Castration

[morgan]

As some of you may have gathered by now, I do not approve of the assumption that male dogs must be neutered unless being shown or bred from. I have always considered it to be unnecessary surgery for those dogs whose owners can manage them.

I do not like the look of neutered dogs (alteration of body shape, muscle tone and coat patterns, not the obvious effect) I like my dogs to look like they can do the job, not just be couch potatoes, and I have never agreed with the so-called health benefits. Seeing people beat themselves up because they have "failed" to neuter their dog just isn't right.

Found this article - and must admit, it seems to back up a lot of what I have come across and observed. I have never desexed a male dog in over 30 years, and have NEVER had a health problem resulting from this, even tho my boys have always been exposed to entire bitches, and most have never been bred from.

Castration in dogs

Have we gone too far with political correctness?

Edited March 14, 2006 by morgan

[fifi]

:rolleyes: sorry, but my big fella is just about to undergo neutering, he has an enlarged prostate, that will only be assisted by castration. I know a lot of dogs who live with breeding bitches who have had to undergo this.

fifi

[NorthernStarPits]

I hold the same thoughts,although alot of people couldnt manage an entire male dog,i never had a problem with 'natural' male dog behaviour with unaltered hormone levels.

[morgan]

Poor boy! Hope it goes well for him! I guess I have been lucky there!

But how many dogs would have to have surgery for this reason? Is it better to not routinely desex, unless indicated medically?

Or at least wait until the dog is physically matured for his size and breed, as mentioned in the article?

[fifi]

:rolleyes: well I guess as a breeder, any males here are long planned and awaited, so their 'accessories' are much wanted !!

any rescues that come through here or stay here, are immediatley castrated.

living in multi dog households is much easier when there is no testosterone flying about.

And for the average Joe public, who are often unable to contain, train or restrain their dogs, I feel they should be routinely speyed & castrated to prevent unwanted litters and fights.

fifi

[morgan]

No argument with routine speying for those without the facilities to manage entire bitches (which includes most pet owners)! But this article is only about males.

The article points out the necessity for neutering in some multi dog households, but correctly management for entire dogs is pretty much the same as for desexed ones isn't it? ie - restrict to one's own property, on-leash restraint etc. I know of many, many desexed males that are far too dog-aggressive to have off leash!

[ElectraWoman]

An interesting article and views, although I agree with fifi regarding the average owner. It's not so much political correctness that desexing is encouraged - it seems most people are not interested, or are not capable of keeping an uncastrated dog.

Personally, it seems that health risks befall dogs regardless of castration. I would only be concerned if a high percentage of castrated dogs develop illnesses due to the process - yet I have not yet seen research that has stated such a view [if there is, I'd gladly read]. My personal view is if I do not intend to breed from my dog, then I might as well have him castrated.

I tend to take a moderate view, in that I believe it is ultimately a person's choice. A person shouldn't be attacked because they decide not to castrate a dog, as long as they take the necessary precautions and are responsible owners.

Also, regarding the article itself, I noticed this:

The second concern regarding your dog's health is highly malignant prostate cancer. Virtually all malignant prostatic tumors in dogs occur in castrated dogs.

Yet in her quoted research, she quotes from one of her research articles:

"Castrated dogs had a 2.38 times greater risk of developing prostatic cancer than intact dogs when compared with the hospital population."

That statement only states a castrated dog is at a higher risk of developing the cancer than uncastrated dogs - hence implying that both castrated and uncastrated dogs can both fall victim - yet her initial statement implies that all dogs that have the cancer are castrated. Perhaps I am misreading? Or perhaps the author is guilty of wilful misinterpretation?

[morgan]

I tend to take a moderate view, in that I believe it is ultimately a person's choice. A person shouldn't be attacked because they decide not to castrate a dog, as long as they take the necessary precautions and are responsible owners.

Don't have the slightest problem with this - agree with choice!

My problem is with having that choice removed - as is the current trend with councils etc. Some DOLers seem to get very hot under the collar about the necessity of early desexing of pups before they are sold, and breeders like me who refuse to are being branded irresponsible.

Regardless of the figures' interpretation, the point about physical maturity etc seems to be valid. Large breeds who have had early desexing often look quite different (not always, but often)

[NorthernStarPits]

EW I think she (the author) is talking about Malignant cancer of the prostate, over Benigne prostate cancer,and a higher rate of the Malignant (the killer) cancer apearing in castrated dogs with prostate cancer, thats how i read it anyways.

