GSD Nuetering/Breeding

Wibbs

DBB wrote: »

However...
The risk of bone sarcoma in dogs is not 1/100,000 as I said, it's actually been estimated at 7.9/100,000 (Dorn et al, 1968). So, that's a 0.008% chance of a dog developing the condition, on average. Not as low as humans, but extremely low odds all the same.
In your study, Rotties were chosen because they have the highest risk of developing the disease of all breeds studied: according to the study quoted by your authors, Rotties are almost 10 times more likely than other breeds to develop the condition, the risk being almost negligible in medium and smaller breeds (Ru et al, 1998). The Ru et al study identified a 2-fold chance of neutered dogs developing bone cancer, whilst the authors you cite found it to be closer to 4-fold in males that were castrated before 1 year of age: the risk falls appreciably after this age. This is where the blogging vet gets his quadrupled risk from, I take it.
So, if the average incidence in dogs is 7.9 in 100,000, then Rotties are likely to be 10 times that, which is 79 in 100,000. So, if neutered Rotties are at worst (almost) 4 times more likely to develop the disease, that increased the odds to 316 in 100,000. Which, if my maths are okay, is a 0.32% risk.

Eh nope again, did you not spot the most obvious part? A one in four chance of developing bone cancer in the Rottie neutered before one year old. Or that out of 730 dogs, 133 were definite for the disease and a further 47 who may have had the disease were grey areas excluded because of reporting/diagnostic issues. That's so far away from 79(or 316) in 100,000 you'd require the services of the Hubble telescope to spot it.

Interesting too that in the study you've quoted, neutered males live for about the same length of time as entire males, whilst spayed females live more than 2 years longer on average than entire females!

I've said before "I've acknowledged the overall protective effect for bitches when it comes to mammary cancers." and "if I had a small "toy" breed bitch I'd have no problem at all to having her spayed, if I had a male Rottie or GSD I most certainly would have a problem, especially if this was suggested before say 2 years of age." My issue is the pro blanket early neutering meme applied to all dogs regardless of breed, age of desexing and gender. The risks of desexing say a female cocker spaniel are minimal, indeed even advantageous to do so, but the risks involved with desexing a male rottie(and other large breeds) at 4 or 5 months aren't, yet I'll put good money down that 90% of vets and/or rescues won't know this or won't inform the owner.

Yep, in my haste I made a mistake!
Problem is, most of your links are either just abstracts, and as TMD said, we can't draw any conclusions as we can't contextualise the results with just abstracts. Or, your links are to blogs. I can't take what any blogger says with any great seriousness, unless they are the author of the original research, because I'm only reading the blogger's interpretation of the work. I was always taught it's dangerous to reference a reference!
One of the abstracts you link to is not available as a full paper in english: I've searched the e-journal databases and can't find the full paper, despite having access to most collections.. it's the one on neutering causing dogs to become less active, eat more etc. I'd like more context to draw any conclusions, as I'm having difficulty in finding any other papers which suggest neutered dogs are less active... indeed, in a brief search, I found a paper which says the opposite! (Salmieri et al, 1991).

Links please? Even to an abstract. Because I'd love to see the science behind that one particularly in male dogs.

Now, onto prostate and bladder cancers.
The incidence of prostate cancer in dogs is estimated at 0.2 to 0.6% (Bell et al, 1991). The risk of a neutered dog developing prostate cancer ranges from an average of a 2.38-fold increase (Bell et al, 1991) to a 4.34-fold increase (Teske et al, 2002), with the greatest risk from prostate transitional cell carcinoma at an 8-fold increase. Still very, very low odds (0.48% at worst). Indeed, by far the most prevalent form of prostatic disease is benign prostatic hyperplasia, which is reduced by... castration!

Given the previous difficulties with some of the mathematics can we have links to those too please?

I think the message is that yes, there is a risk with some diseases, often, but not always, associated with early neutering. However, the risks are small when taken in context. No operation is without its drawbacks which have to be considered, but like many things in life, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.

Indeed it does, but if I was the perspective owner of a male rottie or other large breed dog, I'd be looking at risks a lot more.

