# Neutering



## bdobosz (Dec 6, 2009)

During my last vet visit our doctor suggested that we start considering if we want to neuter our Golden Retriever pup as he will soon be in the age range to complete the procedure. I have done some research on the positive aspects of having this procedure done, but wanted to ask fellow dog owners about there experiences. Are there any negatives to doing this? I live in a rural area and he is not ever outside loose so I am not too worried about him getting another dog pregnant so I am mostly interceded in the health and behavioral aspects of the procedure.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf


----------



## Purplex15 (May 28, 2007)

here a good rule of thumb: if you never plan to breed your dog, then neuter the dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> here a good rule of thumb: if you never plan to breed your dog, then neuter the dog.


If you can be a responsible owner, there's no reason for altering.

I KNOW Strauss will never be bred. He's going on 6 and is still intact. Ranger was 8.5 when he was neutered, and that's only because he had an enlarged prostate.

Buddy was left intact and was only neutered this past summer, again due to an enlarged prostate. He's 5.

Behaviorally very little about a dog changes after the procedure. If done early enough, yes, it can curb things like wandering. Done in an older dog these issues can persist because at that point they are learned behaviors and not particularly sexually motivated.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

What those studies never include are the dogs that suddenly sail over the fence one day and are never seen again or found dead in the ditch.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> What those studies never include are the dogs that suddenly sail over the fence one day and are never seen again or found dead in the ditch.


That's a confinement issue. There's no real way of discerning whether the dog escaped for prey, because a dog is in heat, out of boredom, etc etc.

So it's not really a quantifiable comparision.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Labsnothers said:


> What those studies never include are the dogs that suddenly sail over the fence one day and are never seen again or found dead in the ditch.


How many dogs have you lost?


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Id read through the link that was first posted

I hve a 6.5 (7 in May) intct male. No issues with him. he is healthy a side from his heart murmur, which is half the reason why I will not neuter him.

He s well trained an socialized. 

I always laugh because you hear people say intact males are agressive. well Blaze never got the mmo. he is the dog at the DP that any dog can do any thing to, and he just takes it in stride and goes on his merry way.



Labsnothers said:


> What those studies never include are the dogs that suddenly sail over the fence one day and are never seen again or found dead in the ditch.


Didnt know spay and neutering stopped dogs from jumping fences.


----------



## Robrowe (Jan 25, 2010)

If you are not planning on brreding I would neuter. Mostly to curb the the chances of prostrate issues or testicular cancer.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RBark said:


> That's a confinement issue. There's no real way of discerning whether the dog escaped for prey, because a dog is in heat, out of boredom, etc etc.
> 
> So it's not really a quantifiable comparision.


To be fair, if you've never owned an intact Lab, don't jump all over Labsnothers. In my experience, intact male Labs are about 10 times worse (in all ways...wandering, leg-lifting, etc.) than an intact male of any other breed.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Willowy said:


> To be fair, if you've never owned an intact Lab, don't jump all over Labsnothers. In my experience, intact male Labs are about 10 times worse (in all ways...wandering, leg-lifting, etc.) than an intact male of any other breed.


Well I wasn't jumping all over him. I was offering an alternate insight.

As to whether Labs are worse than other breeds, I couldn't tell ya. All of the Labs (and we had dozens) we had growing up were not wanderers at all. They were not particularly good at trying to escape either.

I've had more trouble with my neutered Huskies escaping and wandering than I ever did with any of the dozens of Labs we had growing up. I knew nothing of dogs back then, and they were always off leash for everything. Irresponsible yes, but I was a kid. Kick my dad if you want, I'll help ya.


----------



## katiemay (Jan 30, 2010)

A lot of people say that intact males are more aggressive, harder to train, wanderers, and leg lifters. ( I don't have personal experience, we've always adopted so they always come fixed ).

All I can say is, if I ever had a dog and it was my decision to get him fixed or not, I would.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I really don't get why a dog lifting his leg to pee is such a big deal.

Buddy, as I said, was neutered at 5 years of age because of an enlarged prostate, and that was causing other issues. Buddy is a Labrador and he did not wander or inappropriately lift his leg in the house aside from when he was having that health issue.

Strauss does not leg lift in the house and he is intact. He does not wander either.
Strauss is not more aggressive because he is intact. He DOES have a very strong personality, and neutering wouldn't have changed that.

My intact dogs are just as easy to train as any altered dog.


----------



## DogPaw (Jan 11, 2009)

We had a intact English bulldog that lived to be 12 without any issues at all. He never marked in the house was never aggressive and never wandered.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I have never had a neutered male, still haven't, and have owned lots of male dogs of various breeds. I just have seen no need for it, my dogs are not allowed to wander in fact I have had more trouble with females wanting to go wandering if they could.

I think if a person is responsible and does not just turn their dogs loose to just roam it is not a problem. Even males I have used for breeding have never had any inclination to "leap" the fence and go looking for females in heat. Just because they are not neutered does not mean they spend all their time looking for females.


----------



## Shazamataz (Jan 23, 2010)

My mom has 2 intact male poodles living together, they are 9 and 10 years old.
They have the odd scuffle, but nothing serious, nothing that neutering would have stopped.
They are both very healthy apart from one having patella issues.
Her dogs never leave their property, it's large enough to jsut let them free run rather than taking them for walks on the street.

I myself have a 1 year old male poodle who I recently got neutered. (didn't work out in the show ring)
I chose to do this because there are some stupid people out there who will walk bitches in season or take them to the dog park and I don't want my dog held responsible for creating nice little byb mutts.

Dogs jumping fences to get to bitches is actually quite true and the same goes for females.
Years ago Mum had a FEMALE Great Dane in season, she was confined in the house for the coarse of her heat (plus the side garden) and one day she jumped THROUGH a solid glass window, shattering it to get to their male who was in the backyard at the time.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

I personally would say neuter him. Intact males are more likly to escape yards and houses because if there is a female in heat nearby (remember depending on the wind they can smell a female in heat four miles + away) they will attempt to go after them.

I think most dogs I've seen running loose around have been intact. I know at my last house when the bitch across the street went into heat, I'd have about 6 or 7 male dogs around and their owners would know where they ran off too and stop by and pick them up. Once of the males scaled a 6ft fence and was later in the week neutered because of it.

