confused about neutering..

DBB

Binka wrote: »

It is also a condition of taking in a rescue dog or cat from most animal rescue places. They will usually neuter the dog before you take it, but if they can't for reasons of trauma etc, you have to send them the bill for doing it yourself. If you don't, you can't have the animal.
I can't speak for all of them but from my experience, and I have had dealings with 3 different rescues, I was not given an option.

That's fair enough, because it just acts as one more safeguard for the dog's welfare. I run a rescue, and nothing leaves here that hasn't been decommissioned (with the very odd exception). Rescues can put all sorts of safeguards in place to ensure a happy life for the dog, and whilst these are very effective, they can't work 100% of the time. Being neutered just makes sure the dog won't fall into the hands of unscrupulous breeders. To my mind, neutering is a cornerstone of what real, proper rescue is all about.
When I argue against neutering, I'm specifically arguing against (a) neutering too early, and (b) owners being railroaded into it with biased misinformation.
I think when it comes to any procedure, the owner should know the true pros and cons. And I, personally, don't feel a huge urgency to neuter my own dogs because I know the risks health-wise, and I know they're a hell of a lot smaller than some would have you think. Plus my dogs would never get the opportunity. As it happens, my current dogs are spayed, but this doesn't mean every dog I own in future will be.
Each to their own, as long as the decision is made on an informed basis.

boomerang

Josie greyhound wasn't spayed by the rescue before coming to me because she needed time to gain condition first. I wasn't nervous at all about the operation itself, but one of the principle reasons I took out insurance first was just in case she developed urinary incontinence after. The cost of the medication to treat it is enormous. It's a very rare complication but Josie was already such a voluminous piddler with little ability to hold it for any period of time, that it was on my mind!

Wibbs

DBB wrote: »

Not true. Whilst testosterone might fuel some kinds of aggression, it's not often the cause of it. As I said above, the vast majority of aggression, especially towards humans and dogs outside the home, is caused by undersocialisation.

+1 and fear. Fear based aggression and behaviour is more common among neutered dogs. PDF link From the link;
There was a highly significant increase in aggression score of dogs spayed at 12 months or earlier as compared to intact dogs.
Kinda goes agin the get their nuts off to stop aggression mantra common today.

The risk of prostate cancer in dogs is very low anyway. The risk if testicular cancer is also low. The risk of other prostatic disorders (such as prostatitis) INCREASES in neutered dogs.
This health scaremongering is the lynchpin of the pro-neutering lobby, but I'm afraid when you look a little deeper, at the actual size of the risk in the first place, you'll find that the risks have been hugely exaggerated by the lobbyists. This is a shame, because it utterly discredits their word.

QFT.

With all due respect, it is scaremongering, the same stuff spouted by the pro-neutering lobby which intentionally misleads and misinforms owners. You, and the pro-neutering lobby can back up very little of this stuff, because a lot of it has already been shown to be guff. Or, it simply hasn't been shown AT ALL yet, one way or the other.
I think it's really unfair to deliver this misinformation to owners, it's not only one-sided and horribly biased, a lot of it is just wrong.
I think owners need to be given the opportunity to weigh up both sides of the argument, having been FULLY briefed on both sides. I think most responsible people are intelligent enough to make the right decision for their dog, in their circumstances, as long as they're informed.

Perfectly put D. This meme is crazy strong at the moment and so is the BS spiel often used to back it up by vets and pro neuter groups. I've actually had people(nearly always women I have to say) I've met on walks get a freaked out look in their eyes and a few have backed away when they hear my guy has still got his bits. As if it's an affront to society in some way. Oh and I've gotten the holier than thou how dare you type guff with it, though I usually respond to that line of browbeating with two words involving sex and travel. Real hand wringing Maud Flanders stuff and precious little of it based in clinical evidence. When vets come out with it, it's more worrying. Though TBH these days on that score on quite the few subjects I take vet advice with a large pinch of sodium nitrate. Dietary advice? Hmmm maybe if you take down the meat flavoured weetabix aimed at an apex predator from your reception I might listen. Vaccination? Funny how a human being can get to 80 and have maybe 10 vaccinations in their lives, yet we're told our dogs need around half that amount yearly...