Neutering can prevent, reduce, or eliminate quite a number of problem behaviours (I will go and get the many references if you wish), many of which are the primary reason for owners of young dogs to get rid of their young dogs. I think, on balance, the danger to the dog's survival is much greater because of such behavioural problems, than it is from neuter-related illnesses later in life.

Bit of a blanket statement. I would like to see references. Particularly on the "primary reason for owners of young dogs to get rid of their young dogs" part and how neutering affects(or doesn't) this.
Indeed I could quote TooManyDogs here;

TooManyDogs wrote:

Generally what happens is that the dog is neutered around the same time as they would naturally stopping running around like a lunatic puppy and grow out of the natural lanky skinny puppy stage, around 6 - 9 months.

And look at the behavioural aspects to this and conclude that it may well be a psychological thing on the part of the owner, rather than the neutering. This goes in a big way for spayed females. The behavioural effects are likely to be much less marked after spaying compared to neutering male dogs.

I could be wrong, but in my own experience of rehoming hundreds of dogs, and working with hundreds more, any of the cancers that have been referred to as being more prevalent in neutered dogs, I have only very occasionally seen... and always in entire dogs!

This is the problem with this debate, way too much anecdotal stuff on the pro early neuter side. At the very least I'm putting up abstracts. Hey I could ask the question "why the apparent rise in cruciate ligament problems(and possibly HD) and could this be explained or associated with the rise in early blanket neutering as recommended by the vet industry?" Personally I suspect it may well be linked, given early neutering definitely leads to a longer period of bone growth and more likely weight gain in neutered dogs(plus testosterone strengthens ligaments in humans, hence women are more likely to suffer certain sports injuries than men, so the same is possible in dogs), but it requires proof not anecdote.

TooManyDogs

DBB wrote: »

Neutering can prevent, reduce, or eliminate quite a number of problem behaviours (I will go and get the many references if you wish), many of which are the primary reason for owners of young dogs to get rid of their young dogs. I think, on balance, the danger to the dog's survival is much greater because of such behavioural problems, than it is from neuter-related illnesses later in life.

Wibbs wrote: »

Bit of a blanket statement. I would like to see references. Particularly on the "primary reason for owners of young dogs to get rid of their young dogs" part and how neutering affects(or doesn't) this.
Indeed I could quote TooManyDogs here;

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Generally what happens is that the dog is neutered around the same time as they would naturally stopping running around like a lunatic puppy and grow out of the natural lanky skinny puppy stage, around 6 - 9 months.

I'm really not sure why you're quoting me. I said that dogs are generally neutered around 6 - 9 months old, not that dogs are generally neutered.

I can only speak for the rescue I volunteer for but if 1 in 10 dogs who come into us are neutered that's all it is. The majority of dogs who come are male, often strays who are never reclaimed, or surrendered for constantly escaping and wandering, humping, increased aggression with other dogs, these could very much be helped with neutering. These reasons are along with the usual I'm-too-stupid-to-ever-have-owned-a-dog excuses. We don't keep records of what dogs came in already neutered because it's very much the minority.

boodee

DBB wrote: »

A difficult one boodee!
It very, very much depends on the dynamic you've got going on with the 3 you have.
Do they all play with each other, equally and happily?
Do two tend to gang up on one?
Does one tend not to bother getting involved in the shenanigans of the other two?
Or do any of them bother with each other?:D

Also, some breeds tend to be more amenable to living in a group (emphasis on the word "tend"!). Some owners here already have 4+ dogs who all work well together. I had 3 until my old Shep died last Feb, herself and my spaniel X were good pals, whilst my westie just does his own thing.
Now I have a new Shep, and things are still settling between them all, but the dynamic is fairly similar as it was before.
So, have a good think about the interpersonal relationships (:D) going on between the three you have, before making a decision. Also, take into account how each gets on with other males, and other females.
It's really hard to know, and you won't know whether you've made the right decision until your new dog is a reality:D Sometimes though, you'll find a dog that wouldn't annoy anyone no matter how hard he/she tries: big eejity eejits who might pee everyone off from time to time, but never enough to get anyone angry. The type of dog that makes the other dogs do this: :rolleyes:
Maybe worth fostering a fourth for a while and see how they all work together?