If you can keep an eye on your dog at all times and keep it securely in your yard then don't neuter. But there are more health benefits to do it then not too (lack of male equipment means less of a chance for cancer), and less worry if there are intact females in the area.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

honestly, if hes not "breeding quality", just neuter him. why take the chance of creating more unwanted pups in the world? 

i read so much in this thread about how "myyyy dog doesnt wander and its intact" or "myyy dog never jumped the fence" etc. yes maybe not, but what if it did? and thats maybe YOUR dog, YOUR dog isnt EVERY dog. what if something out of your control happens that the dog is loose, and now has that chance to breed? accidents happen people, nothing is 100% for sure. so why not just be safe? i would rather pay to have the dog neutered than have the chance of puppies being brought into a world that has too many already.


----------



## katiemay (Jan 30, 2010)

Just want to clarify - when I said 'leg lifter' I meant marking.


----------



## Duckie1009 (Dec 17, 2009)

It comes down to your personal preface if you've researched neutering and still can't decide. You just have to weigh the risks vs the benefits. 

Most of the articles on the net are directed towards the general public to stop overbreeding. If you feel its unnecessary, then don't do it. You'll probably change your mind a couple of times if you're like me.


----------



## Xie (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm under the firm belief that the average pet owner should NOT have an intact animal. 

I've read the health issues, and the posts of people saying that their pet does not fit the stereotype of an intact male. That's terrific for them but I wouldn't use it to encourage other people to not neuter.

At work we probably have a 90% chance of guessing correctly whether a male is neutered or not by his attitude, before ever looking to make sure. A common phrase at work while trying to restrain an animal is "You're not neutered are you!", we're usually right. They tend to be MUCH more difficult to work with and a whole lot more reactive. 

This isn't to say I haven't known some absolutely WONDERFUL intact males. I absolutely have, heck, it would be hard to have dog shows if all the intact males were horribly out of control. On the other hand you don't generally see the average dog owner out showing. 

I'm not for very young pediatric spay/neuter (my girls aren't fixed yet and won't be until their first heat is over because of being giant breed dogs, a smaller female I would probably have done younger). On the other hand I wouldn't count myself among the average owner anyway. I'm not a dog guru but my girls are socialized, trained, and taught to happily except restraint from a young age. I promise you that most owners do not do that. Heck, I wish they would. My job would be a lot easier and safer.

I don't see why not neuter at a younger age then wait for the almost inevitable prostate problems that occur at an older age when surgery is more risky? Unless a dog is showing and likely to be bred I see no good reason to keep it intact for most of it's life.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

bdobosz said:


> During my last vet visit our doctor suggested that we start considering if we want to neuter our Golden Retriever pup as he will soon be in the age range to complete the procedure. I have done some research on the positive aspects of having this procedure done, but wanted to ask fellow dog owners about there experiences. Are there any negatives to doing this? I live in a rural area and he is not ever outside loose so I am not too worried about him getting another dog pregnant so I am mostly interceded in the health and behavioral aspects of the procedure.


There are no negative behavioral aspects IMO, only positive ones.

Things that an intact male dog's hormones can drive him to do are many, more prone to aggression to people and other dogs, more prone to escape and run away after a dog in heat, more prone to mark (pee) on everything in sight ...

Not that all intact dogs do those things, but those are natural behaviors for an intact dog to be driven towards.

If you have no intention of breeding the dog, putting it out for stud, there is no real reason not to neuter.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I would neuter personally. If I don't plan to show or breed a dog, I have no reason to not neuter and deal with extra trouble like other females in heat or extra socializing to get him used to female dogs in heat and to get him to a point where he has enough control to keep off them. One intact male around here is very good, always off leash and doesn't have any aggression at all. He is a lot more interested in any unspayed females though but that's normal. He doesn't fight but he will try to mount a female if he gets a chance but if the owner corrects him, he's fine and leaves.

I've seen some nice intact males that were just like any normal ones. But I've also seen my fair share of aggressive intact males if there is a female in heat around. A corgi lives near us that is intact, he used to always play with us as a puppy and he's currently 2 years old but never comes out anymore because he's aggressive with other male dogs. Why? Because we always have an intact female dog in our play group because she has a health problem and the vet won't put her under anesthesia to spay her. Whenever she's around the corgi will attack any male dogs near her. 

I don't personally see any disadvantages to neutering but for me personally I wouldn't want to deal with extra work when I don't need to keep an intact dog.

From what my breeder told me, it's more likely to have males marking when you have a couple of female dogs around the house that are intact. Especially if they're all in heat. Her males all get belly bands when females are coming into heat.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

This is one of those questions that can only be answered, satisfactorily, by a dog's owner. If you plan to participate in showing the dog, he obviously needs to remain intact. If you plan to participate in canine athletic events (dock jumping, Frisbee, flyball, etc...), it's probably best to wait until the dog's growth is complete--18 months to 2 years.

Marking in the house, fighting, difficult to train, &etc, are training/socialization issues vs. hormone issues. Some dogs are prone to run off whether they are intact or not. Many females cut a wide swath with fighting/aggression, so it's hard to say testicles are to blame. There are different risks/benefits to keeping males intact vs. females. Intact females suffer higher risk of various cancers, but spaying occasionally results in urine incontinence. If the question is purely of birth control, males can be vasectomized. If your dog is over 1 year old, the chances are slim that neutering will have any significant effect on his behavior.

Ye pays ye money and ye takes ye chances.


----------



## LuvMyAngels (May 24, 2009)

Like so many things in life, weather to neuter or leave your male intact is a personal decision. When considering bringing home a puppy, I was dead set on neutering by 6 months (a female would have been spayed about the same age). I didnt want to deal with the behavioral issues of a young intact male (or heat cycles). When Buster came home, I was still set on him being neutered by the time he was 6 months old. Then I did some research and learned its better for my giant boy to remain intact until he's at least 2 and that those issues I was afraid of were behavioral and likely wouldnt be solved (or even helped) by neutering but by training/socializing. 

Buster will be 1 next Wednesday and still has all the "parts" nature gave him. I still plan to have him neutered, it's no longer because I have an issue with the potential behavior of an intact male. While Buster will respond if he feels Im threatened, he's by far the most gentle dog Ive ever known. 

