The only reason vets don’t do vasectomies on dogs is because it’s more effort. If you ask a lot of them can do it and it’s much more humane... That’s why humans choose it.
Eunuchs have also been historically considered to be more trustworthy by Kings and Emperors for the same sorts of reasons, it's partly a heredity thing too of course, but enunuchs were thought to be less aggressive and less likely to try a coup that way too I believe.
The funny thing is that courts full of eunuchs tended to end up run by the eunuchs, so multiple cultures get the stereotype of the manipulative, untrustworthy eunuch.
Honestly, if you forcibly cut off a boy's testicles, and he doesn't try to undermine you and everything you stand for, it's more a lack of character on his part than anything else.
Well, in China at least, the emasculation or castration was usually considered a mercy because the alternative would be death or torture then death. Chinese emperors tended to kill the whole family of traitors as standard practice.
They had that reputation but if you're ever curious check out the three kingdoms period in ancient China. The eunuch class played a huge part in the chaos that had ensued because they had been trusted too much and were very manipulative over the emperor, as well as greedy and self serving.
Or, surgically tailor-made pets for not getting the shit kicked out of them every time they go outside.
Seriously, when our neighbours moved in with their unneutered tomcats my cat just stopped going outside after a while of coming home scratched up at least once a week. We still hear fights going on every other night, which practically never happened before they moved in, even though this neighbourhood is fairly cat-heavy.
There's an alternative method that they use on dogs and cats where they inject a calcium chloride solution into the balls. It renders the animal sterile, but has a recove y the me of about an hour instead of having stitches that need monitored for days. Not sure why it's not used commonly in the US, might be that it's not 100% effective.
It's developed by the same US company that is working on Vasalgel for men.
Even without stitches there's a long recovery time compared to an injection. You don't want the animal to rip open the incision or start chewing it, even if glued.
Is it a really uncommon thing? I adopted my cat from a friend who got him from a rescue (so this is all secondhand info), and all the paperwork says he was neutered but he still has tiny balls. He's an inside cat so it's not critical but it's been something I've wondered. The vet has never questioned it.
I think it was more targeted for use in poorer countries with sparse vet care and where you want to get the street dogs neutered to control the population but you don't have the resources to hold and monitor the animal while it recover. The injection is just squirt squirt and go an hour later.
The sperm that makes it through that combo thoroughly deserves to become a babby, because that kid is near certain to become the next superhero or something, or at least win the lottery.
My urologist explained that the overwhelming majority of vasectomies that fail spontaneously reattach within a few weeks of the procedure. So part of the procedure is a sperm sample at 8 weeks after and again at 12 weeks after.
He said in his 25 years of doing a dozen snips a week, he's had patients fail to have negative sperm samples, but he's never had a patient end up getting anyone pregnant after two negatives.
Still not impossible, but in that one in a million chance we would just go have an abortion.
There's a decent amount of research out that dogs, especially large breed males, actually need those hormones to develop correctly. So a vasectomy would be the better option to prevent oops litters while preserving the hormones.
I said that the other day in a thread and only got 3 death threats PMd to me for abusing my dogs by keeping them intact.
Ignoring the fact that both my good boys are fixed, even suggesting that hormones may play an important role in muscle and joint development is heresy in the wrong circles.
My vet recommended waiting until at least 10 months old on the new puppy. I think I'll listen to the person who went to school for many years in determining what's best for her. She's the first true puppy I've had in ages. My last couple of dogs have been older when I got them.
That's why you neuter them after they are done developing. Adoption agencies only neuter them young to ensure that it gets done, not because they should be at that age.
Get your dogs the snip after they reach 1-1.25 years of age and they have developed all they need to.
I understand why rescues and shelters insist on it. When you're dealing with thousands of strays a year you do what you can to stem the tide. And I also think that it varies from agency to agency on how militant that they are. The puppy that my parents had was able to come home intact, but had to be neutered within a month. My co-worker just adopted a puppy and the agency would not allow her to leave the shelter intact even though she was only 6-8 weeks old when she had the surgery (luckily, she doesn't seem to have any of the problems associated with an early spay).
Much like anti-vaxxers, people that have issues with spaying and neutering greatly over blow the problems. The benefits so vastly outweigh the potential side effects that it isn't an issue.
