Desexing Pet Male Dogs

[Steph M]

I'm not saying you should HAVE to, but the rise in desexing rates is something I feel is a positive for the community as a whole. I wasn't at all saying its irresponsible not to, or that desexing makes you responsible but my reasons as my own and I feel like its the right decision for us

[Steve]

We will never address the issue of homeless and pts rates until we desex all desexable pets who are not registered breeding animals. It only takes one bitch in season and one entire male to produce a litter of unwanted puppies. If everyone was taking the care they said they were taking, keeping their dogs fully contained in properly fenced yards (with no doodle holes!) then perhaps it wouldn't be such a big issue, but they are not.

Above just about sums it up & that is why eventually people will lose their rights & freedom of choice & the nanny state will step in again & make dog owning more complex & impossible. Because too many people won't be responsible owners.

So in case someone some where is going to be irresponsible with their dog if I am a responsible pet owner I have my choices removed and I cant make a decision based on what I think is best for my dog - because you are looking at a supposed social issue rather than my dog's health issue.

Puppies are not homeless - everyone can easily find someone to take them - dogs become homeless when their owners dump them and all you will get with mandatory desexing is more dogs dumped which are desexed - Prime example is ACT where mandatory desexing was introduced and made no difference to numbers at all. Fact is there is no scientific data to back up that if we desex all desexable pets that we will lower homeless rates. Surely before we introduce laws to take the choice away from me and my vet we would want to consider whether its really going to make a difference or not - and so far everywhere its proven that it doesn't. Whether my dogs are registered for breeding or not no state has the right to make me do things with them that are not in their best interests regarding health and longevity as long as I act responsibly and dont bother the neighbours.

The nanny state develops when people do not follow the laws we already have , where no one polices the laws we already have and so we just keep making more and more laws which assume we are all irresponsible and none of us have any brains to work out what is best for our own dogs based on our own lifestyle. We cant take em places or do many of the things we used to do with our dogs because the minority do the wrong thing and rather than punish them they assume that making new laws will stop them - it doesnt.

[huski]

Steve

[Dame Aussie]

Spot on steve.

[Steve]

Why are people so eager to give up their rights to do what they feel is best for their animals.Why are you so eager to see my rights as a dog owner removed because you feel the social issue is more important than my dog? I knock myself out working at educating people helping them to know the science - not assumptions or what is socially acceptable but the science of the species to enable them to make their own choices for what they believe is best for them and their dogs - teaching them what it takes to be responsible for a dog and helping them make educated decisions and then we tell them "sucko" we don't care about YOUR dog we care about the social issues that someone else's dog may create. Don't study or research or learn anything don't investigate or question dont make informed choices in conjunction with your vet as its a wasted energy and all it does is upset you because the government will tell you what to do for what someone has determined is the answer for the greater good.

I am 100% committed to focusing on what is best for dogs and what is best for some dogs is desexing but I will make my own choices - I will not have some state determine that for me whether its a dog registered for breeding or not.

[VizslaMomma]

Taking into account that my breed is horribly over-represented in many types of cancer (and desexing male dogs seems to increase the risk for many of these) I decided not to castrate him. My vet suggested that desexed dogs are at greater risk of rupturing cruciate ligaments too (sex hormones play a role in keeping ligaments strong?). The compromise we made was to chemically castrate using the Suprelorin implant. I guess time will tell if that was a good idea, and we can always castrate at a later date.

I know of a male that got four years protection from this implant. Later, he was used very successfully for stud.

[Steve]

If it was just about stopping a dog being able to breed we would do a vasectomy - easier quicker op and no long term health risks - its about a social issue - always has been.

[Steve]

For me there are a few variables. I booked Bruno in to be desexed, but my vet gave me some studies to read before making a final decision. Including this interesting paper: Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs

Taking into account that my breed is horribly over-represented in many types of cancer (and desexing male dogs seems to increase the risk for many of these) I decided not to castrate him. My vet suggested that desexed dogs are at greater risk of rupturing cruciate ligaments too (sex hormones play a role in keeping ligaments strong?). The compromise we made was to chemically castrate using the Suprelorin implant. I guess time will tell if that was a good idea, and we can always castrate at a later date.

Better nominate your vet for our next awards - that's the first time I've ever heard of a vet doing that - good on them - allowing a client to make their own informed decision.

[LisaCC]

For me there are a few variables. I booked Bruno in to be desexed, but my vet gave me some studies to read before making a final decision. Including this interesting paper: Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs

Taking into account that my breed is horribly over-represented in many types of cancer (and desexing male dogs seems to increase the risk for many of these) I decided not to castrate him. My vet suggested that desexed dogs are at greater risk of rupturing cruciate ligaments too (sex hormones play a role in keeping ligaments strong?). The compromise we made was to chemically castrate using the Suprelorin implant. I guess time will tell if that was a good idea, and we can always castrate at a later date.

Better nominate your vet for our next awards - that's the first time I've ever heard of a vet doing that - good on them - allowing a client to make their own informed decision.

Completely agree with this. I'm impressed by your vet.

[redangel]

Having owned an entire Samoyed that developed perianal tumors aged 10yr old...I can honestly say that there is a real health reason for desexing non breeding males. Tumors of this kind located in the perianal area can be benign or malignant. My surgery for this boy resulted in some faecal incontinence, but it was minimal and i was blessed with him for several years, passing at 16.

