Should I get my dogs neutered?

[B&Baussies]

I have 2 one year old Australian shepherd males and we just recently went in for their yearly check up with a new vet. While we were there the vet brought up the topic of neutering them, which I declined but I was willing to listen to reason if she could convince otherwise. It seemed like her only reasons were disease prevention and prevention of behavioral problems.
I explained to her that as far as behavior goes they have a completely aggression free record, never been in a fight and never hurt each other. In fact when they wrestle if either one yelps out, the other will jump off instinctively and look at me to make sure that he isn't in trouble.
She didn't seem to convinced so I went on to explain how I monitor their meals so they don't steal food (or even try anymore) and I've taken special care to make sure that they don't fight over toys or treats and that all possessive aggression was extinguished before they were 6 months old. This means that they are sharing everything, including their favorites. I also bought them from a breeder, so they are brothers and have literally spent every day of their natural born life together.
Still unconvinced she basically said that there is still a good chance that in a year’s time they will just start to hate each other. And that if I waited too long that it might not work. (This immediately sounded suspicous) I find it hard to believe that the effect of the surgery would vary depending on if they were one year old or two. I mean if you cut off the hormones it should have some effect on them yes? And these results shouldn't be that varied?
This is where I started to get confused. Apparently if I get them the surgery now it will not change their personality (which is what I'm the most nervous about). So what she's telling me is that this won't affect their personality now but if I don't get it done then they'll have a massive personality switch? And then the surgery might not work at that point?
It almost sounds like the surgery doesn't fix the problem to start with.
The last thing she discussed with me on the subject was disease prevention, which I've always thought was a sound reason but lately I've been thinking differently. I mean I wouldn't take myself into the hospital to go under the knife for prevention. I would only have surgery if it was necessary. And it seems a little more than odd that nature would have such a bad defect in such an important part of their body.
I would like to trust my vet, but she's new to me and I'm young. So I can't help but feel like she's just trying to get these guys in surgery for the money. Is she right, and my dogs are just a biological time bomb about to go off? or can a dog really be a product of its environment, which I have been very meticulous to create?

[JMCsGirl]

I was once young and uneducated on this subject as well. I was attacked on a pet forum for my views and that only made me resist harder.

It is true that the aggression may pop up in future years and that neutering them would prevent this. If they meet other dogs problems are less likely to crop up if they are neutered. Another good behavioral plus to neutering is that they are less likely to lift a leg on your couch and wander from home to find a mate. If there is a female who comes into heat in the area you can bet that if they get the chance to run they will go for it. That is a danger to your dog.

If they mate with a strange female they could get diseases from this. Also on the health aspect of it is the prevention of testicular cancer. That strikes me as something no pet owner wants to try to handle so the best answer is neutering.

It also helps control the massive amounts of unwanted animals. There are so many pets out there without homes, why chance adding more. I know this sounds like a lame reason because it is hard to visualize but imagine that your male mates with a female and each of the puppies remains intact and mates, it can add up pretty quick.

Believe me I understand the hesitation. You sound a lot like I did about ten years ago. I now have all my pets neutered and it has helped them all so much more than hurt them. Please do some research online and I think you will find this being the best option for everyone involved.

[Karen]

As was just mentioned, unless you are going to have them be registered show dogs, it is better to get them neutered, both for behavioral and for health issues.

1. It will eliminate the chance of them wanting to wander if they catch the whiff of a female in heat ... the biological urge to procreate can be strong, and I have heard many stories of dogs lost or hit by cars because of this.

2. It will, of course, drop the level of certain hormones which can sometimes lead to aggressive behavior as they age. This will not change their personalities, per se, but it will make that aggression less likely to pop up.

3. Unneutered dogs have a higher risk for some cancers.

It's just all around better for them to get neutered, and could save you some expense and heartbreak later down the road.

As my big brother would say "They may not think they are broken, but it's time for 'em to get 'fixed!'" They are a good age for it, they've done all the growth they need to in their bones, and so make that appointment!

