Please Neuter

sillysally

Obey the Toad.
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,074
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
A hole in the bottom of the sea.
I agree that 90% of the dog owning public needs their dogs altered; I think vasectomies and OSS are nice options for some people, but I also think that the majority of owners also don't need to be dealing with hormone related behaviors. Most people can't get their altered-young dogs under control.

Of course you can train around the hormones. People can and do and it is grand. Most people aren't going to put that much effort into training their dog. I enjoy training, and I still wanted to grab Gusto by the throat more than once when his hormones were kicking in.

People want to go to the dog park and stand around while their dogs play. They want to put their dog out in the yard and not worry about it while they cook dinner. They want to walk the dog off leash to the mailbox and not worry about it wandering off after the scent of a female in heat. And they don't want to work to make those things happen.

I agree that traditional spay/neuters are the ideal default for most owners. Those who are likely to research further into the other options are those who are most likely to be able to judge if they can handle those options. I don't support false information (on either side - if one more person tells me hormones don't affect behavior, I'm moving in with them for a particular 3 days of the month), but I also don't think encouraging average owners to leave their dogs intact is the answer.
This.

Alternative altering surgeries are expensive and not all that accessible in many areas. There are plenty of people who you can barely get to take their dogs to a low cost spay/neuter clinic, much less shell out hundreds on a vasectomy.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Illinois
This.

Alternative altering surgeries are expensive and not all that accessible in many areas. There are plenty of people who you can barely get to take their dogs to a low cost spay/neuter clinic, much less shell out hundreds on a vasectomy.
Which is why I think most people here arguing for them (including me) are saying they should (and hopefully will one day) be more readily available as an alternative option or at least spoken about. I know a few years back I called around to multiple vets within an hour distance and got a lot of "Ummmm....we can neuter/spay them" with no idea about anything else.

And also the point being made is the price difference isn't a ton depending on the area.

ETA: No one that I've seen is saying all dogs should have these instead, just that it would be a good thing for them to be a viable, more easily accessible option given as an alternative to traditional spay/neuters. Not something people should be forced into getting instead of normal alters.
 
Last edited:

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
I agree that 90% of the dog owning public needs their dogs altered; I think vasectomies and OSS are nice options for some people, but I also think that the majority of owners also don't need to be dealing with hormone related behaviors. Most people can't get their altered-young dogs under control.

Of course you can train around the hormones. People can and do and it is grand. Most people aren't going to put that much effort into training their dog. I enjoy training, and I still wanted to grab Gusto by the throat more than once when his hormones were kicking in.

People want to go to the dog park and stand around while their dogs play. They want to put their dog out in the yard and not worry about it while they cook dinner. They want to walk the dog off leash to the mailbox and not worry about it wandering off after the scent of a female in heat. And they don't want to work to make those things happen.

I agree that traditional spay/neuters are the ideal default for most owners. Those who are likely to research further into the other options are those who are most likely to be able to judge if they can handle those options. I don't support false information (on either side - if one more person tells me hormones don't affect behavior, I'm moving in with them for a particular 3 days of the month), but I also don't think encouraging average owners to leave their dogs intact is the answer.
This. x1000.
 

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
I would like to see vasectomies and ovariectomies become more popular, but they aren't right now, and also they are rather expensive.

Some people freak out just at the normal price of a spay or neuter - that's why low cost spay/neuter programs exist.

I doubt they will ever become popular with the general public.
I think someone like my dad would laugh in my face if I told him I was getting a vasectomy for my dog. And I'm pretty sure 90% of the general public would do. That's why it hasn't become a 'normal' thing to do. I think it's great if you want it for your dog, but I just think encouraging them for the average joe won't fly very well, even if they are easily accessible and the same prices. I feel people just wouldn't see the point.

To be honest, I think it'd be a scary world if stuff starting coming out about 'dangerous' neutering/spaying CAN be. Because people would immediately latch on to that and use it as an excuse to not fix their animals. Maybe I sound cynical but really, I've seen dogs in the hands of ... well, idiots, LOL, and I think it'd be a dangerous combo. Spaying/neutering has become such a 'normal' thing when you get a puppy. It just is as natural as getting their puppy vaccines, etc, so most just do it. I just think most of the public is better off this way.
 