I have no fear of having all 140+ pounds near my 4 young children...

4 1/2 year old, 38lb, Makayla hugging her "brother"








Kisses!








Buster loves snuggling with my 80lb 11 1/2 year old (she can, and often does, take him out into the yard to potty & play in the snow!)








This one speaks for itself, I think


----------



## Angie's Bella (Dec 28, 2008)

Everything at my house is fixed (with the exeption of my husband, lol) because I would rather not take the chance. The guy that lives across the street from me has something against having his male dog fixed and everythime their is a female in season his dog gets out. He has a 6' chainlink fence and the dog climbs it like nothing I have ever seen. Once he locked him in his laundry room to keep him in and the dog dug through the door to get to that female. So maybe every dog isn't like him and some people don't have trouble with it, but why take a chance? I just think it is better to be safe than sorry and I love my dogs too much to take a chance. Now, I am not saying that I have anything against those of you who have chosen to keep your males intact, I think it is a personal choice. But for me and my house, we will sp&n!!


----------



## HersheyBear (Dec 13, 2008)

With such a high rate of cancer in Golden Retrievers, neutering removes the possibility of testicular and prostate cancers, and will make for a healthier dog overall. I'd definitely neuter him.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I personally find that a weak argument, HersheyBear. You remove the chance of testicular cancer, but Goldens are also highly prone to Osteo and Hermangiosarcoma too (also cancers). Should they remove his legs too?


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

HersheyBear said:


> With such a high rate of cancer in Golden Retrievers, neutering removes the possibility of testicular and prostate cancers, and will make for a healthier dog overall. I'd definitely neuter him.


THIS!!!

*To say that "If you're a responsible owner, there's no reason for altering" is well, NOT very responsible. *

Debate all of the behavioral stuff all you want. The incidence of testicular cancer and prostate disease goes down DRAMATICALLY when you have your dog castrated.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Xeph said:


> I personally find that a weak argument, HersheyBear. You remove the chance of testicular cancer, but Goldens are also highly prone to Osteo and Hermangiosarcoma too (also cancers). Should they remove his legs too?


Hmm, what was the name of that logical fallacy?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i dunno if it is actually a logical fallacy.

define "dramatically" Mr V, if you will?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Of COURSE the dog isn't going to get cancer of the testicles if you remove the testicles. But you know, I won't get breast cancer if I have a double mastectomy. Nor would I get ovarian cancer of I had an ovariohysterectomy.

I'm certainly not going to remove all of those organs and all of that tissue because I might get cancer.

My biggest beef with "hack it off!" is that it is always better for the dog, and that is not always true. You have to do the research and realize that while you eliminate the possibility of testicular cancer, you also increase the chances of other cancers (not to mention leaving open growth plate, personality not evolving as it should, etc.)


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

You can not tell me that a reason for not castrating is because dog's also get other forms of neoplasia anyway. I mean, by that logic, you might as well tell every dog owner that there's no point in heartworm prevention since they can get other parasites too. 

Zimand, 

I don't have time to sift through literature to find the exact percentages, but, when the entire veterinary community agrees that the incidence of prostatic disease and testicular neoplasia goes way down after castration, I think it's safe to say it's true. As with all procedures, of course there's a risk-benefit relationship with castration. But, again, it has been agreed upon that the benefits (almost always) out weight the risks.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Mr. V said:


> THIS!!!
> 
> *To say that "If you're a responsible owner, there's no reason for altering" is well, NOT very responsible. *
> 
> Debate all of the behavioral stuff all you want. The incidence of testicular cancer and prostate disease goes down DRAMATICALLY when you have your dog castrated.


Im responsible enough to mantain a awsome intact dog, who I do not feel comfortable putting under for a surgery he does not *need*. with a almost stage 3 heart murmur (we will find ou on Thursday for his exam for his heart), how likley will I get my dog back? I dont want to chance it.

But about the diseases that INCREASE with a neuter (or spay, less for spay.)



> *On the positive side, neutering male dogs*
> • eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
> • reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
> • reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
> ...


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Link for this information???


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I don't have time to sift through literature to find the exact percentages, but, when the entire veterinary community agrees that the incidence of prostatic disease and testicular neoplasia goes way down after castration


That's not saying a lot! Of COURSE they agree! You completely remove ALL chances of the dog getting cancer of sexual organs when you remove them. You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with that.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Xeph said:


> http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf





Mr. V said:


> Link for this information???


Above. 

Xeph posted it, 1st page,2nd post.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Xeph said:


> That's not saying a lot! Of COURSE they agree! You completely remove ALL chances of the dog getting cancer of sexual organs when you remove them. You'd have to be an idiot not to agree with that.


Love how you left out the last part...

And yes, it has been agreed upon that the benefits almost always outweight the risks


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> Love how you left out the last part...
> 
> And yes, it has been agreed upon that the benefits almost always outweight the risks


It is agreed the benefit of preventing overpopulation of dogs via irresponsible owners outweights the risks of them losing control of their dog and getting away.

It is NOT agreed that the health benefit of neutering/spaying outweighs the health benefit of leaving them intact.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> It is NOT agreed that the health benefit of neutering/spaying outweighs the health benefit of leaving them intact.


What he said.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

According to most veterinarians (including board certified oncologists), yes it is.

This isn't my simple opinion. This is having read countless articles and talked to even more vets (general prac. and specialists alike) - and most agree that benefits outweigh the risks.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

And it's time that veterinarians start doing MORE and NEW research on it. I don't agree with the vets at this point in time.

Having a large breed I will no longer alter males before 2 years of age, if I alter them at all. Bitches will not be altered before 18 months old, and preferably later.

I like being able to run my dog in agility and know that it doesn't have open growth plates. I also like knowing that it will have the proper secondary sex characteristics if its breed, and that it will stop growing when it should, instead of continuing to get taller when it shouldn't.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

Tankstar said:


> Im responsible enough to mantain a awsome intact dog, who I do not feel comfortable putting under for a surgery he does not *need*. with a almost stage 3 heart murmur (we will find ou on Thursday for his exam for his heart), how likley will I get my dog back? I dont want to chance it.


that to me is a good, true reason. very understandable. i would be the same way. BUT on the other hand with a dog with no medical reason not to.... im all for it. to me, unless you have a dog who is of breeding quality and youre breeding for the RIGHT reason, or have a good medical reason not to, its just the right thing to do to help control the population. like i said before, accidents happen. and sometimes things happen that are out of your control. to me, spaying and neutering has always been a part of being a responsible dog owner. 

and really, some of those statistics i dont really bother with. if its telling me its going to "quadrouple the risk of prostate cancer" and its less than .6%... really, im not concerned. that isnt a big enough percentage for me. id rather take that very small risk than risk having a litter of pups born and gassed....


