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. ;)

[wolfsoul]

Neutering actually increases the risk of prostate cancer (up to 4 times for some types, and up to 8 times for other types -- it's quite a signifigant increase in risk). There is alot of misinformation out there about prostate cancers.
But yes, unneutered dogs will be more prone to developing cysts and enlargement of the prostate -- most often in dogs over 9 years of age. Issues like this can usually be treated with medication, but neutering can also help or cure the problem. The last male I bred to was over 10 years of age. I liked the litter so much I tried to repeat it, but at over 10, he's now developed prostate issues, and the litter didn't take. His owners are going to put him on medication for his prostate. It can happen in younger dogs too, though much less common. a friend's male started having prostate issues at age 7. She put him on medication and it got rid of the problem. Another friend has a 6 year old male; Medication didn't help in his case, he neutered the dog, but the dog is still having prostate issues several months later. It seems to run in some lines.

[dab_20]

I, for one, applaud anyone going through some in depth research about the health of your dog before going through with any type of surgery. Unfortunately, veterinarians are biased, or told certain things over and over in veterinary school that often their information could be wrong. It takes a lot of time and research to come up with a good vet IMO.

With that being said, I think the MAIN reason to spay and neuter is to prevent unwanted litters. We have thousands and thousands of dogs and cats dying in shelters every year. The average dog owner should spay and neuter their pets because the risk of them jumping the fence and breeding.
I do think it is okay to keep an intact dog as long as you make sure nothing will happen. However, intact dogs, especially males, DO show increased aggression as a whole. The majority of the dogs (around 70%+) that have attacked and killed humans are unaltered. That is a fact. OTHER dogs tend to pick fights with unaltered dogs, whether spayed or neutered. Of course we are not saying because your dog is unaltered he will be aggressive, but most aggressive dogs are unaltered. And most aggressive dogs have bad owners, too. Which most bad owners do not spay and neuter their pets.
However, if you are worried about the hormonal changes, I would go with a vasectomy. I don't think you need to cut the hormones off, and I don't think that there are rampant health problems that come with hormones. Sexual hormones actually control a lot more than just sex. Mind you, I'm not a doctor, but I am in school for nursing and have learned a lot about hormones and such that is applicable to many species, not just humans.

[IRescue452]

Well those organs aren't needed if you aren't planning to breed so I think its best to remove them while the dogs are young and healthy. IF they get testicular cancer they might not do so until they are seniors and then perhaps the procedure would be more risky. Also, cancer spreads and grows before you even know its there. By the time you catch it and try and have the dog neutered to take the cancer out, it may not be completely removable.

Also, I wonder how much you socialize your dogs. People come into the dog park all the time with unaltered males and they say their dogs aren't aggressive. But have unaltered male dogs in the park ALWAYS seems to cause trouble in the group. Even if that particular dog isn't being the aggressor, his prescence is hyping up all the other dogs. Even my spayed female shepherd will start her dominant act when an unaltered dog is around. I hate when people come in with unaltered dogs.

[snakemama]

My biggest hesitation in hormone removal is that the sex hormones do play a role in the closing of the growth plates of the bones. I'm sure that in many dogs this will have no long-term effects, but I'd rather take care with my dogs until teh growth plates are closed before desexing them. I've always opted to neuter my dogs because I'm not up to the task of keeping an unaltered dog in a busy city like the one I live in. :)

Your dogs are obviously past that point, so it's up to you. Wolfsoul has put up a lot of good information, and it sounds like you have things well thought out. Your pups are lucky to have an owner who goes over all of the information before making a desion about their welfare.

[dab_20]

Also, I wonder how much you socialize your dogs. People come into the dog park all the time with unaltered males and they say their dogs aren't aggressive. But have unaltered male dogs in the park ALWAYS seems to cause trouble in the group. Even if that particular dog isn't being the aggressor, his prescence is hyping up all the other dogs. Even my spayed female shepherd will start her dominant act when an unaltered dog is around. I hate when people come in with unaltered dogs.

I very much agree with this.

