Should I get my dogs neutered?

[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.

[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.