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> According to most veterinarians (including board certified oncologists), yes it is.
> 
> This isn't my simple opinion. This is having read countless articles and talked to even more vets (general prac. and specialists alike) - and most agree that benefits outweigh the risks.


Sadly for you....

The only people who have offered any proof is your opposition.

You might get more credibility if you offered these articles for debate.


EDIT:

NOBODY is saying that irresponsible people should not spay or neutered.

People are saying if you are responsible enough, it might be a option worth considering. If your dog can jump your fence, then you're probably not responsible enough.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> You can not tell me that a reason for not castrating is because dog's also get other forms of neoplasia anyway. I mean, by that logic, you might as well tell every dog owner that there's no point in heartworm prevention since they can get other parasites too.
> 
> Zimand,
> 
> I don't have time to sift through literature to find the exact percentages, but, when the entire veterinary community agrees that the incidence of prostatic disease and testicular neoplasia goes way down after castration, I think it's safe to say it's true. As with all procedures, of course there's a risk-benefit relationship with castration. But, again, it has been agreed upon that the benefits (almost always) out weight the risks.


ummm...the entire veterinary community has been wrong before. i dont care what THEY think of the data..in the long run, i care what *I* think of the data. because its MY freakin dog. 

link me then. i want to see it. a term like "drastically" is very relative and frankly unscientific. if my vet gave me an explanation using weighted terminology like that...but she doesnt..cuz she knows id be out the door and gone for good. when its MY dog's life and health on the line...lose the the dramatics and gimme the straight up facts.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

RBark said:


> Sadly for you....
> 
> The only people who have offered any proof is your opposition.
> 
> You might get more credibility if you offered these articles for debate.


I am a veterinary student so I have access to VIN. You want me to post full length, 50+ page articles to a message board? Because, you won't be able to access any of them without paying a good deal of money. I walk through the oncology ward at the small animal hospital at least once or twice per week. Every discussion on risk/benefit of castration with every small animal oncologist and internal medicine specialist has resulted in the same answers = benefits outweigh the risks.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> I am a veterinary student so I have access to VIN. You want me to post full length, 50+ page articles to a message board? Because, you won't be able to access any of them without paying a good deal of money. I walk through the oncology ward at the small animal hospital at least once or twice per week. Every discussion on risk/benefit of castration with every small animal oncologist and internal medicine specialist has resulted in the same answers = benefits outweigh the risks.


Almost every new poster who comes here claiming to know a lot about medicine/behavior/etc says they are a Behaviorist or Trainer or Veterinarian or Vet Tech or PhD in Behavior or......... goes on and on and on. Nothing new really.

That said, sure, post 50 page articles, There are a lot of people very interested in this subject. I'm sure some of them will read it.

Next time they have a discusson on the benefits, ask them WHY the benefits outweight the risk. Ask them about the subjects covered in the earlier article linked in this thread. Don't just take their word for it. That vet might have just taken someone else's word for it too.

If they can explain why the decrease in some issues when neutering outweights the many increases in medical issues, you will have learned something.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

ill read it. ill read it, probably print it out and haul it down to MY professors AND my vet and have a go at what they think of it. and then..ill make my own decisions on what i think of it...for my particular situation.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

RBark said:


> A*lmost every new poster who comes here claiming to know a lot about medicine/behavior/etc says they are a Behaviorist or Trainer or Veterinarian or Vet Tech or PhD in Behavior or......... goes on and on and on. Nothing new really.*
> 
> . That vet might have just taken someone else's word for it too.


Lol, you think I'm lying about being a vet student? Why, b/c I challenge what the more "seasoned" posters on this board have to say? I've claimed nothing. I offer what I know to those who ask. 

And, I will ask them. But, I'm pretty sure a person whose career is focused completely on small animal oncology didn't just "take someone else's word for it"


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

When I started with Strauss, I was an average dog owner. Had no idea what I was doing in terms of shows or anything. I only knew my dog had to stay intact to be exhibited in conformation.

Six years later, my dog is still intact and has never sired a litter, unwanted or otherwise. I learned as I went with him, and while I very much know that the "bad" intact dogs exist, they usually are that way because they are never taught manners, not because they're just horrible dogs that still have testicles.

I think that the health benefits outweight the risks *for bitches*, but not for dogs.

Bitches have a lot more things that can go wrong with them (pyo being the biggest one for me), but dogs? They don't bleed everywhere, they don't get Pyo, they can't get mammary tumors. The hardest part about keeping an intact boy is as simple as not allowing him to hump everything he sees (and the vast majority don't).



> I've claimed nothing.


Well, you've claimed you're a vet student. We really have no way to verify that, and your lack of posting links to any studies (particularly ones that aren't from the 80's) don't really do much for credibility. It has nothing to do with contradicting "seasoned posters". It's about actually showing (new) proof. And there are studies aren't there that are shorter than 50 pages.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

its not because you arent a "seasoned" poster.

its because we *really actually want to know because we love our dogs and want what is BEST for THEM.*


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> Lol, you think I'm lying about being a vet student? Why, b/c I challenge what the more "seasoned" posters on this board have to say? I've claimed nothing. I offer what I know to those who ask.
> 
> And, I will ask them. But, I'm pretty sure a person whose career is focused completely on small animal oncology didn't just "take someone else's word for it"


You didn't offer any challenges. You said, to put it short, "I am right because I said so!"

There's no challenge to answer in that.

Explain why the health benefits of neutering outweight the benefits of not neutering without "I said so" and people might give you a little more credibility.

All the "so called experts" offered you a study. You offer nothing.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

OK, it was a rhetorical question when I asked if you wanted me to post extremely long articles from VIN.

"Because I said so" isn't very close, at all. More like "because they (ya know, the guys who have spent their entire lives on this kinda stuff) said so."