Ed: cause i could'nt spell prostate/prostrate :rolleyes: ;)

Edited December 14, 2005 by Sirmonsta

[MolassesLass]

I'm involved in rescue, I am a breeder who desexes all pets at 8 weeks and I believe all dogs, regardless of gender should be spayed if not actively involved in showing or a responsible, ethical breeding programme.

I think the local councils system of entire dogs being far more expensive to register is a great thing.

I don't think it should matter to pet owners whether their dog looks slightly different to their show cousins (they usually will despite any desexing differences).

I do think the health benefits are significant and I don't think 99% of the pet-owning public is equipped to deal with an entire dog of either gender.

The article points out the necessity for neutering in some multi dog households, but correctly management for entire dogs is pretty much the same as for desexed ones isn't it? ie - restrict to one's own property, on-leash restraint etc. I know of many, many desexed males that are far too dog-aggressive to have off leash!

Correct management theory is the same but the practice is much different. It can be a lot harder to contain an entire dog, it can be a lot harder to have a well adjusted entire dog, etc etc

Edit: Changed "is" to "can be"

Edited December 14, 2005 by molasseslass

[morgan]

I have never had a problem containing my male dogs, but might change my mind if I had working breeds :rolleyes: my experience of those shows they are not as laid back...

Don't have a prob with registraton being dearer either, as long as there is still choice!

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

I've seen so many cases where castration of the dog is warranted but hasn't been done. Unfortunately, not everyone with a dog or dogs is as well-educated as us, and not everyone with a dog or dogs cares to keep their dog/s restricted to their property. This (sadly) results in unwanted litters being born every day. Read any classifieds section of a major newspaper, or any online dog site where dogs can be listed for sale or FTGH, and you'll see the results of "voluntary" desexing. ;)

I do not think that keeping a pet entire is in the best interests of the dog in question or its future offspring. IMO any dog destined for a home that isn't a registered breeder should be desexed and I make no apology for that stance.

If only everyone with a dog was as responsible as some of us, perhaps the need for desexing would be diminished b/c of correct and adequate housing and care of the entire dog/bitch. But there will always be those among the dog-keeping human population that can't or won't be responsible for their dogs. And it's the dogs that suffer, not the humans.

Until we have no need for shelters, pounds, lost dogs homes, and selling or giving away "unwanted" dogs, then IMO desexing is the best way of controlling the "unwanted" dog population. :rolleyes:

BTW - all my dogs have been desexed as a matter of course. I practice what I preach! And I believe in desexing all pets as one way of reducing the numbers of unwanted animals. I also believe in rescue/rehoming, and obviously that includes all rehomed pets being desexed BEFORE leaving the shelter/rescue/foster carer's home.

[persephone]

:rolleyes: couch potatoes? Not my boys!! ;)

My old b/c x was the most focussed(and controllable) fox killer,sheep worker and guard dog I have ever owned!!

My dane x was also an excellent guard,very fit and muscled well.

current "beast" is a wannabe hunter....will be very fierce with unwanted guests,and doesn't mind a scrap ,if food is the prize.

I would have hated to try & control these, if entire

to each his own...:D

[Kavik]

I think it just makes more sense to desex if you do not plan on breeding from the dog.

Less testosterone flying around in males, no heat cycles to worry about in females to disrupt doggy activities!

Makes multi dog households easier.

[KismetKat]

and, let's face it, dog balls are ugly! :rolleyes:

[Working_Setters]

Morgan, Very interesting article - thanks for posting. Seems there are some very real health benefits in not castrating. I agree with you regarding the right of the owner to choose the status of their dogs, intact vs desexed.

Desexing is an alteration of convenience for people that are too lazy or too ignorant to house their dogs/bitches correctly.

No argument with routine speying for those without the facilities to manage entire bitches (which includes most pet owners)! But this article is only about males.

The problem I see here is that intact dogs will roam, drawn by intact bitches, out of their yard and become a public nuisance, get hit by a car etc. Dogs/Bitches no matter if they’re intact/desexed need to be properly confined - end of story.

and, let's face it, dog balls are ugly!

In view of your vocal opposition to tail docking for aesthetics, I find this comment truly incredible!!

[morgan]

The problem I see here is that intact dogs will roam, drawn by intact bitches, out of their yard and become a public nuisance, get hit by a car etc. Dogs/Bitches no matter if they’re intact/desexed need to be properly confined - end of story.