Dogdragoness

Happy Halloween!!
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
4,169
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Gillett/Flower Mound TX
I still don't understand what is wrong with traditional spaying/neutering? It's not like it hurts the animal. People these days talk about it like its some kind of horrible act of cruelty.

It seems like to me that it would be far more cruel to be like "yeah you'll still have the urge to breed ... But you won't be able to do anything about it." To a dog.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
290
Likes
0
Points
16
I still don't understand what is wrong with traditional spaying/neutering? It's not like it hurts the animal. People these days talk about it like its some kind of horrible act of cruelty.

It seems like to me that it would be far more cruel to be like "yeah you'll still have the urge to breed ... But you won't be able to do anything about it." To a dog.
I'm not anti-neuter, but traditional neuter has been shown to cause just as many health problems as it's been advertised to prevent for so long. Especially with early neuter and large or giant breeds. That's perfectly logical, you can't really expect to have NO side effects from removing natural hormones from an animal's body.

OSS bitches still have "seasons," minus the parts that involve the uterus itself, because their hormones are still intact. They can and will breed a male if given the opportunity, they just can't get pregnant.

Hell, my fully INTACT bitches go through seasons and aren't always bred, certainly not every cycle. That's not "cruel" either.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Illinois
I still don't understand what is wrong with traditional spaying/neutering? It's not like it hurts the animal. People these days talk about it like its some kind of horrible act of cruelty.

It seems like to me that it would be far more cruel to be like "yeah you'll still have the urge to breed ... But you won't be able to do anything about it." To a dog.
Nothing is "wrong" if it's what works best for you and your dog.

But, whether or not it hurts the animal is debatable. You are removing important hormones that effect your dogs health, body and behavior. So yeah, I personally do believe altering a dog, especially before maturity CAN hurt them. Might not, might be worth it, might not be. But it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

So if there is a way to minimize the health risk while still getting rid of the ability to reproduce? I think that it deserves some more attention.
 
Last edited:

Losech

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
19
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Southern Oregon
My neutered (at 2 1/2 months by the shelter) Shiba tries to hump every female in heat he comes across. He'll start bloody fights over her. He'll try to escape, bark, whine, and scream to get at her... He may not have balls anymore, but he sure thinks he does. How is that any less cruel than an intact male doing the same thing?
My Shiba has multiple health problems linked to (especially "early") neutering as well. Poor dude can't make up his mind.

I find it quite hilarious and sad that removing a dog's balls is not laughable and is socially acceptable, but a vasectomy is laughable and not socially acceptable.
I will not alter any of my future dogs unless it is 100% medically necessary and the only way to save their lives. If I've got a male I never want to breed, he'll get a vasectomy. A female I never want to breed, a tubal litigation.

Sure most people don't know squat about canine reproduction and containment, and a lot of people shouldn't have dogs in the first place.

If people still choose to alter their pets, that's their choice and it should be, just like leaving them intact should be. But this decision should be an informed one, not shoved in their faces as the "right" "responsible" or even "wrong" one.
I think proper and unbiased education is the answer to the problem.

But that's my opinion, and what do I know.
 

medusozoan

Previously ravennr
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
18
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
GTA, Ontario
I find it quite hilarious and sad that removing a dog's balls is not laughable and is socially acceptable, but a vasectomy is laughable and not socially acceptable.
I will not alter any of my future dogs unless it is 100% medically necessary and the only way to save their lives. If I've got a male I never want to breed, he'll get a vasectomy. A female I never want to breed, a tubal litigation.

Sure most people don't know squat about canine reproduction and containment, and a lot of people shouldn't have dogs in the first place.

If people still choose to alter their pets, that's their choice and it should be, just like leaving them intact should be. But this decision should be an informed one, not shoved in their faces as the "right" "responsible" or even "wrong" one.
I think proper and unbiased education is the answer to the problem.

But that's my opinion, and what do I know.
This is my opinion as well. In the past year or so, I've been doing a lot of research regarding spaying and neutering. I've got a lot of studies piled up that I've gone through, and I'm currently taking a theriogenology course to get some more education on the subject.