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

still not enough. i want to know WHY THEY SAID SO. or it means diddly.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yes, and they (ya know, the guys who have spent their entire lives on this kinda stuff) still think that Science Diet is a good dog food.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

I offer the cumulative opinion of people that spend their careers on this. You believe what you want to, I'm done sparring with someone that just is looking for an argument.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Xeph said:


> Yes, and they (ya know, the guys who have spent their entire lives on this kinda stuff) still think that Science Diet is a good dog food.


Most of the specialists at the small animal hospital actually are not fond of Hill's, at all. BTW, if you're so knowledgeable, why aren't you a vet? Why don't you go in and change it all from the inside? It's always easier to sit in the corner with an opinion than it is to get out and do it yourself, isn't it?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> I offer the cumulative opinion of people that spend their careers on this. You believe what you want to, I'm done sparring with someone that just is looking for an argument.


No, you offer what you THINK is the cumulative opinion of people who know more about the subject than you and you don't know the details of why they think that way.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> You believe what you want to, I'm done sparring with someone that just is looking for an argument.


Since you've not offered any conclusive evidence contrary to what was posted, there really wasn't much of an argument to begin with.

BTW, Zim, you just hit 5000 posts! xD!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

You're a STUDENT. Someone just offered you evidence to the contrary of everything you were taught, written by experts.

Aren't you at all interested in why your TEACHERS disagree with the study? As a student, don't you want to learn why that study is wrong?


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

RBark said:


> You're a STUDENT. Someone just offered you evidence to the contrary of everything you were taught, written by experts.
> 
> Aren't you at all interested in why your TEACHERS disagree with the study? As a student, don't you want to learn why that study is wrong?


I'm almost certain that I said "I will ask them."


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

not looking for an argument. seriously. seriously want to know why? i dont take ANYONE'S word at face value when it comes to my kid or my dog's life. you landed on a forum full of really passionate and involved dog owners. most of the people here will not accept what you say unless you back it up. and i think you should take note of this because if people here are like that..that presents the possibility that in your future practice you are going to come across people like us. people who if you want to convice them of something you think is right...you will *actually* have to convince them. think of this as vet's life skills practice lol


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> BTW, if you're so knowledgeable, why aren't you a vet?


Actually, I wanted to be a vet from age 5 to age 18...and then I hit chemistry. I couldn't do the math (a large part of being a veterinarian), so I let that idea go.

But the fact of the matter is, being a vet does NOT give you the inside track on all things about animal health.

Do you know the number of vets I've interviewed that immediately assume my dogs are dysplastic because they're GSDs? Doesn't matter if they've seen them or not, that's an assumption they've made.

My boy is OFA good hips and normal elbows, and a bitch I had (of American lines no less) was OFA excellent.

I also have no inclination to change things "from the inside". I can read studies and evaluate the information for myself and consider it for my dogs, and if I find it is valid/useful information, I will pass it on to others. Don't have to deal with the beauracracy that way.



> It's always easier to sit in the corner with an opinion than it is to get out and do it yourself, isn't it?


You mean like you've been doing by following everything your teachers have said thus far and not bothering to really question it?

I have gotten out and done it myself.

Strauss is the first intact dog I've ever had. Every other animal of my past has been altered. Gotta tell ya...I like the intact dog more.

People used to think the Earth was flat....definitely not true. The only reason that its "roundness" was discovered was because somebody dared to challenge the authority of the time.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> not looking for an argument. seriously. seriously want to know why? i dont take ANYONE'S word at face value when it comes to my kid or my dog's life. you landed on a forum full of really passionate and involved dog owners. most of the people here will not accept what you say unless you back it up. and i think you should take note of this because if people here are like that..that presents the possibility that in your future practice you are going to come across people like us. people who if you want to convice them of something you think is right...you will *actually* have to convince them. think of this as vet's life skills practice lol


Now THAT was a way to respond. Thank you. I'll tell you what. I will (before the week is out) walk down to the oncology and internal medicine wards and ask all of these things and have them hook me up with some literature that you will actually be able to see (b/c most of what I read is restricted unless you have paid membership). Do you want me to PM you afterwards or make a topic?

If, in the end, it all turns out that I was wrong, I will not hesitate to admit it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> I will (before the week is out) walk down to the oncology and internal medicine wards and ask all of these things and have them hook me up with some literature that you will actually be able to see (b/c most of what I read is restricted unless you have paid membership). Do you want me to PM you afterwards or make a topic?


Make a topic. It's something related to my dog's health, if the information about not neutering being healthier overall for responsible owners is wrong, I'd be interested in knowing.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Xeph, that was more of a reaction to your "hill's" remark than it was a real question.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yup, I'd be interested in looking too.

I think what most of us currently have a problem with is that there are NEW studies that prove the OLD studies wrong, and the old studies are NOT being updated to (possibly) disprove the new theories.



> Xeph, that was more of a reaction to your "hill's" remark than it was a real question.


If there's a question, I answer it, because I cannot "hear" rhetorical on the net 

BTW, I was super PO'd when I just couldn't do the conversions and what not in chem. That was a dream of over a decade shot to crap because numbers make no sense to me.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

OK, i will get it done when I can. You've got to understand that I am as compassionate about animal health and welfare as anyone you'll find here. I've no desire to pound my chest and declare myself as some cerebral giant with an infinite knowlege of all things in this realm of veterinary care. I just present what I know/what I've been taught.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

and just an aside...im a biology major.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Xeph said:


> Yup, I'd be interested in looking too.
> 
> I think what most of us currently have a problem with is that there are NEW studies that prove the OLD studies wrong, and the old studies are NOT being updated to (possibly) disprove the new theories.
> 
> ...


What, like the unit conversion stuff with stoichiometry?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

No, like general high school conversions in regular level chem. I never understood how we got from say, liters to cups or grams to pounds. Just never clicked.

I passed with a D. I passed with a D because I stayed after all the time and got TONS of help. I failed my finals (absolutely BOMBED), but he passed me with a D because I tried so hard.

I still can't do algebra (so calculus and trig are totally out of the question), but I am absolutely wicked with words.