And this goes back to my original post - I referred to "those dogs whose owners can manage them." Managing them includes having escapeproof housing! Dogs are not only drawn out by intact bitches - there are many reasons dogs will stray - just ask all the desexed houdinis! (And I know lots of those :rolleyes: )

[Working_Setters]

The problem I see here is that intact dogs will roam, drawn by intact bitches, out of their yard and become a public nuisance, get hit by a car etc. Dogs/Bitches no matter if they’re intact/desexed need to be properly confined - end of story.

And this goes back to my original post - I referred to "those dogs whose owners can manage them." Managing them includes having escapeproof housing! Dogs are not only drawn out by intact bitches - there are many reasons dogs will stray - just ask all the desexed houdinis! (And I know lots of those :rolleyes: )

Agreed

[Cordelia]

The vet in question is merely expressing an opinion based on their experiences.

My vet can tell you his opinion to disagree with almost everything that vet has said.

Aggression to other dogs in situations outside the house is pretty normal dog behavior. Appropriate behavior.

Nope. Inappropriate behaviour in our society.

If you fault your dog for being aggressive to acquaintances while being walked on lead, you should not. He is guarding you. That simple. Honorable behavior.

What garbage. Most dogs are reacting in defence/fear or dominance when aggressive to other dogs. Very rarely has anything to do with guarding the owner and everything to do with guarding themselves! Whoever wrote that article should learn a little more about canine behaviour. :rolleyes:

If you fault your dog for aggression in a 'dog park' where he is running free, or on the beach, or in the woods, well shame on you; you're the one at fault for risking his life in such an uncontrolled situation.

More rubbish. Gives people the impression that they should never have their dogs off lead, playing with other dogs so they LEARN to be social. ;)

but you cannot automatically expect a dog to have friendly relations with animals from outside his own 'pack'. It goes against his whole evolution.

Goes against evolution????? :p Evolution has LESSENED many dogs predisposition to attack other dogs in social situations. We TEACH our dogs by socialisation from puppyhood so they get used to meeting other dogs!

You learn to introduce your dogs safely and carefully and MOST dogs handle this perfectly well when raised properly. (disclaimer: obviously there are some dogs who have difficulties when it comes to meeting other dogs outside their home 'pack'. I am not saying all dog aggression issues are caused by their owners).

Castration at an early age will cause the dog to become overly tall, as the growth plates in the long bones will not close at the appropriate time;

Overly tall??? a centimeter or 2 os NOT 'overly tall for a start. Apart from the fact that there is no way to prove the dog wasn't going to be an exact height anyway. Not like a Golden Retriever castrated at 8wks is going to grow to the size of Dane either... or even a GSD size. :D ...... and who cares anyway.... if the dog is being desexed, it isn't going to be a show dog, so who cares if it grows a touch taller.

The combination of these two factors sets the stage for your dog to have painful orthopedic problems.

Rubbish. So does being overweight, too much or not enough exercise, stairs in the house, injuries etc etc etc.

Where's the proof that desexed males have a higher incidence of ortho problems that undesexed dogs.

The statement that your dog will not automatically gain weight is rubbish.

Yes it is.

Removing sexual hormones will change his metabolism and make your dog more sluggish, resulting almost inevitably in weight gain.

Only because owners continue to feed the same amount of food/calories post orchidectomy. If they cut down the amount of food/calories given after desexing then their dog wouldn't suddenly get sluggish and stack on the kilos.

Also, muscle tone will decline after castration, and the classic result of this is a fat dog in poor muscle tone that ends up having a cruciate ligament rupture in the knee.

Oh Lord! Talk about scare mongering. Again..... exercise and diet controls muscle tone and weight NOT desexing on its own. Look at the number of castrated dogs doing agility and flyball!!! Hardly all falling down with destroyed crutiates and blobbing about the place.

Hopefully noone reads that without looking at all the other studies that show proof of the other side of the coin. :D

[Leema]

I have always held the belief that desexing alters the natural hormones and course of a dogs life. The only reason Mac is desexed is because he had an undescendent testicle, otherwise he would have been left entire, despite not to be bred from.

However, I do not believe that not desexing is appropriate for the entire population, as many are unable to restrain their dogs, unable to contain their bitches or 'just realise' that puppies are an option and wouldn't it be nice?

So I won't be desexing unless I am happy to have my dogs roaming or bitches uncontained when in heat - which will be never. However, the average pet owner is less responsible than I am, so I don't think that leaving the most pets entire is an option for the majority of the population.