My 3 get on great and really live together well. The gsd and jrt play together and the rottie does:rolleyes: this. She is older amd mammies the jrt. They all snuggle up at night and sleep in the sitting room when i/m watching tv.

I'm not going to add to pack untill I have a few issues worked out with gsd-Max- but rottie-roxy is getting old and I just though she would be a good training partner for another rottie pup as she worked well with max on lead. I can walk two at a time on a double lead. Having the jrt attached to either bigger dog makes them work together.

But as you say, I think the jrt would be the biggest jelousy problem, so we'll keep it as it is for now. Thanks fot he advice.

tonsiltickler

Nothing too detailed here, just want to add my 2 cents. I have a 9 month old female gsd and plan on getting her neutered in the next few months. Whatever the possible health implications, It would be tough to deal with any accidental breeding, there are too many dogs in rescue's etc..

OP I wouldn't pay too much attention to the lineage of your dog. Buying a GSD is enough of a minefield, some of the show dogs have amazing temperament and terrible health problems, some of the most square and healthy GSD's have terrible aggression and nervousness etc...

Wibbs

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I'm really not sure why you're quoting me. I said that dogs are generally neutered around 6 - 9 months old, not that dogs are generally neutered.

Sorry TMD I was (badly) making the point using your quote that perceived positive changes in behaviour after neutering may be down to that developmental shift in gears around that age anyway, rather than the procedure itself. Especially in bitches.

tonsiltickler wrote: »

OP I wouldn't pay too much attention to the lineage of your dog. Buying a GSD is enough of a minefield, some of the show dogs have amazing temperament and terrible health problems, some of the most square and healthy GSD's have terrible aggression and nervousness etc...

Is it just me or is this a really sad state of affairs. GSD's were one of the best all around dogs health and temperament wise in the past. Just on personal experience I never met a bad one growing up. Now it seems they have so many faults and I put those faults squarely at the feet of the breeders of this dog. Clearly they need "new blood". Maybe from some of the non German European stocks? EG I gather the Czech lines, the more working lines are much better in this respect? EDIT oh and the breed "standard" desperately needs changing.

boodee

tonsiltickler wrote: »

Nothing too detailed here, just want to add my 2 cents. I have a 9 month old female gsd and plan on getting her neutered in the next few months. Whatever the possible health implications, It would be tough to deal with any accidental breeding, there are too many dogs in rescue's etc..

OP I wouldn't pay too much attention to the lineage of your dog. Buying a GSD is enough of a minefield, some of the show dogs have amazing temperament and terrible health problems, some of the most square and healthy GSD's have terrible aggression and nervousness etc...

Maxs lineage is of no difference to me, it's just the comments that were made about him being from a von quinberg. He's exactly what I want in a dog, a big fool.:D I just want to keep him that way. I don't think papers or breeding is going to have an impact on a dogs personality....but then what would I know, i'm finding out something new here everyday.

My last gsd was psychologically damaged, it was sad case, the vet suggested putting him down, we didn't have to in end. He was great once we were there with him, but had major issues once outside the house. The vet suspected abuse and said he was better suited to a junk yard.:mad:

Thanks for the advice.

DBB

To all readers, apologies for the length of my post. TL;DR? Don't be swayed by everything you read on this forum without asking questions. There's nowt black and white!

Wibbs wrote: »

Links please? Even to an abstract. Because I'd love to see the science behind that one particularly in male dogs.

No problem.
I have already provided references for you to look up, which is kinda standard procedure. However, as you ask, I will provide links to abstracts for you, no problem, but unless you have access to full papers in e-journal collections such as Sciencedirect, Wiley etc, I cannot link you to full papers. Do you have access to these journals? It would save me the bother, you could link through to the full text yourself.
Where possible, I’ll quote the bits of interest from the body of text from the full papers. However, as these journal collections do not permit copy and paste, I just don’t have time to type everything out, so I’m going to keep them as short as I can yet still get my point across. Which might take a bit of time.