[B&Baussies]

I actually socialized them quite a bit when they were between 3-9 months, never at an actual dog park though because they were my babies still and wouldn’t be able to defend themselves if something happened and for some reason I couldn’t intervene. They were introduced to two older female Australian Shepherds and got along great. As well as an unaltered fully grown German shepherd who didn’t act aggressively towards them. He really didn’t care about them but sniffed and showed little interest. (The German shepherd saw me as family and was one of the main inspirational reasons why even decided to get a dog after ties had been mostly cut with the family). They will also see the occasional neighbors’ dog and they will exchange pleasantries similarly to me and the owner engaging in small talk. No cases of aggression but they do get really antsy, usually calming down shortly after they realize they aren’t going to see the dog or have been given permission to engage. I think it's the wondering that makes them so fidgety.

I’ve introduced them and continue to introduce them to a multitude of environments, from taking them to a friend’s house or apartment, to talking them on trips like camping, or just going from a walk around the lake we have to drive to up the road. Not to mention that at certain hours of the day (really late or really early) and a few mostly private outdoor areas I train them with no leash and have done so since they were little bitty. As a result the know how to behave with a leash and they know the rules of when I take them off and we aren’t inside. They usually don’t get farther away than 20ft except in fields where then is much more visibility then it’s more like 50ft.

They’ve only encountered a dog one time that I wasn’t ready for and they behaved perfectly. It was 1:30 in the morning and I was letting them run around the field behind my apartment (if I'm gone a good bit of the day I like to give them and outlet for some energy before bed) and a neighbor the building over brought out their dog (female at that). And my dogs started to go over till I said “Stop, Lets go inside” (another story for another day: but I have put a lot of time in expanding their vocabulary so in this case they understood “stop” and “inside”), I didn’t even yell it but both dogs stopped in their tracks but remained completely focused on the female dog till I got their leashes on. They were probably 9-10 months old then. I had just recently stopped letting them socialize with other dogs till I knew what to do about this surgery. Just in case problems did start to develop.

After all even though they get along great with each other, if for some reason they do start acting aggressively towards other dogs I’m nervous for the other dog more than them really (regardless of who’s aggressor). I’ve instilled a very real since of loyalty towards each other and while I’m not the really worried about them fighting each other; if one gets into a fight with another dog, the other dog is not up against 60 lbs of Australian shepherd, it’ll be up against 120 lbs of Australian shepherd with two mouths. (That’s assuming they are the same size they are now, they are only 11 months old and the vet said they would probably grow a little more, not tons obviously but there are two so if they gain another 10-15 lbs that another 20-30 lbs of dog). So I’ll probably continue taking it easy as far as socializing them more till I feel I’m in the clear.

***If you get easily offended do not read this next part. I will keep it clean but this is coming out of frustration towards the topic more so then anyone specifically***

I’m getting really frustrated with people so willing to toss out medical knowledge without actually possessing any medical knowledge. Any of you who use the argument stating that “unless you plan on breeding them, neuter them because the organ serves no other purpose” are wrong. Dead wrong, I can’t think of one organ that doesn’t have either multiple functions or a function with multiple purposes. In fact I think it’s because of people like you, so willing to take everything said by your vet at face value and never thinking it might be wrong; that there is so little knowledge on the subject. I mean how long has a vet been able to say “chop its balls off and that’ll fix everything” before someone said “wait… maybe that’s not it”. How long has it been since anyone has really researched the subject?? Why would/ wouldn’t you research something that is at least publicly known to be beneficial but lacks any real evidence?(yes the would/ wouldn’t is on purpose cause you should really ask yourself both questions). And if you believe what evidence is shown, do you even consider the context it is in?? After all there are good pet owners and there are bad pet owners but to a vet and a researcher you’re the same mathematically. Why should I take the same advice you’d give some ******* neglectful owner? Obviously being a good owner my dogs are more prone to different behaviors and illness then one who doesn’t care. Reinforcing what I’m saying with MY vet’s lack of knowledge on the subject, her complete disregard for anything having to do with their environment, and the blank look she gave me when I started talking about different types of biological functions on a genetic level. Considering the fact that she was probably in school after high school for almost half the amount of time I’ve been alive, I was expecting to learn something that visit and be the one with the blank look not the other way around.