[Asiel]

I agree that neutering them is the best to prevent unwanted litters that might end up homess. Also it decreases the chance of cancer later on.
They won't get the urge to wander and maybe get hurt, killed or kidnapped. Neutered they will focus on you rather than on stray females...

[sasvermont]

YES, get your pets neutered and spayed. YES, YES, YES!

There are way too many unwanted pets in this world.

[B&Baussies]

I'm looking for a more comprehensive side to the argument. No offence but if I'm having trouble trusting my vet so some stranger online who learned how to enlarge the font and has trouble repeating themselves will really have trouble convincing me. For everyone else thank you for the advice, I appreciate it. I'll admit that I had not thought about them running off and mating but then again where we live that really isn't an issue.
So to be clear, while unwanted litters is a big reason for a lot of people’s decision it will not be affecting mine (I hope you choose to respect my opinion but if not… ok). My only concern is the well being of my dogs as far as health goes and as far as social behavior.
In order to better put my worries into perspective let me briefly describe myself: I am a college student, former psychology major till I switched to biochemistry. It’s in my nature to look for the actual metabolic or physiological causes of the problems. So when someone tells me something new then I don’t immediately assume its true, regardless of its’ source. One of the most important lessons that I’ve learned in college would be that even the top scientists of the day all throughout history and through the modern age can still be wrong, but they prove whatever they believe through deductive reasoning and logic. That’s all I’m looking for.
I don’t even see why they brought up topic of cancer prevention to be honest. It seems more like a device used to get people to neuter their dogs. For starters it’s the obvious statement of the decade that removing the testicles would prevent testicular cancer. But that’s backwards logic in my opinion, you remove a cancerous organ because it’s cancerous, you don’t remove an organ to prevent cancer (especially when the only leads we have to the causes of cancer are related to carcinogen intake and radiation/ not hormones). Note: I’m using the term organ as a generality; their testicles are not like our appendix and should be treated as such. Which makes me ask to any parents out there reading this: would you go get your child’s appendix removed so that they can prevent appendicitis? Or would you get it removed because of appendicitis? Note: Appendicitis can kill you faster than cancer if left untreated. The appendix serves no purpose and we can directly diagnose the cause of appendicitis. For those of you who don’t know, appendicitis is the infection of the appendix from lodged fecal matter causing your appendix to swell with poisonous toxins; this pressure can build to bursting causing the poisons to fill the body typically resulting in death if not dealt with in time. This is renowned for the crippling pain in your side. Seems like something you’d want to prevent, yes? But no one does that. Why? Like I said it is backwards logic. You don’t go under the knife for prevention, only to fix a problem. (Bringing up the carcinogen intake again; this is just my opinion but the closest link to cancer in dogs could be related to the preservatives used in some wet foods/ which I don’t feed my dogs).
And as far as behavior goes: I’m hoping someone will explain why it seemed like my vet was giving me an ultimatum. It seemed more like a “now or never” kind of scenario after she said that the surgeries effects might not work after they reach a certain age (“around two years old”). This also made me question the correlation between neutering and behavior problems. And being an aspiring doctor I would like to think that if I was describing a procedure to a patient that I could promise consistent results (especially for an elective surgery used entirely for preventative measures). It seems a little odd to me that she’s blaming the seemingly destined bad behavior on the fluctuation of hormones that the testicles produce, but then says that if they are removed (cutting off the hormones) too late that it might not work. That to me is a red flag for several reasons. Number one, ultimatums always make me question the legitimacy of what anyone says; if I have to make the decision fast then that doesn’t give me much time to think about it. This seemed really odd for this kind of surgery. Number two, why would cutting off the hormones now prevent the problem, but cutting them off a year from now might not have any effect? Hormones are hormones right? And if they are the real reason for the behavior then the behavior should go with them, but apparently that’s been known not to happen frequently enough for her to warn me about it. Three, after spending a number of hours writing up lab reports, if I found the results of a treatment to be more variable and inconclusive when the problem actually immerges then I’d probably assume that the preventative measures probably aren’t working. This makes me think that the two might be corresponding with each other more so then causing each other.
For instance, the dogs increase in testosterone may cause a dynamic change stemming from a weak alpha position that the owner demonstrates. This would make the last stages of puberty and hormone fluctuation take the blame for what was originally the owner needing to be a leader. Also keeping in mind that dogs focus considerably more on non verbal communication then we do, due to a language barrier. So seeing as how they have different social cues and non verbal then we do, it would not be that farfetched to say that most people don’t pick up on the dogs asserting themselves through ranks in the family. I know a lot of people who own dogs and have to make their meals special or they won’t eat. While the common consensus is “whatever gets them to eat” the dog is really winning and having that privilege viewed in an alpha male light. My dogs have tried this with little success, one will attempt to be a picky eater and the other is not. The picky eater got used to me governing over meal time so he didn’t worry about his brother trying to take his food. Unlucky for him though, if he shows no interest in the food and leaves his bowl unattended I will begin to sprinkle out his dry food one small fist full and a time which they know floor food means that it’s for anyone. Seeing his brother take his food is all it took to have eaten the rest of the meal, no complaints. It worked out very well seeing as how I only had to do this twice.
Lastly I think that vets have a biased and skewed perspective on the subject. For one, most people don’t take their dogs to the vet unless there is a problem to start with so of course they are going to be the first to know about behavior problems but I highly doubt they keep track of any well behaved unneutered dogs for the obvious reason that there would be no need to. And two, at least in my experience, the vet asked very limited questions about the environment that the animal was in, usually just focused on the biological side. This gives limited perspective, not to mention environment is as important if not more important than the biology of the animal. The biology of any organisms changes in order to better cope with the environment. This not only refers to physical development but mental development as well.
I don’t mean this to offend anyone but the atypical pet owner probably is not that hard to manipulate. Not every pet owner is a scientist and chooses to ask question and understands the little details. When a person in a medical status starts throwing words around like cancer and behavior problems most people just take it at face value and pay for the surgery, the alternative they described is a little too frightening. I’d like to know why I should have my boys’ boys taken off.
I appreciate people taking time to answer my question, please know though that I’m looking for causation. If I just needed someone to throw random supposable facts at me I would have just listened to my vet, at least then I would know the source. I want to do what is best for my dogs, but I need an explanation with an answer before I agree to let anyone cut anything off my dogs.