Re: neutering causing dogs to be more active, and indeed, put on less weight than intact dogs. THe paper I quoted is:
Salmeri et al (1991): Gonadectomy in immature dogs:effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioural developments.
Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2045340

“In a 15-month study, the effects of prepubertal gonadectomy on skeletal growth, weight gain, food intake, body fat, secondary sex characteristics, and behavioral development were investigated in 32 mixed-breed dogs… Gonadectomy did not influence food intake, weight gain, or back-fat depth…
Of 7 behavioral characteristics assessed, only general activity and excitability rated differently among treatment groups. All neutered dogs were judged to be more active (group I, P less than 0.004) than sexually intact dogs. Group-I males were judged to be more excitable (P less than 0.02) than group-III (intact) males.”

Given the previous difficulties with some of the mathematics can we have links to those too please?

No problem.
Teske et al (2002): Canine prostate carcinoma: epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs.
In this study, records from 15,363 male dogs were analysed for incidence of prostatic disease. 431 dogs were found to have prostatic disease from the 15,363 dogs, prostatic disease including benign hepatic hyperplasia, prostatitis, prostatic cysts, prostatic carcinoma.

From the discussion:
“The low frequency of PCA (prostate carcinoma), 56 of the 431 dogs with prostatic diseases, is in accordance with past reports (Krawiec and Heflin, 1992). Prostate cancer occurs less frequently in dogs than humans. The prevalence of prostatic carcinoma reported from necroscopy studies ranges between 0.2 and 0.6% (Bell et al, 1991).
“The high prevalence of prostate cancer in castrated male dogs is the most interesting finding of the present study. This has been reported before (Obradovich et al, 1987; Bell et al, 1991). However, the calculated OR (4.34) in our study was even higher than the OR (2.38) reported by Bell et al (1991)”
The authors go on to say “that castration does not initiate the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog, but does favour tumour progression.”

For brevity, I’m not going to go citing from every reference used by the above authors, the text reflects results found by their and my referenced authors. However, I will link to the abstracts available to anyone not able to access the full texts.

Bell et al, 1991: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778750
Obradovich et al, 1987: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3506104
Krawiec and Heflin, 1992: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=study of prostatic disease in dogs: 177 cases

Actually, allow me to quote a bit from the Obradovich paper which caught my eye. You’ll see it in the abstract:
“The etiology of PC {prostate carcinoma} in the dog may not be exclusively related to testicular hormones. Work in humans suggests that the adrenal and pituitary glands play a significant role in the disease. Preliminary work in dogs supports that nontesticular androgens exert a significant influence on the canine prostate.”

Bit of a blanket statement. I would like to see references. Particularly on the "primary reason for owners of young dogs to get rid of their young dogs" part and how neutering affects(or doesn't) this.

No problem: not a blanket statement. I don't do blanket statements. I'd be pretty clued in as to why people surrender their dogs, given that I run a rescue, but my opinions are also backed up by a fair bit of research.
As behaviour is my field, please forgive me taking up some space on this section. I was a bit bowled over by the amouint of data I have to hand here in books, and what I have to hand in e-journal libraries, so I'll distill it here as best I can. The book I quote from below sums it all up better than I can.

A nice paper from Drs Wells and Hepper from Queen’s University:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=prevalence of behaviour problems reported by owners of dogs purchased from an animal rescue shelter

A quote from the intro of this paper:
“So-called ‘behaviour problems’ can be a huge source of distress for owners and for many the only solution seems to lie in handing the animal over to the care of a rescue shelter (e.g. Patronek et al, 1995; Salman et al, 1998; Wells, 1996). Over 30% of dogs relinquished by their owners to rescue shelters are abandoned because of behaviour problems (Wells, 1996)

Interestingly, of the owners who responded to the survey to indicate their dog had behaviour problems, only 10 of 556 participants reported that they owned neutered dogs, the vast majority of dogs reported for behavioural problems being entire males.
In the discussion, the authors state that
“Previous work has indicated that male dogs are more prone to behaviour problems that their female counterparts (Jagoe, 1994; Mugford, 1995), and the results of the present study also showed that male dogs were more likely than female dogs to have a behaviour problem, specifically aggression towards other dogs, undesirable sexual behaviours, and straying tendencies. These particular problems are often under hormonal control (Fox, 1972), thus explaining the sex differences. Castration (particularly if combined with behaviour modification) can often help to remedy hormone-induced behaviour problems in dogs.”
Bolded text is my edit, to link to below.