Seriously, if you’re going to take the time and preach it at least find some sound evidence in the matter or be quite. It only take a few minutes to open a tab and google search something (anything is better than nothing, and most search engines have a scholarly search tab which brings up much more reliable information if you really wanted to put the time in it) and it prevents you from looking dumb when someone calls you out. While any advice is much appreciated can you really consider it advice if the statement lacks a reason? YOU say that the testicles only purpose is breeding so removing them is best; I say that keeping them in will make them grow ten feet tall and fart out thunder storm. The fact is both these statements have the same amount of validity without a logical explanation as to why these outcomes are expected.

I know some people are probably reading this and thinking, “Yeah, I know what the reason is, it’s hormones that can cause cancer”. To you people, I applaud you for looking for a reason but did you really just have to take the reason at face value? After given a reason wouldn’t the next step be to connect to the two? Explain how they correlate. Not in this case. In this case its: Testosterone is in the testicles, the testicles get cancer, so the testosterone must be the cause of cancer. You guys remind me of a saying I heard a few years ago; you hear hoof beats but you think “horse” not “zebra”. Sometimes things aren’t so obvious when you only try to interpret it one way.

And for most of you people out there talking about cancer. Why don’t you crack open a book, your material is either very dated or a product of your imagination, at least when I’m giving someone advice and the information is my opinion I have the common decency to let them know that and that there is no evidence (although even in these cases I provide a reason for my opinion). And anyone that thinks that cancer prevention is anything more than a shot in the dark is very naïve. There is a reason we have so many cancer foundations and so many different organization created for the sole purpose of funding these cancer research foundations. The fact is cancer is still a mystery and the best solution we’ve been able to come up with for people is chemotherapy and radiation which **** near kills you by itself. I think if the solution was so simple we would have capitalized on it years ago.

[Karen]

Calm down. You asked for advice, we offered a variety of it.

I do not think anyone said "testicles are only there for breeding," and I know I mentioned that given your dog's age and breed, they are likely done their bone growth, so neutering them now would be fine in that regard.

[B&Baussies]

Why offer advice if you don’t really understand the subject matter? Why spread things that may or may not be true? If you don’t know what you’re saying or even the reason behind what you’re saying then why say it?

Like I said it wasn’t aimed at anyone specifically, I just hate the idea of spreading ignorance. I may have gotten a little out of line describing bad owners but those guys make me mad. Why have pets if you are just going to treat them bad?? Anyway, people tend to not embrace any kind of new idea when they are set in their ways. There are a lot of questions as well as plenty of good information posted here that no one supporting neutering seems to want to address. But people embracing the idea of at least keeping the dog intact seem to know a very comprehensive side to the argument. If you want a total stranger to believe you, you should try being more convincing.

You wouldn’t want your website to be full of skewed biased half truths. People should address both sides, pros and cons, to appear legitimate. And if you think the argument is one sided it was either a dumb question or you have a biased view.

[Grace]

I find your last post insulting. None of us profess to be experts - you asked for opinions, we gave you ours - and then you treat us in a most condescending manner.

[Karen]

B&BAussies, my advice was based on my life-long experiences, research I have done, dogs I have known, and known about and reading I have done over the years, as well as conversations with trusted veterinarians. I am not stupid.

Have I ever had cancer? I am an oncologist? No. But I have dear friends and loved ones and pets who have had it. I know survivors and people who have died from it. I know what chemo entails, and what radiation entails. I know the benefits and risks associated with both, and the long-term effects it can have as well.

Do I want my forum to have varying opinions represented? Sure - we do no claim, as I have said, to all be veterinary experts or experts at anything. This is a public forum for people who love their pets. Is everything that has ever been posted in the 2 million plus posts that were here before you ever got here the absolute undeniable, provable scientifically based and researched, so that this site could serve as a textbook for future veterinarians? No. Was that ever our intention? No.

Relax, take a deep breath and go play with your dogs!

[IRescue452]

I didn't say those parts serve no purpose. I'm just saying they aren't necessary to make a healthy dog in most cases. Dogs do fine with or without them all over the world everyday. So its best if you're going to have them removed to do it while they are a healthy, strong age than to wait and see if they ever get testicular cancer which might not happen until they are old and weaker in health. If and when I get a male dog next I plan to wait for the dog to be done growing to have it done as well, but I'm not going to wait until the dog is old and feeble.