This meme is quite the recent one too. I rarely heard of it growing up and mine and all my mates dogs were intact and I don't recall us being attacked by hordes of testosterone enraged doggies. Nor were there the serious issues around strays to the degree it seems today. That said if I had a female dog, I would likely neuter her(and none of this waiting for her first oestrus either, another old wives tale believed by many). Why? Because it does show a worthwhile advantage regarding disease in females, enough for me to offset the downsides.

I will say it's a right PITA regarding kennels insisting on it. They used not to back in the day and again I can't recall any hassle over it. Plus if all the others are neutered where's the problem?

borderlinemeath

Wibbs wrote: »

I will say it's a right PITA regarding kennels insisting on it. They used not to back in the day and again I can't recall any hassle over it. Plus if all the others are neutered where's the problem?

While I would say it's not an insistence, it certainly is a safeguard. If I have two intact dogs here, I am on tenterhooks for what might happen as I've been in the position where intact dogs have taken issue with each other and need separating so I do my best not to book in two intact dogs overlapping. Once bitten, twice shy unfortunately.

ISDW

Don't know about kennels insisting on males being neutered, due to the breeding bill, some may insist on bitches being spayed, otherwise they would have to register as a breeding premises, if they have over 6 unspayed bitches staying at any one time.

Regarding fights, every dog here is neutered/spayed, but we still have fights between neutered males from time to time.

Binka

I'm a bit of a fence sitter here too, and am open to the argument from both sides. But, and it's a big but, I tend to err on the side of neutering in my part of the world.
I do understand the points that have been made here against anti-neutering but in general the people who post on here are the responsible owners whether they are pro or anti. But what percentage of the dog owning population are we? Probably, the minority. I know that where I live, in rural Mayo, there very few dogs kept in secure gardens or farmyards. I know this from walking and driving these roads and having dogs flying out of every second gate, be it a private house or a farm. In fact, most people that I live and work with in these parts think I'm soft in the head that I don't let my dogs roam free. Dogs living in cities and towns are more likely to have different experiences and containment issues.
For that reason, I think it is better to send out a message to the majority that it is wise to neuter, but I do agree that for responsible owners and breeders it should be up to the individual and the best option for the dog whether to neuter or not.

ISDW

Binka wrote: »

I'm a bit of a fence sitter here too, and am open to the argument from both sides. But, and it's a big but, I tend to err on the side of neutering in my part of the world.
I do understand the points that have been made here against anti-neutering but in general the people who post on here are the responsible owners whether they are pro or anti. But what percentage of the dog owning population are we? Probably, the minority. I know that where I live, in rural Mayo, there very few dogs kept in secure gardens or farmyards. I know this from walking and driving these roads and having dogs flying out of every second gate, be it a private house or a farm. In fact, most people that I live and work with in these parts think I'm soft in the head that I don't let my dogs roam free. Dogs living in cities and towns are more likely to have different experiences and containment issues.
For that reason, I think it is better to send out a message to the majority that it is wise to neuter, but I do agree that for responsible owners and breeders it should be up to the individual and the best option for the dog whether to neuter or not.

I'm the same, only person in the area that keeps their dogs behind a fence. But, unfortunately, those people who do let their pets roam I bet haven't had them neutered, thats the problem isn't it, the responsible people that do, tend to be the ones that don't let the dogs roam.

skyline1515

The reason i am getting my dogs neutered is because our dogs go with us anytime we go to stay with friends/family.. Some of our friends dogs are female and not neutered...

after reading all the pros and cons from you all, i will be getting them neutered. I didn't feel pressured into it by my vet etc, my OH and i agreed on this when we got them..

Thank you all again for you help and advise

Skyline1515