From there, let me lead you on to the wonderful Bonnie Beaver DVM, veterinary behaviourist. She recently published another book, which I have here and will do her great writing far more service to the debate than I can: the book is “Canine Behaviour. Insights and Answers. 2nd Edition” (2009). For me, she sums up the whole neutering in relation to behaviour problems, whilst acknowledging the problems neutering can cause, in the following passage. I would urge anyone who is still reading this post (!) to recall Deborah Wells’ paper above re the behavioural issues that result in owners surrendering their (particularly male) dogs:

From Chapter 9 (p. 198-199): Male Canine Sexual Behaviour
“Castration also affects other male sexually dimorphic behaviours in adult dogs. It is most effective in decreasing roaming behaviour, which rapidly declines in 44% of dogs and gradually declines in another 50%. Urine marking rapidly declines in 30% of dogs and gradually declines in 20% more. Intermale aggression is also affected by castration in almost 63% of dogs; 38% show a rapid reduction in the behaviour and 25% a more gradual decline.”
“Prepubertal castration continues to receive a lot of attention. Relative to the use of castration for existing behaviour problems, it should be expected that the surgery would be most likely to affect male sexually dimorphic behaviours. As was previously noted, this is true- statistically significant improvement occurs in urine marking in the house, roaming, mounting, aggression toward family members, aggression toward other dogs in the household and to unfamiliar dogs, and aggression toward humans entering its territory.
“The first three on the list are reduced by at least 50% in 66% of the cases, and by 90% in 35% of cases. Only 30% of the dogs showing some form of aggression had at least a 50% improvement, as should be expected when all types of aggression are included, not just those associated with testosterone….
“Some types of problems are more likely, such as psychogenic alopecia or noise phobias, but other environmental factors may be involved instead. In addition, they are not disposed to excessive weight gain although the relationship between weight gain and castration is still somewhat unclear.”
“Discussions have gone both ways as to whether early castration of a puppy helps or hurts its ability to perform various tasks later in life. Ongoing studies at Guide Dogs for the Blind have helped clarify this subject. In a study of 6396 dogs, of which 52.2% were male, the successful training and placing of guide dogs was 1.3 times better for those castrated at less than 6 months”.

Beaver, of course, refers to many research papers for this excerpt. There are too many for me to go into here. You have the reference for the book, which is available to buy as a pdf, if not a hard copy.

This is the problem with this debate, way too much anecdotal stuff on the pro early neuter side... so the same is possible in dogs), but it requires proof not anecdote.

You are calling my experience “anecdotal evidence”, are you? I dispute that out of hand. If I was talking about a few dogs here and there, I would indeed be giving anecdotal evidence. But, I am citing my experience from handling, training, and addressing behavioural problems in HUNDREDS of dogs every year, and I’m pretty well trained to do all of the above. So, we’re moving more into the realms of case studies here (all of which I have on file), which, whilst not as strong as peer-reviewed research papers, is a hell of a lot stronger than anecdotal evidence.
I think I speak for more than myself when I say this.

Cherry Blossom

DBB just as a matter of interest, would I be correct in assuming that most of your case studies would have underlying issues (abandonment, abuse, poor handling, lack of training, lack of socialisation, developmental problems due to diet issues, poor breeding etc.)

I am just wondering if this is the case, would this have any bearing at all on the behaviour aspect of neutering, I would imagine not, perhaps differences are more obvious in such cases pre and post neutering, but I am just wondering if the same logic would apply to a well socialised, well fed, generally well looked after etc. dog.

Wibbs

Thanks for the links DBB. Appreciate the time and effort.

Any comment on the aforementioned debate over neutering Rotties? Particularly the significant increase in bone cancers in a breed already susceptible? Not 0.whatever in 100,000 but one in four. Would you not agree that holding off on neutering such dogs(and other breeds where similar genetics are at play) may be advisable?

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

DBB just as a matter of interest, would I be correct in assuming that most of your case studies would have underlying issues (abandonment, abuse, poor handling, lack of training, lack of socialisation, developmental problems due to diet issues, poor breeding etc.)