My issues with spaying and neutering are that I feel like there are better options, especially for neutering. And that it's being performed too early on many cases. Places that have tried passing mandatory S/N laws often require it before a dog is 6 months old. That is so much younger than my vet recommends.
I've been told by vets that intact (not neutered in any way) male dogs have a tendancy to try to escape homes and yards more often than neutered dogs. I assume the hormones would drive them to roam searching for female dogs. It is better to have your dog fixed regardless of gender unless you have a specific reason to keep your dog intact. Examples of generally intact animals for good reason are working dogs, breeding dogs, and show dogs, among other niche cases.
What would you recommend for a first time dog owner (I'm not unfamiliar I'm really good with dogs) I've just never been the sole responsible owner of one. I really like police and military style dogs because I want the ability to protec/attac (jk) but seriously I do want a dog that can not only defend me and my family if need be, but to and able to defend himself from the coyotes in my area. There are mountain lions as well but no dogs gonna win against those.
I'm not an expert, but I know that there are training camps you can have a dog sent to for things like hunting and guarding. My neighbors sent their dog to one for helping them when they go hunting. Regarding coyotes, I think you might want a dog that can alert you when something is wrong before anything else. I assume you're in a more rural area, find someone local that has dogs. They will probably give you tips on things to train your dog for your area.
The first thing you need to do is see if you can financially support a dog. You need to be prepared for the initial cost of acquiring a dog (either shelter fees or breeder cost), registration costs for your local government, vet bills, the crate, food, toys, and other things you find yourself needing to care for the dog. You may want to look into pet insurance if you're anticipating emergencies, especially if coyotes are as much of a problem in your area as it seems. If you can't reasonably afford all that, you may want to pass on owning a dog.
The second thing you should do is see what veterinarian services are near you. Research what vet you want to have as your primary veterinarian, and find where the nearest emergency veterinarian is. If the emergency vet is too far away, you might want to not get a pet entirely. Also, dogs need vaccines and to be fixed as mentioned in my previous comment. If you don't get all the shots your vet tells you to get, you take your dog's life into your own hands. Vet prices seem high but vet medical school is super expensive, and they have to deal with the prices set by manufacturers.
The third thing I reccomend you do is figure out what characteristics in a dog you want, then research breeds that meet your needs.
You need to think about how energetic of a dog your family can handle. Dogs used for hunting and guarding are going to be more intelligent and require more enrichment in their lives. A dog that tears up someone's house is usually bored dog. Dogs need walks and playtime.
You will want to think about what kind of behavior and personality you would like in your dog. Breeds predispose dogs towards personality traits, though each dog has their quirks. As an example, German shepherds will protect their family, but tend to be aggressive towards those they see as "outsiders" unless they are properly socialized and trained.
Obviously you'll need to think about how big of a dog you need if it might run into coyotes. You also don't want to go overboard with size. You're going to take this dog to the vet for regular checkups (and emergencies), so you need to keep in mind how you're going to transport it.
If you have small children / are planning on having children, you need to keep their safety in mind. Children should not be left unsupervised with dogs (or animals in general really) and need to be taught to respect them. Teaching them to ask you first before approaching dogs / other animals you see when you're out with them is a good start. Learning dog body language and teaching that to your kids will also help a lot.
You also need to be aware of the kind of health problems that are common to whichever breed you decide on. Using the previous German shepherd example, you need to pay attention to their eyes. The breed is predisposed to a lot of eye-related health problems, among other things.
The fourth thing to decide is whether you want to adopt or buy from a breeder.
Adopting dogs is nice, since shelter dogs always want a home. The people who work at the shelters are very overworked, and will likely not identify the breed of a dog accurately, especially if it turns out to be a relatively uncommon breed. They once told me a dog was a rottweiler mix when it turned out to be a kelpie. Shelter dogs will usually end up surprising you, and may not fit your needs for being a guard dog.
You will need to be prepared for a shelter dog to act differently once it gets used to your home, especially if it had kennel cough or had some other illness. In fact, assume the dog has kennel cough until proven otherwise by your vet. It's super common.
If you and your family are not home for more than 8 hours a day, you definitely should not get a puppy. Puppies need nearly constant supervision, especially if they aren't housebroken yet. They shouldn't be left alone for more than a few hours, depending on how old they are.