[jenluckenbach]

Be responsible and neuter your pets. There will always be the risk of them coming across a female in heat, and even 1 accidental litter is too many.

Now, while they may never become agressive towards one another, they are still developing. Will you ever want them to interact with other dogs?

Also, If a bad habit, like marking territory, begins, there may be no stopping it. And even if you are lucky enough to keep them perfectly housebroken in your home, will they ever be in anyone else's home? or at the vet or groomer? Most of the un-neutered dogs come in to the grooming shop and pee everywhere. Neutering would stop the behavior before it starts.

Neutering reduces the risk of cancer just like vaccinations reduce the risk of other diseases.

So, what reasons do you have for NOT neutering?

[sasvermont]

I am sorry if my excitement offended you. I am such an advocate of spaying and neutering that I can hardly believe anyone would not spay or neuter unless they were planning on breeding their animal.

We can try to convince you until we are blue in the face but the last decision will be yours. It sounds as though you may have already made up your mind.

My concern for your dogs would be that a female down the highway, road, street comes into heat and your dog(s) takes off to meet her. Many things can happen on the way...not to mention unwanted off springs.

I am sorry if I seemed "loud and too brief" to you - or whatever it was that you mentioned..... Your comment wasn't the nicest or necessary either. So we are even.

I hope you think (or re-think) your reasoning and have your dogs altered. For male dogs, it's a walk in the park compared to female dogs. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, but most male dogs have NO problems with the procedure.

Let us know what you decide. Of course, if you do not, you and your dogs will be fine, I am sure.