Good question. Particularly in people running rescues would selection bias not be more at play here? They're naturally much more likely to see the intractable cases that come to them. "The majority of respondents (68.3%) reported that their dog exhibited a behaviour problem, the most common being fearfulness.". Well socialised and trained dogs are less likely to end up in rescues one would think. Basically they see the "sick" cases more often. A Martian would get a skewed result if they attempted to judge the overall health of a human city by just visiting its hospitals.

Indeed one of your linked abstracts on this notes "Findings indicate that dogs purchased from rescue shelters do exhibit behaviour problems that may lead to their return.". Now people should also bear in mind that this survey is talking about a particular subset of dogs. Dogs already abandoned/handed into rescues, usually for behavioural problems. Rescues that from what I gather from the folks here running same insist on neutering dogs before fostering them out. Yet if neutering was the panacea claimed by many* why are 63% of people reporting an ongoing bahaviour problem? If these presumably neutered dogs, particularly males are still showing "more unacceptable behaviours than females, specifically inter-male aggression, sexual problems and straying tendencies" after neutering by the rescues, then what gives there? Should it not seriously reduce such behaviours as is claimed? Your other link notes "Group-I males(early neutered) were judged to be more excitable (P less than 0.02) than group-III males(intact). " Would this "excitability" affect some behaviours in a negative way?

On the fearfulness point one of your other studies shows an increase in noise phobia in neutered dogs. Are there any studies into how fearfulness is reduced in neutered dogs, given it's apparently one of the most common reasons for dogs ending up back in rescues? Is this trait gender/breed based? Does neutering increase, or reduce this behaviour, or does it have any effect at all?

DBB wrote:

You are calling my experience “anecdotal evidence”, are you? I dispute that out of hand. If I was talking about a few dogs here and there, I would indeed be giving anecdotal evidence. But, I am citing my experience from handling, training, and addressing behavioural problems in HUNDREDS of dogs every year, and I’m pretty well trained to do all of the above.

Don't get me wrong DBB I have NO doubt you are well trained and experienced and respected for for very good reasons in your field, but I would still call some selection bias. You are considerably more likely to see the bad cases. As you say yourself you're "addressing behavioural problems in HUNDREDS of dogs every year". Behavioural problems where neutering will have some reduction on the behaviour of the (male)dogs in question. However while I fully understand why rescues would neuter for all sorts of reasons, behaviour modifcation/population control(even if that study seems to show not that much of a reduction in the former). I still question the pretty entrenched advice to neuter all dogs as a given, regardless of gender or behaviour status, especially large breeds.





*not you DBB. You're clearly open to debate unlike too many on this subject.

magentas

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Why does it have to be either neuter him or breed from him?

+1 You can have an entire male dog and make the decision not to neuter him (granted you are adding much more responsibility as an owner)
It doesn't mean that you intend to breed!
Once you are responsible enough to ensure that he is never given the opportunity to father an unwanted litter, I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone else for making a well-informed decision about thier own dog.

Wibbs

+1 magentas. I'd only add that on top of the non breeding part, good socialisation, training and proper control of the dog too. I think we can all agree that a goodly proportion of behaviour problems and resultant issues are down to the owner, not the dog.

DBB

AJ and Wibbs,
You'll have to forgive me for not replying here sooner, I've a huge amount on my plate right now (January is always mental here) so I really need to curtail my time on the interweb for the next while.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

DBB just as a matter of interest, would I be correct in assuming that most of your case studies would have underlying issues (abandonment, abuse, poor handling, lack of training, lack of socialisation, developmental problems due to diet issues, poor breeding etc.)

I am just wondering if this is the case, would this have any bearing at all on the behaviour aspect of neutering, I would imagine not, perhaps differences are more obvious in such cases pre and post neutering, but I am just wondering if the same logic would apply to a well socialised, well fed, generally well looked after etc. dog.