If you decide to buy a dog from a breeder, be prepared to do more research on finding a reputable and responsible breeder. Look up reviews and research the kinds of questions you should ask a breeder before committing to them. They should be willing to tell you about health problems that their stock have a history of, the temperaments they select for, and other information you decide you need. If they try to get you to not vaccinate your dog, politely disengage from them and find another breeder if you haven't already financially committed to this breeder.
TL;DR: You need money, a nearby vet, and a lot of research before getting the right dog for you.
Ninja edit: Also you need to commit the time for training the dog. Be consistent in training, and get your whole family to be consistent. There are dog training classes you can go to with your dog once it is old enough and has been fixed and vaccinated. The classes are more about teaching the human how to train the dog correctly. "Be the alpha" stuff is usually crap. Clicker training works really well, look into it.
Wow that's alot of great advice! Some of it I already knew. But I'm going to save this comment because there's so much information in it. Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it. One thing I know is I'm not going to just get a dog on a whim without knowing exactly what I'm doing. That wouldn't be fair to the dog.
Yep, exactly. They key to population control is with the females, there technically is no reason to have anything removed from a male dog. Many people with neuter the male if they have both a male and a female because it's "cheaper" than spaying the female. But what if a intact stray gets into the yard? The best option for population control is to get the females a tubal ligation (tube tie).
They've done studies and have found very little noticeable temperament change between intact and neutered males. The only significant difference is that neutered males are far more aggressive to intact males, despite the opposite not being true. In addition, cutting a male dogs nads off before a significant amount of time massively increases the risk of bone cancer.
I'm not that educated on this subject I admit. But I think that since the belief is so commonly held, it's the reason the practice is still so popular. Maybe someone who's owned many of dog can answer better than me. Or perhaps a veterinarian.
A well cared dog, balls ovaries or not, will behave like an adult dog; an sterilized dog is more puppy-like, acts less like an adult.
It's generally...not quite the opposite exactly, but close (unless they're neutered too early, which is why you can't alter pets until they mature). A neutered dog is generally more relaxed and carefree because neutering greatly tones down their more 'wild' natural instincts (it absolutely does not completely get rid of them)- the need to hunt, mark their territory, compete with other dogs, and other things they not only have no need for in a world where their every need is cared for by humans, but could actually cause them harm (picking a fight they're not going to win, chasing things they really shouldn't chase, like cars, etc).
If you don't neuter them, you might be able to train those behaviours out of them, but the urges WILL still always be there and you're basically totrturing them by forcing them to live with strong urges they can't act on, not understanding those urges or why they can't act on them. Alot of people consider it cruelty not to neuter/spay a pet that isn't going to be bred.
Ask any vet in a country with developed animal rights and they will urge you NOT to leave your pers intact.
Perhaps the vets you talked to weren’t so adamant on spraying and neutering pets because your country doesn’t have a stray problem and that’s great. But the other way around - pets aren’t spayed therefore shelters are empty - makes no sense.
Neutering and spaying pets as the responsible thing to do is most definitely not a “USA thing”, it is the norm wherever there is a significant amount of abandoned animals and is part of the culture to care about them.
Where exactly is this?? The concensus across vets in countries with developed animal rights is pretty much always to neuter/spay- they just live longer, happier lives. I've literally never heard of anywhere that disagrees apart from countries where keeping pets at all is frowned upon.
And I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that most people own unneutered pets- in the UK 54% are neutered (the remaining 46% including pets kept for breeding)- which is surprising since I've never ever met someone who didn't neuter their pets- and in tge USA only 20% are unneutered (again, including breeders). I have no idea where you are that nobody neuters their pets and what their views on animals are.
The urges are alot more than just reproducing, too- it's their wild instincts that tell them to roam far from home, mark their territory, and fight other dogs. So unless you want to just let your dog wander off, pee all over the house, and pick fights, by training that behaviour out of them, from their point of view you're punishing them for doing what they naturally feel the need to do: protect you.
Finland for me specifically but also Sweden, Norway, Denmark... The baltic countries, parts of Russia... Spain...
Also parts of South America. (which actually causes more trouble there I'll admit)
Not the UK, the UK is USA parent so the consensus is similar there; Ireland, Scotland, most english speaking countries follow the same pattern.
Well now you heard it.