By the way, I am a dog and cat owner and treasure every moment I spend with them. I have always had them spayed and altered. My vet highly recommends it. I truly trust my Vet.

P. S. I just ready your very long post - your third one, that is. I found your knowledge impressive and suggest you contact someone at a Vet school.... and get the details you are looking for. If you don't trust your vet, find a new one you do trust. We are merely "pet owners", not doctors. Some of the people here have be involved in dog and cat rescues for years and/or have had dogs/cats for years. If you are looking for experienced animals owners, you are in the right place. If you are looking for a more detailed explanation other than what we have to offer, then you may have to go somewhere else.

Good luck.

[Karen]

The extra testosterone in their system makes cancer more likely. That is true of humans as well, in certain cancers. And yes, I know of human females who have had mastectomy before breast cancer showed up because of a high incidence of breast cancer in her family. And I get a mammogram every year - but I know why I am putting myself through that discomfort. Once cancer starts in a particular organ it can spread, and there is big danger in it going metastatic before you notice symptoms of the initial cancer.

The extra testosterone will effect personality - as it does in humans too, it can cause increased aggression in dogs or people. Once those pathways are built in the brain, it is much harder to train the behavior away. Brains are not computers, they do not have an "undo" button. Think of it like writing a word on a piece of paper - you can erase it, but then the eraser marks will still be there, the paper is changed forever.

None of us have an financial stake in whether or not you have your dogs neutered. But many people here have more life experience and have worked with dogs longer than you've been alive.

We don't know you, we just want what is best for your dogs. You asked for advice, we are sharing it with you.

[wolfsoul]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with leaving a dog intact, as long as the owner is responsible and precautionary (ie able to be 100% sure that the dog is not capable of roaming or mating).
Re cancers; Well, this is unfortunatly a common misconception. Testicular cancer is very rare and very easily cured by neutering. Cutting off the hormones greatly increases the risks of more deadly and inoperable cancers (bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, etc).
Re temperament issues; Well, this tends to be more formed on opinion, if you ask me. Most reports find signifigantly more behavioural issues in altered dogs; However, this isn't to say that the issues would not have been there if they had been left unaltered. It HAS been shown that cutting off the hormones does affect the part of the brain that affects bite inhibition (causing the animal to have a higher tendency towards biting), but again, one doesn't really know how much higher the risk of biting is, and how one can weigh the risks of that vs dog aggression, marking, etc.
In my line of work, I do tend to find that the unneutered males for the most part are jerks -- they bite, they pee, they act like little *ssholes. However, these dogs are typically owned by people who only bring their dogs in on occasion, leading me to believe that the dogs are only unaltered because the owners don't want to spend money on them. If they won't bring them in regularily for grooming to the point where I'm completely shaving off a horribly disgusting matted dog who is uncomfortable and probably thinks I deserve to be bit for torturing it, then I can probably assume that they also don't want to spend the money on neutering it, or on training classes to fix the unwanted behaviours for that matter. On the other hand, my clients who aren't neutered who come in for regular grooming tend to be lovely little dogs; They are in the minority, because most of the males I groom are neutered, and most of the unneutered dogs are not regulars (ie they only come in once or twice a year).
I tend to start seeing males testing the waters around 14-15 months of age (in my breed). This isn't to say they wouldn't do it if they were neutered -- obviously one has no idea. In males, I have seen no difference in temperament after the male has been neutered (in other words I'd tend to agree with your vet, that neutering a dog who has developed hormonal behaviours will not make the dog any better after the hormones are cut off -- they have to be cut off before the hormones have already started to take affect on the temperament -- hence why we see some late-neutered studs who will still try to breed females). I HAVE seen some signifigant changes in FEMALES who were spayed after showing bad hormonal behaviours (dog aggression, etc), but alot of the changes were unfortunatly not ones that the owner wanted.

