eliminate the chance of testicle cancer. It would only prevent the dog from being able to  get a female pregnant.
  • I read someplace that they can give the dogs a shot to sterilize them.
  • Yes, there is a shot available. I would only recommend it for dogs that can't, for some reason, undergo anesthesia. Its not 100% effective, and the idea of injecting a toxic chemical into an organ and saying it doesn't cause pain just doesn't strike me as something thats possible...
  • An owner could always train his dog, and properly confine and care for him, thus eliminating the need to neuter him. I do not agree with routine neutering of male dogs, as the medical benefits are minimal. My opinon is based on having lived in Europe where such practices are both unnecessary and highly frowned upon. I have a different opinion about females, as there is strong medical reason to spay a female before her first season. Neutering a dog because one cannot prevent him from mating otherwise always makes me shake my head. If one cannot control his dogs, he might reconsider owning animals.
    Barring that, there are actual implants called neuticals an owner can have inserted if he so desires his dog to retain a normal appearance after being neutered.
    Vasectomy, as mentioned above, is also a choice. It would only make sense to me if one has an intact female he cannot spay for whatever reason and does not wish to separate them during her cycles.
  • you must be a man...
  • Wind...when our shelters empty out, showing the VAST majority of American owners are capable or even WILLING to do as you say...I will agree with you. Until then...I will go by what is real, and realistic. Dogs are better neutered because if they were not the overpopulation issue would be EVEN BIGGER.
  • ORIGINAL: EricFish

    I read there is a way to do this. Is this as effective as teste removal in all the ways put forward for neutering in the first place? Does the ideal time to do this differ from the ideal time for removal of testes?

    Yes, there is vasectomy. It accomplishes the same thing it does in human men - it renders the dog sterile. There was also an FDA approved chemical castration some years ago; my vets didn't like it because sometimes it caused infection.  I'm leaning myself towards not castrating my next male but sterilizing through vasectomy or chemical castration instead; I'm not convinced yet - there are logistical issues such as making sure the fence is strong!  I've had a couple of intact male fosters through ridgeback rescue and I really liked them.

    Paula (a female).
  • A man named Jenna. She's right though; people don't castrate like Americans castrate. I don't know why and I don't know how our pet overpopulation compares to other countries.

  • The impression I get is that in other countries, pets are more of a responsibility than a right, like having a nice car. Only the people who are willing to put the effort into taking good care of them own them. Therefore there are fewer accidental breedings and fewer people who want to have puppies just because they can. Our pet overpopulation is a cultural problem as much as it is a logistical one.
  • haven't read the other posts but if you neuter you have to remove the testicles...you can have a vasectomy done and the testicles remaing but there is no advantage at all in doing it...again have not read the other posts..
  • I don't understand what you mean when you say to neuter you have to remove the testicles. In humans you do not have to remove the testicles so why so in dogs?

  • Testicles are good for 2 things... sperm and hormones. Even when humans don't want the sperm part, they VERY much enjoy their hormones and put them to good use even after the ability to procreate is gone.

    Dogs do not need to have sex, and therefore do not need the hormones, so removal of the testicals prevents several hormone-driven diseases. Honestly, if you don't remove the testicals, there's really no benefit, so whats the point?
  • What's the point;

    1. Just like in humans there are other benefits of hormones such that the lack of them cause other physiological issues. For example spay incontinence in female dogs. So dogs do miss their hormones. Hormones are not like an appendix - they affect many aspects of physiology.

    2. I do not intend to cut off my breasts to prevent potential future breast cancer so I don't see cutting off a dog's testicles to prevent potential future testicular cancer as reasonable either.

    3. Intact dogs look different than castrated dogs in the same way that stallions look different from geldings. I like the look - the thicker muscle, the broader neck, etc.

    4. And I woul have to substantiate this for myself, so I think of it only as an observation and not actually yet a basis for not castrating, but Elizabeth Marshall Thomas (Hidden Life of Dogs, Social Lives of Dogs) that intact male dogs are treated differently in encounters with strange dogs than castrated male dogs.  So indeed they might actually notice the lack of testicles (or smell; who knows).  I think this is worth looking in to.

    I thought I'd add in explanation:

    The only reason I would have surgery performed on an animal to remove otherwise completely healthy body parts is that it would be a lesser evil than destroying unwanted puppies and kittens. Otherwise I find it no different to 'fix' a dog by cutting off his testicles than it is to 'fix' a cat by cutting off its claws, or 'fix' a barking dog by cuting its vocal cords, or 'fixing' an exotic cat by declawing and defanging.   These are not extra bits that we are doing them a favor by getting out of their way, these are parts of their bodies that have purpose that they have been born with.

    So I would never justify castration by saying they don't need their balls anyway or I'm saving them from future cancer. For me it is all about preventing unwanted litters, and if I can do that wihout taking away body parts I would be more than thrilled to.

  • 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