[moosmom]

Absolutely!!!

[anna_66]

Seriously, if you’re going to take the time and preach it at least find some sound evidence in the matter or be quite. It only take a few minutes to open a tab and google search something (anything is better than nothing, and most search engines have a scholarly search tab which brings up much more reliable information if you really wanted to put the time in it) and it prevents you from looking dumb when someone calls you out. .

I'm sorry but this is so insulting. If you feel this way, why didn't you just google it yourself or go to someone who is a professional (other than your vet now)?
You wanted others opinion, so they gave it.

[moosmom]

Spaying/neutering will cut down the risk of pyometria, prostate problems, etc. Dogs can get very aggressive if they're not fixed.

As far as you coming on here asking for advice, only to get defensive when you don't like what you hear...SHAME ON YOU!!!

I'm also tired of rescuing pets after they are no longer any use to their irresponsible owners. You sound like one of them. Nuff said.

[sasvermont]

Oh my. This thread has certainly gone down hill.

I surely hope this author goes into research and not practice once medical school is completed. You certainly have NO bed side manner. Yikes.

What a snot.

Why not go somewhere else and tell them how smart you are. We are NOT doctors or studying to be doctors. That was made quite clear to you from the start. You may be smart, but you have lots of other issues about your ability to communicate nicely.

Good luck. You'll need it.

Here's your hat.........................

[Roxyluvsme13]

I read through this whole thread, and you honestly have no right to be so rude to everyone here. Most people here are pretty knowledgeable with animals due to owning animals most of their lives, going through multitudes of vet visits for varying diseases, and going through the spay and neuter of several pets. YOU ASKED FOR OPINIONS. Yeah, you did. So don't you dare come back and post that "you don't understand the subject matter." You could have fifteen degrees from Harvard and be a world-renowned surgeon and there are people on this forum that would still have a better knowledge base than you.

I, myself, am a college student majoring in Animal Science with a pre-veterinary medicine concentration.

I think spaying or neutering is a responsible thing to do. Accidents happen, they do. You may think you can control your dogs, but one day, for all you know, a female in heat will be wandering through your neighborhood and your dogs will run off because they aren't neutered. I'm glad you think you can control your dogs, but why would you risk it when this is such a simple procedure?

As for the cancer thing, it's better to take as many preventative measures as possible. They may or may not develop cancer if you alter them or not, but cancer is a horrible disease. I watched someone very close to me die from it, and I wouldn't put anything or anyone through that. So what if there isn't a 100% proven theory that states "if you do not remove the testicles, then your pet has a higher chance of developing cancer." There IS some linkage to cancer and the presence of testicles. If they don't have testicles, then you don't have to worry about testicular cancer, pretty common sense there.

I'm sorry I don't have "medical research" to back up my statements, but any person with a little bit of common sense can figure some of this out.

Obviously you're still going to do whatever you want in this situation, so I don't understand why you bothered asking for our opinions anyway.

[*LabLoverKEB*]

I read through this whole thread, and you honestly have no right to be so rude to everyone here. Most people here are pretty knowledgeable with animals due to owning animals most of their lives, going through multitudes of vet visits for varying diseases, and going through the spay and neuter of several pets. YOU ASKED FOR OPINIONS. Yeah, you did. So don't you dare come back and post that "you don't understand the subject matter." You could have fifteen degrees from Harvard and be a world-renowned surgeon and there are people on this forum that would still have a better knowledge base than you.

I, myself, am a college student majoring in Animal Science with a pre-veterinary medicine concentration.

I think spaying or neutering is a responsible thing to do. Accidents happen, they do. You may think you can control your dogs, but one day, for all you know, a female in heat will be wandering through your neighborhood and your dogs will run off because they aren't neutered. I'm glad you think you can control your dogs, but why would you risk it when this is such a simple procedure?