So, hormone removal can be a really touchy subject. On one hand, we want what is best for the dog population. On the other hand, we want what is best for the health of the animal in question. For a win-win, I would suggest a simple visectomy. The dog is unable to breed, but retains the hormones.
In most parts of Europe, this has always been the primary way of altering; Males recieve a visectomy, females have the uterus removed but keep their ovaries to continue hormone production. Dogs in most places in Europe are also allowed to nearly anywhere; Buildings, public businesses, etc. And yet we hear of little problems over there, as opposed to problems over here. So one can not convince me that leaving the hormones intact will cause major issues, when there is nearly an entire continent of hormone-intact dogs that go anywhere and everywhere.

Does Joe Blow Pet Owner need to know about the cancer misconceptions etc? No, because Joe Blow Pet Owner should spay/neuter their pet, regardless of how the procedure is done and what affect it has on hormones. However there ARE some researched, responsible people, who are capable of keeping intact pets. What I DO think more people should know about are the other options available for spaying/neutering and leaving the hormones intact. It's been done in Europe forever, it's been done in Canada for many many years, and is now starting to catch on in the USA. I would suspect that vets who specialise in reproduction are likely the ones to go to for this matter. In my own experience, too, alot of these vets coincedentally come from Europe.

[wolfsoul]

And just to prove I'm not biased, Lol... I have a female who will be spayed the good ol' fashioned "get rid of EVERYTHING" way because I hate her hormonal behaviours and I'm willing to admit that I'd rather have them go bye-bye to maintain a stable relationship with the dog. There will be no leaving in the ovaries for this one...

[B&Baussies]

That is the answer I was looking for, thank you so much. I really enjoyed reading that reply, a well thought out firsthand experience(s) combined with some medical knowledge. And thank you for addressing my vets’ strange answers. I didn’t realize they would do a vasectomy on a dog, I figured my vet would have brought that up when I expressed so much concern in a personality change…. Probably time for a new vet.
Anyway thank you everyone for your advice, I’m going to go with the vasectomy. My dogs don’t exhibit any negative behavior and I’ve taken very special care in that. And while I mentioned that mating wasn’t a concern, if I can literally just cut off the supply without removing a major endocrine gland(s) that’s sounds perfect.
I apologize if I sounded too hostile earlier, these dogs are my world and I was looking for answers. I was very confused by the lack of explanation from my vet and frustrated by all the questions pilling up in my head.
Btw it’s interesting that two of you have opposite opinions on whether or not hormones cause or prevent cancer. If you don’t mind me asking what your source of information is? I know there are several cancers that attack the endocrine system specifically but I can’t see how testosterone would trigger a tissue mutation. (Btw many forms of mutation can occur in your DNA that can be passed down, probably why your friend was so likely to develop breast cancer wasn’t so much the hormonal problem but a genetic flaw passed down. Think of it like a cancer gene). Also Metastasis is the actual process of the disease flowing between organs, Malignant is the type of cancer and there is no “going malignant” it either is or is not (benign). Malignant is just the most recognized dangerous type because of its lack of central location and its ability to travel through the blood stream and pop in one or multiple places. It also is not a specific kind of cancer it just describes its behavior. And there is no possible way to predict what cancer you will and where you will get it. It’s all a guessing game, if it wasn’t then cancer wouldn’t have such a bad reputation.

[Bonny]