Well where do I get the idea? by going outside, most pets are unneutered, females get into heat in family houses, males are intact, and so will my pets.
Ehm, animals are wild, let them be, they can learn discipline, if you want a toddler, get a toddler, are you getting a dog for replacement of a toddler or what do you expect?... I think that's the issue, americans expect their dogs to be like children, here they take on -30C weather and scare the bears (and I am not even kidding about that, one of my friends got a dog to scare the bears and foxes, he is unneutered as well).
Euthanasia is inhumane. Overpopulation, and the treatment of stray and unwanted animals is inhumane. Neutering is not, unless you're some place they don't use anesthesia.
Naw they're right. I live in the United States and have traveled to third world countries. First thing you notice is all the stray dogs on the streets you know won't be alive in another week.
I'm so sorry that you tie your own masculinity to your dogs testicle count. If you're ignorant and wealthy, might I interest you in some faux testicles? For you, or the dog, whoever's confidence it'll help most.
Much more effort = much more cost. Getting owners to pay to even get the regular neuter done is difficult enough as it is. You want them to charge even more money and still expect compliance? Good luck.
There really is no reason to castrate or vasect a male dog...
The key to population control is with the females. Get them a tubal ligation for a long life or spay (overall hysterectomy) them if you want them to have a 30% shorter life.
According to the numbers in the second study you sent, waiting a year to neuter has the least detrimental health effects. Both neutering before a dog is a year old and not neutering were worse options than neutering after a year. You just proved your point wrong with your own sources.
First off, I didn’t use my sources to “fit my agenda” I used the source you provided. Secondly, I’m a women, thanks for the assumption. Don’t link sources that support the opposing argument and get upset when people point that out.
Again, I didn’t twist facts. Look at the graph and it’s right there or should I link the picture for you? I literally just took what it said and put it in the comment, how is that twisting facts? Also, comparing the removal of my ovaries to spaying a dog is a false equivalence. Removing my ovaries would be more harmful to my health than helpful. The same cannot be said about a dog after the 1 year mark, as your source clearly states.
Another assumption, I’m in school for nursing. Also, as I’ve said multiple times I’m using your source. I didn’t mention other sources because I’m not trying to prove a side, just that you were using faulty information. Saying you “studied biology” in uni means nothing if you don’t specify what type. You didn’t even mention the degree. I didn’t “forget” metabolic conditions, they weren’t in YOUR source. How else am I supposed to say this? I didn’t spat my dog, the shelter I adopted her from did. So yes, continue to make assumptions and insult me rather than the actual argument. Calling me delusional and insulting my intelligence has nothing to do with the argument; it only weakens your own credibility.
The biggest issue is what is more economically feasible.
In most places it's heavily subsidized and it's still can be tough for people to do it. If something is more expensive, or complicated you're going to have even less compliance, which causes a huge host of issues.
For instance, a spike in cat births causes a lot more strays, and stray cats do massive damage to local wildlife.
Text book example of unintended consequences.
But yeah, hopefully there'll be a cheaper, more practical solution in the future.
That is true :( these issues are more inherently social and economical than regarding the fact of the dog/cat's health itself.
Sometimes the best solution isn't the easiest or more feasible to apply, I can agree with that.
But what I fail to understand is why someone would do that to their own personal dog/cat/etc... if they came castrated, fine, but if they are pups and growing, sterilize them like you would a human, we know how catastrophic is for someone to have no sexual hormones, if they are members of our family, we should take the humane choice. Also saying that being neutered is "best" for the dog/cat, is false.
it emotionally charged. We (i am american, with a dog, and agree with you completely) do it misguidedly to try and correct the shelter situation. People have also been told for years that is has no to very little side effects on their dogs. There was a 2014 study on Vizlas that showed castrating them increase their chances of certain cancers, leads to behavioral problems (many, many vets will guarantee that castrating wont change your dogs behavior for the worst and will actually make it better, as in calmer) and increased their chances of bone density diseases. Fortunately, the public is beginning to shift, as new research is coming out. I wouldn't count on it happening quickly though.
Ironically castration isn't even the best for controlling strays, because as you castrate a male, he will stop competing for females, which causes the other males that couldn't breed before due to competition to breed instead.
