# To Neuter or Not to Neuter..



## k9kaiser (Feb 27, 2015)

Kaiser is 5 months old.. He is a strong and healthy pup in every way. We are trying to make a decision as to whether or not to have him neutered. I am quite sure this has been discussed on here before, however a quick search didn't return the answers I was looking for. We have discussed this with our Vet which we trust very much and whom has cared for our family dogs in the past quite well. His opinion is that there are a lot of unproven opinions out there, he is on the fence with his own opinion and it is a personal decision to be made. I am trying to get a consensus of the opinions of current male GSD owners here on the forum to aid in our decision.. To Neuter or Not Neuter. 

Kaiser at 4 mo. in this photo. 


Link to his lineage if you think it matters: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=2315055-kaiser-von-mackie

Here are my thoughts related to the decision..

- We dont plan on breeding/studding him. 
- He does not show any signs of any unwanted humping... Yet.. 
- We want to make the healthiest choice for him. 
- We would like to be able to take him to a local doggy daycare play now and then for added socialization, unless he is neutered he cannot attend.
- We would be willing to forego the daycare socialization option if leaving him unaltered is in his physical development and long term health advantage. 
*- Most importantly, we want to ensure his physical development is optimal for build and long term health.* 

I know that there is a lot of reading out there on this topic and I have read a lot of it.. and come away with no more clearer decision than I began with. 

If you have a male GSD, neutered or unaltered I would love to hear your story of how the choice you made either way effected your dog's development, temperment, drive, obedience and health.. positive or negative. 

Also.. if your GSD male has been altered.. please include at what age. 

Your opinion on the matter would be much appreciated. thanks!

Justin
Henderson, NV


----------



## Debanneball (Aug 28, 2014)

Your pup is beautiful!

I neutered my boy this week @ 8-1/2 months. He had a retained testicle, it was found in his abdomen apx 1/3 the size of his descended testicle. Had both testicles descended, I would have considered waiting until 1-1/2 years, for the growth plates to close. I do not show, breed or do sports with my dog. 

Its too soon to tell if there are any changes to his development, but my vet thinks he may grow another inch or so (presently 26-27").

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## k9kaiser (Feb 27, 2015)

Debanneball said:


> Your pup is beautiful!
> 
> I neutered my boy this week @ 8-1/2 months. He had a retained testicle, it was found in his abdomen apx 1/3 the size of his descended testicle. Had both testicles descended, I would have considered waiting until 1-1/2 years, for the growth plates to close. I do not show, breed or do sports with my dog.
> 
> ...


Thank you Debanneball.. 

I should add that Kaiser's goods are both descended and check out ok via the vet.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

I voted as I did based on this comment in your post.

"- We want to make the healthiest choice for him."


SuperG


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

In the past I've always spayed and neutered my dogs at six months.Never saw any change of temperament or drive at all.My current young boy I will wait until 18 months because of the growth plates and recent info. that he is eight times more likely to get cancer of the testicles if neutered at a young age.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

dogma13 said:


> In the past I've always spayed and neutered my dogs at six months.Never saw any change of temperament or drive at all.My current young boy I will wait until 18 months because of the growth plates and recent info. that he is eight times more likely to get cancer of the testicles if neutered at a young age.



Actually, he is 100% less likely to get testicular cancer if he is neutered young. Cause well, neutering means removing said testicles.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

gsdsar said:


> Actually, he is 100% less likely to get testicular cancer if he is neutered young. Cause well, neutering means removing said testicles.


Truth


SuperG


----------



## dmom (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm leaving my boy intact until growth plates close. Not going to breed, don't show so as long as he remains a gentleman and doesn't display any jerk behaviors he can keep em. He's is just over 1 and so doesn't seem to have a clue. Just a calm happy go lucky guy.


----------



## k9kaiser (Feb 27, 2015)

dmom said:


> I'm leaving my boy intact until growth plates close. Not going to breed, don't show so as long as he remains a gentleman and doesn't display any jerk behaviors he can keep em. He's is just over 1 and so doesn't seem to have a clue. Just a calm happy go lucky guy.


This sounds like a sound and responsible plan.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

My pup is about the same age. He is the only one in the home not fixed. I am not even thinking about it now, but I will neuter him eventually. Right now I have him swimming at least once a week to build muscle and help him become a strong boy I'm thinking between a year and a year and half, which is the longest I have ever waited.


----------



## Carriesue (Aug 13, 2012)

If you can responsibly contain him and not let him out without supervision I would say to wait at least until he's 18 months for his growth plates and joint health. If you feel he could get loose or have access to intact females then I'd do it sooner...

I will say being intact does not mean there will be stereotypical "male" behaviors, to me this is a training issue... My 2 year old intact boy has never humped a thing in his life, he doesn't mark in the house. The only issue I've had is that he no longer tolerates other dogs especially males but this could have happened either way. It's impossible to tell a stranger over the internet if the should keep their dog intact, it's a decision you need to make for yourself and your dog.