I can understand the need to speuter shelter dogs when they are young. Shelters don't have the time or resources, generally, to keep up with adopters to make sure they do this on their own. If a breeder ever told me my dog had to be altered prior to one year, I wouldn't buy one of their dogs, simple as that. I personally don't like females, and unless something happens where I end up with one (in which case I'll deal with it then), I know I will always choose a male first. As such, it has always been my decision that my male would not be neutered before a year, at least, if at all. The more I read into this through studies, the more I see that while spaying can be very beneficial to females, neutering is often holding more cons than pros when it comes to males. I consider myself a responsible owner, and I have never had an accident with my intact males in the past. I don't know if this is considered 'bragging' or something negative, but I do not consider myself to be an average person when it comes to my pets, especially dogs.

That being said, I do believe that the average, 'moderate dog owner' needs to alter their pets. While I wish we lived in a world where people were generally responsible enough to do this at a more reasonable age, I know that's just completely far-fetched, so we work with what we're given. I do think, though, that the information out there needs to change. I have never once seen a packet of information on spaying/neutering. Anything I have seen is a small little pamphlet doing nothing but showing euthanasia statistics and only the benefits of spaying/neutering (and often, those benefits are exaggerated). The AVMA has taken the stance that they fully support early spaying/neutering at just a couple of months old, despite studies, so of course that really doesn't help the situation of being educated. What are owners to do when the only information they're given is benefits and the organization that should be giving them unbiased information is in full support of early speutering without linking to all of the studies showing the adverse effects of such a procedure? It's certainly not surprising the flak a lot of us get for wanting to keep our pets intact.

A few of my friends are new dog owners. I invited them to join the course I'm taking on canine reproduction and reproductive health, which focuses on spaying and neutering. None of them have taken me up on the offer. It is a free online course that requires a very small amount of time each week, and you don't even have to keep up with it. It can be completed at your own pace. This shows another problem; many people just don't care. And you can't make people care.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
290
Likes
0
Points
16
Don't you still have the risk of pyo with a tubal ligation? I was under the impression that was why the OSS existed.
Yes, it does. That's why I, personally, will do OSS rather than TL or traditional spay if I can find a vet who will do it, since mine (surprisingly, because I've been using him for 20 years and he's always been seemingly reasonable and open to new information) seems to be under the mistaken impression that OSS will either increase the risk of stump pyometra - not true if the procedure is done correctly - or otherwise create a gaping hole into the body cavity through the cervix for bacteria to invade...also completely ridiculous and I'm dumbfounded by that assertion. :rolleyes:
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
Yes, it does. That's why I, personally, will do OSS rather than TL
Yeah, this is why I chose an OSS instead of tubal for Blossom, I figured if they were going in, might as well eliminate the risk of pyo. I don't really see the advantage to a tubal, personally. The vet I went to offers them, but I didn't want to end up having to do a second surgery if she developed pyo at an advanced age, or something.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
540
Likes
1
Points
18
Location
Canada
So quick question if you're opting for an OSS as opposed to a traditional spay. Theoretically, the age at which you have it done won't really matter, will it? I'm just curious.
 

Saeleofu

Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,036
Likes
0
Points
36
Straw - I haven't research that particular aspect of it, but in theory, no, age wouldn't matter. The only thing I can think of that might make it matter would be size. Stuff has to be big enough to see what you're doing.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
540
Likes
1
Points
18
Location
Canada
That's what I figured. So if you were sending in, say, a 12 week old pup that needed surgery for xyz, you could have them vasectomized or hysterectomized at the same time and not have to worry about losing those hormones, or exposing them to anesthesia again later down the line. Interesting idea, and it's something I would definitely look into for a future puppy. :)
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
But ... I don't understand if you don't want the dog to breed why not just spay/neuter?
There are a whole host of health risks associated with cutting off hormone production (especially in young dogs) that some people just aren't comfortable with. In addition, I myself do not like the changes in coat and body condition that I see in traditionally altered animals, either. I prefer intact animals in appearance, behavior, and health.
 

Members online

Top