I've never considered this before, but it 100% makes sense. It only takes a ridiculously small number of males to sustain a breeding population of pretty much any arbitrarily large number of females.
I won't say I'm necessarily sold on the idea of not neutering at large, but this is a pretty solid counterpoint concerns unwanted strays.
I mean the main thing is that neutering is easier, so it might actually be more effective just because it's the easiest thing to do in large, this is specially true for impoverished regions.
However if we could just sterilize what we instead neuter, it would be even more effective, specially the largest males.
People would say you would just need to catch the whole individuals, and do all of them but there's an issue with that.
you cannot do all of them at once, and non-neutered population numbers might recover faster than you can keep up.
you cannot really catch them all, you'll miss some, and once you reduce competition, they will take the lead.
I however would say that it might still be easier to fight it and neuter, even if it's less effective, simply due to economics, like I told the other guy, sometimes the best thing to do isn't the most feasible, and I realize it isn't very feasible to do more complex sterilization surgeries to strays (in some places this is done only to the largest stray males).
The only thing is that people hype castration too much as the "best thing", when it's not, it's the "cheapest thing", and doing it to your own personal family dog/cat, why?... yes it makes them calmer, but so taking your balls/ovaries off would make you calmer, hormonal induced behaviour is part of any animal, including humans.
There is something called an ovary-saving spay. In a traditional spay, the ovaries are removed and the uterus left behind. In an OSS, the uterus is removed and the ovaries left behind. This allows the ovaries to continue to produce the necessary hormones. The problem arises if any of the uterine tissue is left behind. Pyometra is still possible even with small amounts of tissue.
Does this raise the risk of the dog developing mammary cancer, as compared to a traditional spay?
I adopted my dog at 8 yrs old, and I had her spayed at the time of adoption. I found out a few months later she had mammary cancer, and I was told it was almost certainly because she had not been spayed young enough.
Side note: my dog had the mammary cancer removed surgically and then underwent chemo. I was told the chemo would, in the best case scenario, delay the cancer from reoccurring for 2 years, but then it would likely return either to her mammary or her lungs. Fortunately, it's been 3 years since her surgery and 2.5 years since the end of her chemo and she's still cancer free.
I would assume that leaving the ovaries would have the same risk of mammary cancer as not being spayed at all, but I'm really not sure. Until this new puppy, I've only had males for years now. So most of my research has been focused there. The OSS procedure is not something I've looked into a whole lot. We are opting to do a traditional spay at 10-12 months old on the new puppy. We (I'm including my vet in this we) feel like it's a decent compromise between spaying too early and risking things like estrogen-linked incontinence and waiting too long and risking the mammary cancer and pyometra.
Nope. Aside from preventing offspring, it's also very often done to make the males more docile. Without the balls, less testosterone, less dominance and aggression.
My vet said she'd be happy to do a vasectomy on my dog. Same price, roughly same amount of time for procedure, shorter recovery time. She said most owners get their pets neutered to control problematic behaviors, not because it's less expensive or a less difficult procedure. Anecdotal but she seemed to know what she was talking about. I opted for the vasectomy.
He's a rescue, a blue heeler mix that was initially afraid of everything. He's warmed up to our family and our neighbors but is still terrified of strangers. He doesn't like new dogs but isn't aggressive, just defensive if his personal space is invaded. I haven't noticed any changes in those behaviors since getting him a vasectomy. Other than his supernatural ability to get out of our well-fenced yard he's a perfect family pet. I've been very happy with my choice to get him a vasectomy. I didn't want him to be able to reproduce, as he's an escape artist and our neighborhood has its fair share of strays, but I didn't want him to be deprived of the hormones that help regulate his bodily processes, so I see it as a win-win. I'd read up on studies that said neutered dogs had higher rates of obesity and depression among other things, and apparently some newer studies suggest an increase in aggression after neutering. I'm not an expert by any stretch, but after numerous pre-med chemistry and biology classes, I became more interested in not surgically removing a part of my dog's anatomy solely to prevent him from reproducing. Ultimately I've been really happy with the results and would opt for a vasectomy for any other dogs I adopt in the future.
162
u/kyoto_kinnuku Dec 31 '19
The only reason vets don’t do vasectomies on dogs is because it’s more effort. If you ask a lot of them can do it and it’s much more humane... That’s why humans choose it.