As for the cancer thing, it's better to take as many preventative measures as possible. They may or may not develop cancer if you alter them or not, but cancer is a horrible disease. I watched someone very close to me die from it, and I wouldn't put anything or anyone through that. So what if there isn't a 100% proven theory that states "if you do not remove the testicles, then your pet has a higher chance of developing cancer." There IS some linkage to cancer and the presence of testicles. If they don't have testicles, then you don't have to worry about testicular cancer, pretty common sense there.

I'm sorry I don't have "medical research" to back up my statements, but any person with a little bit of common sense can figure some of this out.

Obviously you're still going to do whatever you want in this situation, so I don't understand why you bothered asking for our opinions anyway.

Well said, Bri.... well said.

This is a pointless argument. I am also in the veterinary field.... you stated that your dogs' veterinarian doesn't know what she is talking about and is wrong. Well, your veterinarian went to school to become a doctor in veterinary medicine. You on the other hand, did not. So she is right when she lists the many many pros of spaying and neutering. You are not. I for one believe that absolutely no human being on this earth should be breeding animals. EXCEPT for those who know what they are doing, and I don't say that lightly!

[moosmom]

Amen, Sasvermont!!! But you forgot something. "Here's your hat...DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON YOUR WAY OUT!!!

[Lady's Human]

Amen, Sasvermont!!! But you forgot something. "Here's your hat...DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON YOUR WAY OUT!!!

While I agree that the OP has been less than respectful in their response to the opinion of the forum, exactly what does this accomplish?

The point should be to educate, not engage in a tit for tat battle.

Answering rude responses with more of the same just leads to flame wars and people getting a negative view of the forum. I think this thread has more than run it's course, and should be closed.

[pomtzu]

WOW - I'm gone for a few days and look what's here when I get back. I agree with sas - what a snot! I just don't understand people who come here looking for advice/opinions, and when the reply is against what the OP believes, then we're just all a bunch of idiots. Darned if I can figure why this thread was started in the first place, since the OP obviously had made up her/his mind already. Seems like he/she has a big superiority complex and enjoys talking down to others he/she believes to be below her/him self.

[sasvermont]

LH, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

This isn't the first time a thread has gone astray and it won't be the last.

I believe we are all entitled to respond to a comment made about our response to a question. Just because you don't happen to like this thread etc. doesn't make it worthy of being "closed". It will go away eventually, just like all the others have done.

As far as giving the forum a bad rap, well, give me a break. There have been far more heated discussions than this one.

Relax a little. Life is too short to worry about situations like this.

[Lady's Human]

As far as giving the forum a bad rap, well, give me a break. There have been far more heated discussions than this one.


There have been, (and I've been part of some of them) but most (not by any means all) of those have been in the Dog House and aren't going to be the first thing someone sees when coming to the forum.

As to relaxing a little, to quote the mayor, "Pet talk is supposed to be a happy place" and threads like this do not contribute to that sentiment at all.

[lizbud]

There have been, (and I've been part of some of them) but most (not by any means all) of those have been in the Dog House and aren't going to be the first thing someone sees when coming to the forum.




Moving this thread to the DH would take care of that LH.

[beeniesmom]

I'd get him neutered. My male had some behavioral issues before his neuter. He is a happier dog now and I don't have to fear that he runs away.

[wombat2u2004]

http://i970.photobucket.com/albums/ae186/wombat2u2004/ATT000311.gif

[Lady's Human]

I think your pup needs to go on the patch, WOm. :p

[Catty1]

Puffin' pup - not good! :p

B&BAussies - I don't know where you live, and don't know if the same applies to dogs as to cats, but why not discuss this with your breeder?

S/he should know if that particular breed has any health risks regarding neutered/non-neutered, and especially breeds from her/his kennel.

My sister got purebred cats that were not show quality, and she had to sign an agreement that she WOULD get them neutered.

Does your breeder have any rules or guidelines on this matter?

Hug your puppies for me! :)

[wombat2u2004]

I think your pup needs to go on the patch, WOm. :p

I thought about that, but after reading what the OP had to say, I thought it best to first get a doctorate in Dog Health before I go making educated decisions.
So that........
a) My dog won't die of lung cancer.
b) I can also write a 3000 word essay to impress everyone on PT.
:D

[DriftyAlison0]

Well said, Bri.... well said.