You're referring to rescue dogs here?
There's about a 50:50 divide between dogs coming from good homes, and dogs coming from poor backgrounds. the standard of breeding in almost all is pretty poor, suchj is the prevalence of byb and puppy farming here.
The well cared-for dogs , on balance, probably have about as many behavioural problems as the poorly treated dogs, but they're in different categories. The well cared-for dogs, for example, are often already neutered, are housetrained, and any problems with them are generally related to being snarky with other dogs or cats. The poorly treated ones can have issues around housetraining, resource guarding, and fear.
It's hard to tell what the effect of neutering is in my setup here, as we don;t have the dogs in for long enough before neutering to see a before/after effect. So I don't know if background has an effect in my case.

Wibbs wrote: »

Any comment on the aforementioned debate over neutering Rotties? Particularly the significant increase in bone cancers in a breed already susceptible?

Yes I do! Yes you're right ! I am putting my "senior moment" down to my reading too fast and getting my papers mixed up, which I'm blaming on my above-mentioned mad schedule at the moment. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!
It is a shocking statistic though. However, I'm not sure that vets are not spreading the word.. are they not? Why wouldn't they? My own vet is well aware of it.. she's surely not alone?

Would you not agree that holding off on neutering such dogs(and other breeds where similar genetics are at play) may be advisable?

In fairness, I never said otherwise. I have posted here before that I don't agree with neutering any dog too early.
I was pointing out though that some of the percentages you were posting were based on a tiny risk to start out with, but this context was not given in your posts. Therefore, the risk is that people would read such posts, and be scared into not neutering their dog, ever, because they think it's at risk of something that it's barely at risk of at all.

Particularly in people running rescues would selection bias not be more at play here? They're naturally much more likely to see the intractable cases that come to them. "The majority of respondents (68.3%) reported that their dog exhibited a behaviour problem, the most common being fearfulness.". Well socialised and trained dogs are less likely to end up in rescues one would think. Basically they see the "sick" cases more often.

Not my experience. As I posted above, I get about a 50:50 split in the really well cared-for dogs being surrendered, and the poorly cared-for dogs. Most owners, of both group of dogs, don;t cite behaviour problems as being the reason for rehoming. The reason, most of the time, is simply that the owner doesn't want the dog any more.

A Martian would get a skewed result if they attempted to judge the overall health of a human city by just visiting its hospitals.

One criticism I have of the 2007 Rottie study was that the authors didn't apportion any significance to the bias amongst respondents to their questionnaire. I have never read a paper before where this sort of bias was not noted as being a confound. The Rottie owners were targetted via vet clinics. If other similar reports are anything to go by, the ones who responded are more likely to be really "into" their dogs, and so are not truly representative. Pedantic I suppose, but seeing as you brought it up!

Dogs already abandoned/handed into rescues, usually for behavioural problems.

The Wells report notes that 31% of dogs are originally surrendered for behavioural problems, according to their owners. Although that's a good chunk of dogs, there are a lot more surrendered for other reasons.

Rescues that from what I gather from the folks here running same insist on neutering dogs before fostering them out. Yet if neutering was the panacea claimed by many* why are 63% of people reporting an ongoing bahaviour problem? If these presumably neutered dogs, particularly males are still showing "more unacceptable behaviours than females, specifically inter-male aggression, sexual problems and straying tendencies" after neutering by the rescues, then what gives there?

68.3% (not 63%) of people in this report. It must be remembered that this report got owners of new shelter dogs to fill out questionnaires within one month of adopting their dog.
Neutering can have an immediate effect on behaviour, but most beneficial effects are not seen for some time. This report could not have picked up on behavioural changes brought about by neutering within this short time frame, and neither does it try to.
Also bear in mind the bias amongst respondents (which the authors noted), and that behaviour problems are highly subjective.
Indeed, my experience relates quite well to this information. It is unusual for me to call for a progress report to a new adopter without them commenting to some extent about some negative elements of the new dog's behaviour. The usual remark is that everything's great, but... Hell, I've adopted and fostered a fair few rescues in my time, and I moan about small things they do too! However, this does not mean the new owner has any intention of bringing the dog back. They're usually only small problems, but when asked, people will report on them.

Should it not seriously reduce such behaviours as is claimed? Your other link notes "Group-I males(early neutered) were judged to be more excitable (P less than 0.02) than group-III males(intact). " Would this "excitability" affect some behaviours in a negative way?