Numbers and letters don't belong together >.<


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> What, like the unit conversion stuff with stoichiometry?



everytime i hear that word i want to make bad jokes about garden pests. thats probably really dorky of me.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Yea, not gonna lie, there's way more math involved than I had thought there would be. When I first had to start calculating dosages and whatnot for meds and anesthesia, it wasn't fun. Even worse was having to calculate all of that for compounding 2 or more drugs together.

Some things that I had thought I could just forget all about --- had to be painfully pulled out of the back of my mind.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> thats probably really dorky of me.


It really really is, but we still love you



> When I first had to start calculating dosages and whatnot for meds and anesthesia, it wasn't fun. Even worse was having to calculate all of that for compounding 2 or more drugs together.


Yup. I probably could have nearly killed myself doing chem and possibly passed. But I struggled so much, even if I had made it to vet school I don't think I would have ever had the confidence to properly medicate an animal. I'd be too concerned about not converting the dosages properly and killing a pet.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

While I like to base my choices on good, controlled studies, I don't accept every new one as a revelation. Better to let them age a little and people familiar with the field look at the methodology and repeat it to see if they get the same results. 

So who else here has had any work published in a scientific journal? It was under my supervisor's name, but some of my work was published in the JACS. Now veterinarian medicine is even less repeatable than resin chemistry. While articles describing studies are very informative, so are the letters to the editor in the next few issues. One of the more objective articles I have read on the problems with spay/neuter before maturity points out it is only statistical evidence and the science is weak and it needs more study. 

None of the studies show large changes and only small differences in the occurrence of cancer. Incontinence isn't that common and is easily corrected. 

Not all dogs are as easy to handle as some and households with the elderly, children, or just plain clumsy aren't up to the surging hormones of a young large dog. I think it is irresponsible to urge everybody to delay spay/neuter even if the studies are valid.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> While I like to base my choices on good, controlled studies, I don't accept every new one as a revelation. Better to let them age a little and people familiar with the field look at the methodology and repeat it to see if they get the same results.
> 
> So who else here has had any work published in a scientific journal? It was under my supervisor's name, but some of my work was published in the JACS. Now veterinarian medicine is even less repeatable than resin chemistry. While articles describing studies are very informative, so are the letters to the editor in the next few issues. One of the more objective articles I have read on the problems with spay/neuter before maturity points out it is only statistical evidence and the science is weak and it needs more study.
> 
> ...


Good points.

From all I have read from studies and experienced, I would not spay or neuter before a dog was a fully developed adult, especially a larger breed dog. Hormones have a biological role in development.

But once the dog is a fully developed adult I would spay/neuter unless I had definite plans to breed the dog and all the responsible homework that goes with responsibly breeding a dog.

Overall I think the combination of health and behavior upside out weighs any down side.


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

Mr. V, could you let me know the names of some of the veterinary journals that you use on a regular basis?

I still have access to my university's entire journal database (I recently graduated), and I could look up some of these studies for grains vs. no grains etc, since some people always want to see proof of this. I tried looking the other day, but there were SO MANY journals that I didn't know where to start.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

lucidity said:


> Mr. V, could you let me know the names of some of the veterinary journals that you use on a regular basis?
> 
> I still have access to my university's entire journal database (I recently graduated), and I could look up some of these studies for grains vs. no grains etc, since some people always want to see proof of this. I tried looking the other day, but there were SO MANY journals that I didn't know where to start.


haha gah, where to start? I know the amount of journals can be overwhelming!

So, I usually prefer to use the journal databases to do my searches. Since they will give results from many different journals, I feel like I'll get a better variety of results since they come from different kinds of researchers. But, since you asked for specifics...

Some journals (for nutrition) that I feel often have good, quality articles are: JAVMA, Journal of Animal Physiology, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, American Journal of Veterinary Research, Animal Nutrition, and Journal of Nutrition

hands down, my favorite database is SciFinder. It's very easy to use and allows me to make advanced searches without a bunch of confusing computer language I don't understand. 

The crappy part about having access to so much is that I know most people on here don't. So, I can't provide good links to hardly anyone b/c they won't be able to read them. And, I'm pretty sure I would be banned if I started consuming all of the bandwidth of this forum by posting millions of pages from there.


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

Lol, okay, that is still a LONG LIST of journals! I'll sift through them when I have the time. I don't know if I'll be able to find any on grains vs. no grains for dog food, though. If you happen to come across something like that, let me know!

What you COULD do is save all the pdf files (I dunno if this is the typical format for Veterinary journals.. I have a degree in Psych and most of ours were in pdf), and then upload them to somewhere like www.yousendit.com so that whoever's interested can download them to read..... although.... that might actually be illegal, lol.


----------



## maranello (Feb 10, 2010)

I think we could list reasons for and against neutering all day long, but one fact looms above all others: Overpopulation is a serious issue. Neutered animals do not contribute to overpopulation. 

I understand that responsible dog owners can have a dog for its entire life and never deal with an accidental litter. I can list friends that have intact dogs, and -so far- have been responsible enough to keep their dog from wandering/breeding/etc. 

But, being in rescue, I can also see that many people who own dogs do not fall into the "responsible dog owner" category. Otherwise, we wouldn't get phone calls from people who "don't know how their dog could have possibly gotten pregnant!"

I do feel that it is something you and your vet need to discuss, the pros and cons of neutering. I think, if you decide not to neuter your dog, you need to have a good heart-to-heart with yourself... are you willing to keep your dog under constant supervision? Are you aware that dogs can mate through chain-link fencing? Can you deal with the heat cycles? If your male has aggression issues due to not being neutered, are you going to seek extra training (I know people have had their own experiences, but I also know of a study that found that intact male dogs had the highest likelihood of biting)? Did you know that there are medical issues that can arise if the dog is NOT fixed? Etc. 

And if, after that, you still decide to keep your dog intact... then do your part! We don't need more "oops" puppies.

I don't have a problem with people with intact dogs. My views are just biased from being in rescue. =)


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

maranello said:


> I don't have a problem with people with intact dogs. My views are just biased from being in rescue. =)


I don't have a problem with people with intact dogs either.

Though I may have a problem with their dog, and Hope definitely does.

Especially the ones that follow her around with their nose buried in her crotch all hump happy. I've only seen intact males do this to her, and she's spayed..