This is a pointless argument. I am also in the veterinary field.... you stated that your dogs' veterinarian doesn't know what she is talking about and is wrong. Well, your veterinarian went to school to become a doctor in veterinary medicine. You on the other hand, did not. So she is right when she lists the many many pros of spaying and neutering. You are not. I for one believe that absolutely no human being on this earth should be breeding animals. EXCEPT for those who know what they are doing, and I don't say that lightly!

I agree. I am going to college to become a Humane Officer after completing the Vet Assistant program. I see too many unwanted pets to see why anyone would want to keep their animal intact. If you don't believe us, volunteer at the shelter and see for your own eyes why neutering or spaying (at least a vasectomy) is needed. I also feel sorry for your future patients since your a person who thinks that they are so smart, yet when they ask a question in something that they don't know much of, call the vet stupid, call us stupid because we don't respond the way you wanted us to (and by stupid, you just wanted us to do all the research for you so that you could use the excuse to keep your animals intact) and guess what......GROW UP AND DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH instead of BEING RUDE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE EXPERTISE IN THIS. You told us that you don't know about this, SO WHY CALL US STUPID? We are probably more right then you, in fact, I feel for your dogs, because when they need vet care, you are going to go to vet to vet calling them stupid because they know more about animals then you. THEY WENT TO COLLEGE TO BECOME A VET! THEY ARE NOT STUPID (yes I know you didn't use the word stupid, but I can see it in your posts) in the end of the day I hope that you spay or neuter your dogs. You will be thankful to help in the fight of stopping unwanted litters.

BTW just because we said something you don't believe in doesn't make us stupid. With you calling us stupid for not agreeing with us, that means that your stupid for not taking our side. Don't be asking for advice at all if your not willing to hear different sides of the issue. And stop being a smart arse and thinking that your a know it all.

[K9soul]

I don't think it's really necessary to get so personally insulting in response to the OP. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[pomtzu]

People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. Tit for tat!!!

[Cataholic]

This 'should I neuter or should I not' debate reminds me about seat belts. Yep, seat belts.

I am a huge proponent of seat belt usage. From time to time, I run into someone that says, "the officer/fireman said if I had my seat belt on, I would have died, so I don't wear it". Not only do I find this hugely irresponsible of the officer/fireman, but it is usually in such a rare, limited, "maybe its true" type of situation that it even makes sense.

I think that same way about neutering. When I *know* how many animals are put to death- each and every day in this country- I cannot come up with enough reason to ever not neuter your pet. :( Each and every litter avoided helps.

[frankie]

Hi, lurker here who registered to briefly weigh in on this topic.

B&Baussies, if you are still studying at a tertiary level, you should have access to a fair number of academic journals - just do a quick search for the risks and benefits of gonadectomy in dogs. There are a fair number of good, recent reviews. I'd provide links but most of them require a subscription. A review of the evidence (non-peer reviewed but well cited) is also available here (http://www.skeptvet.com/index.php?p=1_23_Benefits-Risks-of-Neutering).

Veterinary medicine is based on evidence and, like human medicine, must weigh up both population and individual health. I tend to think castration of domestic animals has most benefit at a population level, but that's not to say there aren't individual benefits as well.

I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

[Bonny]

Hi, lurker here who registered to briefly weigh in on this topic.

B&Baussies, if you are still studying at a tertiary level, you should have access to a fair number of academic journals - just do a quick search for the risks and benefits of gonadectomy in dogs. There are a fair number of good, recent reviews. I'd provide links but most of them require a subscription. A review of the evidence (non-peer reviewed but well cited) is also available here (http://www.skeptvet.com/index.php?p=1_23_Benefits-Risks-of-Neutering).

Veterinary medicine is based on evidence and, like human medicine, must weigh up both population and individual health. I tend to think castration of domestic animals has most benefit at a population level, but that's not to say there aren't individual benefits as well.

I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

thank you frankie that is all worth while reading & very helpful.

[CountryWolf07]

My first dog was not neutered. He was just fine. He lived up to be 18 years old. He was a Lab/Beagle mix. Best dog I ever had. Otherwise, the next couple dogs I've had growing up, they were either spayed/neutered. Each owner is different. Each to their own.