----------



## k9kaiser (Feb 27, 2015)

Carriesue said:


> If you can responsibly contain him and not let him out without supervision I would say to wait at least until he's 18 months for his growth plates and joint health. If you feel he could get loose or have access to intact females then I'd do it sooner...
> 
> I will say being intact does not mean there will be stereotypical "male" behaviors, to me this is a training issue... My 2 year old intact boy has never humped a thing in his life, he doesn't mark in the house. The only issue I've had is that he no longer tolerates other dogs especially males but this could have happened either way.


He is always responsibly contained and inadvertent escapes aren't a concern with our situation. I think that is a valid point. 




Carriesue said:


> It's impossible to tell a stranger over the internet if the should keep their dog intact, it's a decision you need to make for yourself and your dog.


I will say that I am not looking for someone to tell me whether to have him snipped or not. I am looking for feedback from those that have or have not that could aid in my own decision making. I would certainly agree that here are lots of personal circumstance factors that need be considered in each owner and dogs situation.


----------



## Carriesue (Aug 13, 2012)

Well for his health I defintely wouldn't do it before he's a year old but it's hard to know how responsible people are and then go and have an unwanted litter happen because of my advice. 

I was under contract with my breeder not to alter him before 17 months but ended up keeping him intact because we're involved in dog sports, I wanted to leave the option open if I ever decided to show him and because of the recent studies suggesting an increased cancer risk in early spay/neuters. My guy is however never left outside by himself and I do not take him to dog parks or allow him to be off leash with other dogs.


----------



## trcy (Mar 1, 2013)

If my GSD didn't have a retained testicle I would have neutered at 18 months to 2 years. We got him fixed at 13 months. The testicle was in the abdomen.


----------



## Kahrg4 (Dec 19, 2012)

Cafall's breeder required all pups to be speutered by the age of 1 year. Cafall was neutered at 10 months per contract agreement. He is 2.5 now and has been very healthy. Personally though, my next male GSD probably won't be neutered.


----------



## Athena'sMom (Jan 9, 2014)

I just neutered Sinister about a month and a half ago at 14 months. I have two intact females and he would wale in his crate when Athena was in heat so snip snip for my own sanity. That being said he is a lot less dominate towards my youngest female and they now play and get along great! 
I waited till he was 14 months old so he developed his male characteristics and did not ending up looking feminine.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Play groups/daycare may cause more problems for an intact dog. It is not really a good idea anyways. Taking your dog for play with others watching the dogs... Sometimes several dogs... Eh generally not a good idea anyways.

That said your focus seems to be MOST IMPORTANTLY on HEALTH...

Without any sinister, observable pathology that may be helped by neutering....

The answer is an emphatic NO...
Do not Neuter.
The way you described it, Neutering would decrease his development...

I will post this video until I am blue in the face when somebody wants to neuter for health reasons... I believe in this. I am involved in health care (Not animals)... And when I found this (from another user on the forum), I was so happy... 

Nobody explains the issue better.
Watch this and you can make your own smart decision, together with guidance from the right vet.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Athena'sMom said:


> I
> I waited till he was 14 months old so he developed his male characteristics and did not ending up looking feminine.


The secondary sex characteristics in GSDs aren't finished developing until they are 3. If you do a forum search you will see comparison pics of dogs at one, two, and three, and the biggest difference occurs between two and three.


I agree with the Europeans, who think castration is barbaric, and do not do it unless there is a medical reason.


----------



## gsdheeler (Apr 12, 2010)

My 8 month old is being shown in Breed so he's keeping is junk, IF I would not be showing him I would keep him intact, there are studies showing it really isn't the best for the dog's health to neuter, there are pros and cons. I think in general people have heard spay/neuter so often they think it's the only thing to do. Most of my dogs have been kept intact, NEVER had an accidental breeding. It's really not that hard.
I have to admit I have a bitch who came into season every 4 months, I did have her spayed at 3 yrs. 
Good video Lykos, thanks for posting.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I observe and I read all these arguments back and forth, so here is my question. 

The reality is more dogs are coming up with cancer then ever before and this may or may not be the biggest argument for or against neuter/spay. The question is years ago, dogs were spayed and neutered pretty early and lived to be 14, 15, 16 yrs old and passed away from old age. Then all of the sudden we start seeing cancer becoming more evident everywhere so it must be something causing it. Thats fine that they know something is the cause, but if it didn't cause it 20 yrs ago, I'm not sure that its causing it now. It does make for mass confusion and heated debates. 

I'm still 50/50 on this subject. I'm not 100% sure I believe it can be better or worse either way it goes...I have not found anything that can sway me fully one way or the other

I do believe that all the vets I deal with are on the same page and agree that it should be done, but after they are done growing.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

I have read that Europeans sterilize their dogs at a significantly lower rate...maybe some Europeans or anyone knowledgeable about this can...1.) tell me if this is true and 2.) the rationale behind this difference versus the high rate of sterilization found in the USA.