The authors didn't define excitability, I don't think. However, it is one of the most commonly complained about problems that I get called for: happily, it is very easy to sort out.

On the fearfulness point one of your other studies shows an increase in noise phobia in neutered dogs. Are there any studies into how fearfulness is reduced in neutered dogs, given it's apparently one of the most common reasons for dogs ending up back in rescues? Is this trait gender/breed based? Does neutering increase, or reduce this behaviour, or does it have any effect at all?

Is it? I'm not sure that's right? It isn't mentioned in the Wells report that I cited. Fearfulness was reported as the most commonly complained-about behavioural problem in newly adopted dog, but critically it is not a reason for owners to hand their dogs back into rescue. Aggression is, according to this report. And, indeed, of all of the dogs rehomed in this survey, only 6.5% were returned.

Fearfulness is probably the most heavily genetically influenced of all the behaviours.. it makes evolutionary sense. I'm not aware of any research suggesting that neutering alters fearfulness (other than one paper on noise phobia). However I am aware of some isolated incidents where the circumstances surrounding having an operation (not specifically being neutered) have caused increased fearfulness: this would be things like the dog having a bad experience at the vets when in for the op.
I actually think that fearful dogs are very unlikely to be sent back to the rescue... they seem to bring out the maternal instinct in even the toughest fella {now that's anecdotal }


You are considerably more likely to see the bad cases. As you say yourself you're "addressing behavioural problems in HUNDREDS of dogs every year". Behavioural problems where neutering will have some reduction on the behaviour of the (male)dogs in question. However while I fully understand why rescues would neuter for all sorts of reasons, behaviour modifcation/population control(even if that study seems to show not that much of a reduction in the former). I still question the pretty entrenched advice to neuter all dogs as a given, regardless of gender or behaviour status, especially large breeds.

You're slightly misquoting me there. I said:

I am citing my experience from handling, training, and addressing behavioural problems in HUNDREDS of dogs every year

I specifically said training and behaviour, because a huge amount of cases I attend to every year are not "behavioural" in the pure sense, but training issues.. or rather, lack of training issues. Of course I, and my peers, will see a lot of "bad" cases, but most of the problems aren't that bad: however, you have to bear in mind that perception of behavioural problems is very subjective. Some owners would have no problem living with behaviours that would drive me mental (and probably vice versa!)
It is also important that owners realise that neutering may reduce certain beahviours, but if the behaviour has been going on a while there is alearned component to it that neutering can't address: that's why engagaing in a behaviour modification programme, in tandem with neutering, is the best advice for certain problems.
I have no issue at all with owners not wanting to neuter their dog, as long as they're responsible about it.
However, every dog a rescue rehomes is (or should be) the responsibility of that rescue for the rest of it's life, and the rescue simply must guard each dog against the worst-case-scenario, that the dog is handed on to someone else who does not conform to the standards of the rescue.

Now, here was me saying I was too busy to get back to this, and look and the bloody length of this reply! I had onyl intended to get back and say I'd bring it up again when I've more time. Bad internet. Bad, bad internet.:o
Must go work!

Datsit

hi,
I'm new here and little confused about all the above info, can you just tell my what age to neuter my new male german shepherd pup, he's 12 weeks now. I just want him as a pet and won't be breeding him. I'ii just be doing a few fun dog shows in the summer with the kids.

Cherry Blossom

Datsit wrote: »

hi,
I'm new here and little confused about all the above info, can you just tell my what age to neuter my new male german shepherd pup, he's 12 weeks now. I just want him as a pet and won't be breeding him. I'ii just be doing a few fun dog shows in the summer with the kids.

I'd wait either until he is fully grown or starts causing you problems by keeping him entire - whichever comes first

planetX

Datsit wrote: »

hi,
I'm new here and little confused about all the above info, can you just tell my what age to neuter my new male german shepherd pup, he's 12 weeks now. I just want him as a pet and won't be breeding him. I'ii just be doing a few fun dog shows in the summer with the kids.

I had my dog neutered at 6 months, as requested by the rescue, and it has calmed him down a bit and he seems more content (there was a lot of frustrated bed humping going on).