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

LuvMyAngels said:


> Like so many things in life, weather to neuter or leave your male intact is a personal decision. When considering bringing home a puppy, I was dead set on neutering by 6 months (a female would have been spayed about the same age). I didnt want to deal with the behavioral issues of a young intact male (or heat cycles). When Buster came home, I was still set on him being neutered by the time he was 6 months old. Then I did some research and learned its better for my giant boy to remain intact until he's at least 2 and that those issues I was afraid of were behavioral and likely wouldnt be solved (or even helped) by neutering but by training/socializing.
> 
> Buster will be 1 next Wednesday and still has all the "parts" nature gave him. I still plan to have him neutered, it's no longer because I have an issue with the potential behavior of an intact male. While Buster will respond if he feels Im threatened, he's by far the most gentle dog Ive ever known.
> 
> ...




I'm in love with Buster!!!!!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

maranello said:


> . are you willing to keep your dog under constant supervision?


this is unessecary to maintain a puppyless intact animal.





> Are you aware that dogs can mate through chain-link fencing?


 also unessecary to maintain a puppyless intact animal



> Can you deal with the heat cycles?


 have you never heard of "lady shorts" my friend? with a little calm conditioning you can get just about any dog to accept them. 




> If your male has aggression issues due to not being neutered, are you going to seek extra training (I know people have had their own experiences, but I also know of a study that found that intact male dogs had the highest likelihood of biting)?


bull malarky. the dogs who have the highest incidence of bites are what is called "resident dogs" as opposed to "family dogs". and personally ive known more well behaved intact males than i have altered ones. honest truth. 



> Did you know that there are medical issues that can arise if the dog is NOT fixed? Etc.


umm this whole thread has been a debate on this subject and frankly i think there are cases where it is dangerous to alter. ive seen them. so until the doc produces his evidence...its really honestly a situational thing.



> And if, after that, you still decide to keep your dog intact... then do your part! We don't need more "oops" puppies.


you know. i worked in rescue too. and i dont let that blind me to examining other possibilities. what i have found is that guilting people into something like this is not cool. rescue people do it often and it makes me mad as hell. not you particularly but still. 



> I don't have a problem with people with intact dogs. My views are just biased from being in rescue. =)


yes they are.


..just sayin...


----------



## maranello (Feb 10, 2010)

If it were as simple as you make it sound to maintain a puppyless heat cycle, then overpopulation wouldn't be an issue. The numbers are there, it's not some arbitrary fact I'm pulling out of my rear. Perhaps YOU can keep your dog from getting pregnant, but a great deal of people can't.

Again, I know that it is possible to keep your dog from getting pregnant, I have several friends who keep intact dogs with no problem. 

I think you have valid points, I just think that the majority of people are better off spaying/neutering. =)

What kind of rescue work did you do? =)



EDIT: I got to thinking about your comment about rescue people guilting adopters into spay/neutering.. I know in my state, Virginia, it is mandatory for animals from a rescue, shelter, pound, etc to be fixed. We're not guilting anyone into anything, we're following the law. =)

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.2-6574


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

But she's not talking about dogs that come from shelters. She's talking about dogs from breeders, and I do know where she's coming from in regards to rescue people guilting those with intact animals to alter.

I have been practically bullied NUMEROUS times because people see that my service dog is intact. 
"Are you going to breed him?" 
No. 
"Then why is he still intact." 
Well, originally I was going to show him, and for that they have to be intact. I discovered that having an intact dog wasn't that hard. 
"But aren't you worried about him getting out and making more puppies?" 
No. 
"You really should neuter him, it's better for his health." 
I really don't agree with that anymore. 
"Oh, well, clearly you don't care about the animals in shelters."

And it goes on and on like this, bringing up rescue and shelter animals to make me feel bad about my dog still having testicles. It's ridiculous


----------



## Xie (Feb 5, 2009)

But Zim did say that keeping a dog under constant supervision is not necessary to keep unwanted puppies from happening.

I'm sorry, but all the good and reputable breeders that I know would argue that point. I know two breeders right now who have bitches in heat and also own intact males and it is A LOT of work to keep them separated and to keep other intact males from getting to the bitch when she goes outside. They accept that responsibility but it's not easy. 

This is from Redyre on another thread...



> I know of bitches who have been bred by dogs who went over 6', THROUGH 2 chain link panels, through a household door AND a crate, and yes, dogs can and have bred through chain link.
> 
> When I have a bitch in season she is never out of my sight when outdoors. I have an intact male dog. If I have a bitch in season and I am leaving my house, he goes with me, or the bitch in season does.
> 
> It is IMPOSSIBLE to be too careful. Mother nature has a way of achieving her goals.


So yes, I do believe that an intact dog can be kept responsibly. Heck, due to my feelings on the research regarding dog development my own two girls will each go through a heat cycle before being spayed, BUT that doesn't mean that doing so won't require me to be a MUCH more diligent owner than if they were to be spayed prior to that.


----------



## maranello (Feb 10, 2010)

Oh! Well that was my fault for misunderstanding.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Xie said:


> But Zim did say that keeping a dog under constant supervision is not necessary to keep unwanted puppies from happening.
> 
> I'm sorry, but all the good and reputable breeders that I know would argue that point. I know two breeders right now who have bitches in heat and also own intact males and it is A LOT of work to keep them separated and to keep other intact males from getting to the bitch when she goes outside. They accept that responsibility but it's not easy.
> 
> ...


constant supervision is unnessecary with separation and proper containment.

for example. 

my future set up, im only going to keep bitches. because i cant live with male dogs. any males i own will be co owned by my partner and kept at his house. 60 miles from mine. Neither of us ever leave dogs outside unsupervised or let them off leash with out at least a 6 foot fence in all directions.

its a difference in thinking i guess. perhaps its because of the cautions required by my chosen breed anyway. if i can handle keeping several dog aggressive pit bulls from escaping or ripping each other to pieces..i can handle intact dogs


and as for it being a law in virginia...thats one place i aint going then.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Xeph said:


> But she's not talking about dogs that come from shelters. She's talking about dogs from breeders, and I do know where she's coming from in regards to rescue people guilting those with intact animals to alter.
> 
> I have been practically bullied NUMEROUS times because people see that my service dog is intact.
> "Are you going to breed him?"
> ...


agreed 100%.


----------



## Xie (Feb 5, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> constant supervision is unnessecary with separation and proper containment.