Many spitz breeds are seemingly predisposed to having this condition, reason why I am not sure. It is my understanding several breeds aside from husky/spitz breeds. Testosterone is involved in the development of this tumour. As I am not a vet I cannot explain the why fors etc...

It was a very invasive condition which involves very invasive surgery....and in an older dog aside from the complications that may occur because of the surgery it was not the thing you want to see an older boy go through.

It changed my mind about neutering, which I thought only had behavioural benefits prior to this experience.

[OSoSwift]

Having worked in the veterinary industry for many years I saw perianal tumours twice out of a lot of dogs. Yes it is a risk but not a huge risk. I know of one dog who had testicular cancer.

I live in an area with a high percentage of entire dogs, especially males

Edited March 16, 2014 by OSoSwift

[Kavik]

Nitro is currently entire at 12 months. I haven't decided whether I am going to desex him or not yet. He isn't causing any problems, is dog social, doesn't mark inside etc.

[Mystiqview]

There are a few studies around now that suggest it may be beneficial for male dogs to be left entire.

What is your opinion on desexing male dogs (pet only obviously)?

The study I read, was not so much about desexing as taking everything, rather a vasectomy to prevent breeding, but leaving the testes as it has been found testosterone is not only just needed for reproduction, but also is needed for healthy living. ( I have the article here somewhere, but cannot remember exactly what tester one was also needed for)

Given this in mind, I would definitely support vasectomy sterilisation where the testes are kept intact.

However, you have to also make such a radical move to the status quo moron and bureaucratic proof. A much harder feat.

As for bitches, they can desex, but leave the ovaries the same as they do in people. Ovaries are also valued hormones for more than just reproduction.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Mystiqview

[Mystiqview]

Generally I think all male dogs not to be used for breeding should be desexed.

1. Because dogs are dogs. They will pee on anything they can, hump & do anything to get to a bitch on heat & hormones can cause problem behaviours.

Guess my male dogs missed this memo :laugh:

The worst one I have seen of this was an early desexed pound dog. Damn thing was most annoying at the dog park I used to go to. Humped everyone and would not leave them alone, and peed on everything. Owner complained of that one.

Found it is more bad training than hormones.

[wuffles]

Nitro is currently entire at 12 months. I haven't decided whether I am going to desex him or not yet. He isn't causing any problems, is dog social, doesn't mark inside etc.

This. My pup is only 7 months old. No undesirable behaviours yet.

I do believe that desexing earlyish is the best option for the "average" pet owner.

[trinabean]

For me there are a few variables. I booked Bruno in to be desexed, but my vet gave me some studies to read before making a final decision. Including this interesting paper: Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs

Taking into account that my breed is horribly over-represented in many types of cancer (and desexing male dogs seems to increase the risk for many of these) I decided not to castrate him. My vet suggested that desexed dogs are at greater risk of rupturing cruciate ligaments too (sex hormones play a role in keeping ligaments strong?). The compromise we made was to chemically castrate using the Suprelorin implant. I guess time will tell if that was a good idea, and we can always castrate at a later date.

Better nominate your vet for our next awards - that's the first time I've ever heard of a vet doing that - good on them - allowing a client to make their own informed decision.

Good idea Steve, I will. :)

That study is actually a link provided on the vet's website now, but at the time he emailed to me and suggested I think about it.

[Steve]

This one is an eye opener too.

My link

Edited March 16, 2014 by Steve

[persephone]

Having worked in the veterinary industry for many years I saw perianal tumours twice out of a lot of dogs. Yes it is a risk but not a huge risk. I know of one dog who had testicular cancer.

I live in an area with a high percentage of entire dogs, especially males

For the 50 years I can remember my family having entire male sheep dog workers ... There has been one only with a tumour from a retained testicle ..and he was in his teens . No other cancers or obvious problems .

[bridgie_cat]

As for bitches, they can desex, but leave the ovaries the same as they do in people. Ovaries are also valued hormones for more than just reproduction.

if anything they go the other way? taking the ovaries out and leaving the uterus.... this is the procedure taught in european vet schools over the ovariohysterectomy - rather they do an ovariectomy via key hole surgery.

The issue with having ovaries is that they provide the stimulus to the uterine wall which eventually tends to lead to cystic endometrial hyperplasia... which in turn tends to be the starting point for pyometra. Without the ovaries, the uterus does not do this. With ovaries, and with a stump of a uterus, you could still get a stump pyometra (I believe). This is the issue with having a bitch that has been speyed but has remnant ovarian tissue - they can get a stump pyometra. So you can see that the ovariectomy does not tend to leave you with bitches still getting pyometra, because there is no input...

Plus your benefits for mammary tumours would be lost if the ovaries are still there.... certainly the issues with growth plates and increased risk of various other cancers would be there.

I think many owners would also not choose to have a bitch still coming into season for all intents and purposes every 6 months.... and should those ovaries ever need to come out I would not want to be the vet fishing for them with no uterus as a guide certainly could be done but a much more difficult procedure.

[bianca.a]

My bitch was desexed at 6 months but my male now 2 1/2 is still entire on the advice of his surgeon. Cooper has had one total hip replacement and will be having the other side done in a couple of months. The surgeon said that the hormones he is producing helps (don't ask me how/why...I was a bit traumatised by the whole thing). But anyway, Cooper is a pleasure to live with, no marking (heck he barely ever cocks his leg) and at this stage I see no need to neuter him. He is an inside dog and when he is in the yard he is securely fenced and we live rurally.