That is the answer I was looking for, thank you so much. I really enjoyed reading that reply, a well thought out firsthand experience(s) combined with some medical knowledge. And thank you for addressing my vets’ strange answers. I didn’t realize they would do a vasectomy on a dog, I figured my vet would have brought that up when I expressed so much concern in a personality change…. Probably time for a new vet.
Anyway thank you everyone for your advice, I’m going to go with the vasectomy. My dogs don’t exhibit any negative behavior and I’ve taken very special care in that. And while I mentioned that mating wasn’t a concern, if I can literally just cut off the supply without removing a major endocrine gland(s) that’s sounds perfect.
I apologize if I sounded too hostile earlier, these dogs are my world and I was looking for answers. I was very confused by the lack of explanation from my vet and frustrated by all the questions pilling up in my head.
Btw it’s interesting that two of you have opposite opinions on whether or not hormones cause or prevent cancer. If you don’t mind me asking what your source of information is? I know there are several cancers that attack the endocrine system specifically but I can’t see how testosterone would trigger a tissue mutation. (Btw many forms of mutation can occur in your DNA that can be passed down, probably why your friend was so likely to develop breast cancer wasn’t so much the hormonal problem but a genetic flaw passed down. Think of it like a cancer gene). Also Metastasis is the actual process of the disease flowing between organs, Malignant is the type of cancer and there is no “going malignant” it either is or is not (benign). Malignant is just the most recognized dangerous type because of its lack of central location and its ability to travel through the blood stream and pop in one or multiple places. It also is not a specific kind of cancer it just describes its behavior. And there is no possible way to predict what cancer you will and where you will get it. It’s all a guessing game, if it wasn’t then cancer wouldn’t have such a bad reputation.

One more thing male dogs that are left in tact can develop prostrate problems as in prostrate cancer. I do have a dog that is in tact & his prostrate is enlarged. He is an older dog so with age those things do happen.

[B&Baussies]

Ok, I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but can you explain how it can cause prostate problems? I know the two are closely correlated in a lot of ways with a lot of different species. But I’m just not finding the logic in hormones causing tissue mutation. Now I can however, imagine the hormones providing a stimulus that could bring out a pre existing condition in the dogs genome, but if that was the case there would be an immeasurable amount of variables to cover. The testicles are only a part of the endocrine system and to root out any other hormones other then testosterone as a contributor would be very narrow sighted and most likely wrong. Also the prostate is at the end of the digestive track and even though it can usually correlate with the endocrine system it is also where all the food and foreign matter is passed. The most likely way for carcinogens to enter the dogs body will be through eating (unless your dog picked up smoking… lol joking). All that food will pass through and could be just as likely to provide the stimulus to inflame the prostate, maybe even cancer.
Or if you could just post the source of the information that would be nice.
I would like to add, that it is surprising that so many people think that the natural design of the dog is so flawed. Especially in such a crucial area of their body. It almost sounds like the common consensus is that if dog were to live the natural wild life (which they did before be domesticated) they would be a population full of cancerous testicles, ovaries, and inflamed prostates. I’m fairly certain that if their reproductive cycle had this tremendous flaw, the K9 species would have probably come to a screeching halt a while ago.

[Bonny]

Ok, I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but can you explain how it can cause prostate problems? I know the two are closely correlated in a lot of ways with a lot of different species. But I’m just not finding the logic in hormones causing tissue mutation. Now I can however, imagine the hormones providing a stimulus that could bring out a pre existing condition in the dogs genome, but if that was the case there would be an immeasurable amount of variables to cover. The testicles are only a part of the endocrine system and to root out any other hormones other then testosterone as a contributor would be very narrow sighted and most likely wrong. Also the prostate is at the end of the digestive track and even though it can usually correlate with the endocrine system it is also where all the food and foreign matter is passed. The most likely way for carcinogens to enter the dogs body will be through eating (unless your dog picked up smoking… lol joking). All that food will pass through and could be just as likely to provide the stimulus to inflame the prostate, maybe even cancer.
Or if you could just post the source of the information that would be nice.
I would like to add, that it is surprising that so many people think that the natural design of the dog is so flawed. Especially in such a crucial area of their body. It almost sounds like the common consensus is that if dog were to live the natural wild life (which they did before be domesticated) they would be a population full of cancerous testicles, ovaries, and inflamed prostates. I’m fairly certain that if their reproductive cycle had this tremendous flaw, the K9 species would have probably come to a screeching halt a while ago.

You could find out more about dogs, genetics, etc., if you want by locating a veterinary school. My veterinary found the swollen prostrate on my dog & treated it with medicine. He said it is not uncommon for male dogs in tact to have prostrate problems. My dog is a working Australian Cattle dog. As far as dogs in the wild they all eventually died from something.