I think this we are going to have to agree to disagree on. All the breed mentors I've worked/am working with, have very strong feelings on how a bitch in heat is to be kept, including never off leash when outside, even with a 6' fence.

In my case I do want a male swissy to show, but that won't be happening until both my girls are spayed. I don't want to worry about an accidental breeding or my male getting stressed being near females in heat.




zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and as for it being a law in virginia...thats one place i aint going then.


Now this I can 100% agree with, having read the law. It assumes that all dogs are sexually mature at 6 months, yuck! At least it doesn't apply to people reclaiming dogs from a shelter. I've heard of cases of champions being fixed because they escaped and AC found them before the owner did and the only way to get them back was to have them spayed/neutered


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Xie said:


> I think this we are going to have to agree to disagree on. All the breed mentors I've worked/am working with, have very strong feelings on how a bitch in heat is to be kept, including never off leash when outside, even with a 6' fence.



ive kept intact bitches just the way i described with no problems for the whole of their lives. no issues.

i think you might be misunderstanding.


----------



## Xie (Feb 5, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ive kept intact bitches just the way i described with no problems for the whole of their lives. no issues.
> 
> i think you might be misunderstanding.


I think it's just a difference of opinion and dog keeping. It's pretty hard to misunderstand being told a female in heat needs to remain on leash at all times, even behind a fence. The reason given to me was if a loose male jumps or scales the fence (and dogs can certainly get over or through a 6' fence with enough determination) then you need to be able to get your bitch inside ASAP! It gives you a way to get at your bitch without having to get between her and an intact male.

I've also had breeders tell me that they even keep a very close eye on their males who are outside when they have a bitch in heat in the house. Stray intact males have been known to attack a resident male when a bitch in heat is smelled, even if the bitch isn't in the yard at the time.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

had that happen too.

but im used to it. what im saying is i may have a different perspective because ive dealt with A LOT of seriously dog aggressive dogs. dealing with roaming mr wee willy winky pales in comparison.


----------



## maranello (Feb 10, 2010)

I was browsing USA Today, and came across this:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/pets/2010-01-13-petsurvey13_ST_N.htm?obref=obinsite

I found the second graph to be most interesting, the one that shows why people don't spay/neuter... there isn't a "health" option. Goes to show the huge difference between the way dog people (I consider all of you on this forum to be dog people) think versus the way the average person thinks. And while some of the answers are valid (age), many more just demonstrate that the -average- person should just get their pet fixed.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

doesnt have enough categories

show dogs cannot be altered or they cant be shown.

it is medically unadvisable to alter dogs who are going to being serious competitors in sports for the first two or so years of their lives

giant breeds should not be altered until after the reaching of sexual maturity

there are risks involved in altering animals who have blood clotting disorders and/or negative reaction to anesthesia 

i could go on and on and on and on.

doesnt really tell me much


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> constant supervision is unnessecary with separation and proper containment.
> 
> for example.
> 
> ...



Actually, I have done rescue for several years and of the states that I have lived in, they all have laws requiring dogs adopted from shelters or rescues to be spayed/neutered. I'm fairly certain that is the norm for most, if not all, states.

edited to add: I did just a quick lookup and it looks like at least 31 states require spay/nueter for shelter/rescue dogs. There could be more, but like I said, I just did a cursory look up.


----------



## Badgersmom (Feb 3, 2010)

Personally I think for the average dog owner, spaying and neutering are a good thing. When you have people over and they bring their dogs, not worries. Most dog parks will not allow un-neutered males (not sure about females because I was just checking for a friend of mine who has a young, intact male Boxer and they said he could not go to the dog park). 

Kudos to those of you who are responsibile about it, but honestly, I am so sick of wandering male dogs in my area - they mark everything (even me once as I sat in my front steps ), and it drives me crazy that my friend thinks his dog is just fine because he is not aggressive. To me, the neutering isn't so much about curbing aggression as it is about not having a dog so focused on sniffing dog and people crotches, marking, wandering and just being generally less placid. While I certainly respect people who can keep an intact dog, horse etc, I find for those of us who are the average pet owner, it's just easier to deal with a dog without those extra issues. 

There are certainly exceptions, but I am just talking (typing) based on my own experience....


----------



## PappyMom (Jun 5, 2009)

I have to agree, that I feel a responsible owner can keep intact dogs or bitches without ever having an accidental litter. All of my dogs are intact, in fact, Roxy is in heat now. I do not believe in spaying or neutering before 2 years of age. Gizmo has no interest.. They are under constant supervision, and when they aren't, they are in locked crates, in seperate rooms. The girls of course share a room, and Gizmo is normally in a bathroom with the door close, and in his locked crate. My dogs are never let outside off-leash unless in a DP. Our DP doesn't allow in season bitches, but it does allow intact males. I've never had a problem with Gizmo going after females.. (males, well, that's ANOTHER story..lol! He's prone to humping other intact males, but he knows when I tell him to leave it, that's the end! Otherwise, we leave.) I can promise you that I will never have an accidental litter.

With all of that said, Giz is coming up on 2 years, (22 months right now) and I don't know whether or not if I want to neuter him. I think the pro's and cons are even..and I don't see where it will really benefit him too much. Aside the fact that I won't have to be so vigilant the next time one of the girls are in heat.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

brandiw said:


> zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:
> 
> 
> > constant supervision is unnessecary with separation and proper containment.
> ...



but i wasnt talking about shelter or rescue dogs. ive worked in rescue yes...but im talking about my future breeding kennel operation..which..it would be kind of pointless to have them altered.


----------



## Badgersmom (Feb 3, 2010)

Oh yes - the humping  - hate that! Since my little guy was neutered, no more humping his toy dog or trying to jump up and smell the girls in a not-so-polite way. I know you can trian for this, but seems to be a lot of extra work, and no one can 100% guarantee that their dog will not get bred or breed another dog. Some can be pretty darn close, but dogs can get out in an emergency etc - accidents do happen. That said, it's not a reason to neuter, but for me, it's all about letting the dog have a life where they are not ruled by their hormones or need that kind of supervision etc. 

So, while I'm not really AGAINST intact dogs (unless it is with some of the ignorant owners that do it to be macho or to breed BYB litters), I do think it is more convenient for the owner, and for the dogs too in the long run.


----------