SuperG


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

I have a 12 year old male who is intact. Up until 2 years ago he was the most social of all my dogs. We have struggled with some marking behavior in the house, but I did not get him until 11 months old and I suspect had I gotten him as a younger pup things would be different.
We had some issues when he was younger with moderate aggressive behavior around females in heat, but nothing a firm correction didn't reduce to some grumbling. 
He has never displayed roaming, humping or random aggression behaviors. He is a big moose of a dog who has never had any health issues and overall has been a sweet, easy going boy.
Neutering is a personal decision, I don't like un necessary surgeries, and I would not neuter a male just because but everyone is different.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

For a long time, vets thought spaying/neutering was a clear cut good decission. Like many of those ideas, it's coming to light as "not so clear cut." 
I only spayed my eldest at 5 + yo because false pregnancies were becoming an increasing problem. I would certainly wait until at least 2 yo to spay or neuter a dog.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

llombardo said:


> I observe and I read all these arguments back and forth, so here is my question.
> 
> The reality is more dogs are coming up with cancer then ever before and this may or may not be the biggest argument for or against neuter/spay. The question is years ago, dogs were spayed and neutered pretty early and lived to be 14, 15, 16 yrs old and passed away from old age. Then all of the sudden we start seeing cancer becoming more evident everywhere so it must be something causing it. Thats fine that they know something is the cause, but if it didn't cause it 20 yrs ago, I'm not sure that its causing it now. It does make for mass confusion and heated debates.
> 
> ...


New studies are proving otherwise...

Also there is a disproportionate amount of mix breed dogs that are immediately neutered... And a disproportionate amount of pure-bred dogs that are intact...

Contrary to what everyone want to hear... Mixed breed dogs, live longer... they are often healthier.

The point of pure-bred's is selective breeding, and standardising traits...

When the study's focus only breed specific dogs... i.e. such as the strong Rotweiller studies coming out in last few years... It is painting a completely different picture.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

SuperG said:


> I have read that Europeans sterilize their dogs at a significantly lower rate...maybe some Europeans or anyone knowledgeable about this can...1.) tell me if this is true and 2.) the rationale behind this difference versus the high rate of sterilization found in the USA.
> 
> SuperG


Depends on the country...

I can only comment on my little Island in Europe - Cypru.s...

1) Dogs are sterilised less
2) No, they are not more knowledgeable than Americans (Can say this without even questioning that I dont have enough insight to the USA- It is non-negotiable - Also what happens in the USA is a lot more transparent than many other countries - you guys have resources and statistics for everything.)... They leave dogs intact for all the wrong reasons. 

They are not more knowledgeable than Americans when it comes to dogs. Not even close.

Other coutries, maybe... Also more responsibility... I dont know. 

Europe can not be generalised. The cultures are not as common as the USA..
Same way Africa can not be generalised.

Just my little rant. American's often try make generalisations about other continents, because they inhabit most of their continent.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Then there are those who say that all this spaying and neutering has reduced the genetic pool and created unhealthy dogs.
Why Do Dogs in Europe Live Longer?


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sunflowers said:


> Then there are those who say that all this spaying and neutering has reduced the genetic pool and created unhealthy dogs.
> Why Do Dogs in Europe Live Longer?


I agree with that too. Mixed breed dogs, dont have such a huge problem... For pure-bred's its a very import issue and consideration. Especially in small population countries, that dont import enough dogs... And then all the Right Wing Animal rights people, are even trying to ban the importation of dogs for example in my country.

It depends on how responsible people are and educated.
You can't recommend not neutering for health reasons. To somebody who cant take care of that responsibility.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

From Yahoo answers, LOL

"_Spaying and neutering in Europe?

Hello, I am an American living in the Netherlands, I recently aquired a puppy and I want to have him neutered for many reasons, however I cannot find a vet willing to do this, the ones who will want to wait till he is at least one year old. I want it done around 6-7 months. Can anyone suggest where I can find a vet in north holland who would be willing to neuter my dog?_"

We have been so stuck on this in the USA, that even moving to other countries, it is almost impossible to open our minds to a different way.

Instead of asking why no veterinarian is willing, this woman is looking for one who will actually do it.


----------



## scarfish (Apr 9, 2013)

all my animals get fixed at 6 months. 1 GSD spayed, 1 GSD neutered and 2 spayed cats.

our dogs have to be fixed at 6 months to go to work with my wife.

rambo is only 14 months old. so far no problems with joints, growing, cancer and the rest of the long list of problems people try to make it sound like your dog is destined to get if you neuter young. i believe it's possible it raises the already slight risk of having any major problems. 

i would wait to 18 months just in case if we didn't have personal reasons it had to be done. 

the cats are fixed 'cause cats in heat are the worst creatures in the world.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

scarfish said:


> all my animals get fixed at 6 months. 1 GSD spayed, 1 GSD neutered and 2 spayed cats.
> 
> rambo is only 14 months old. so far no problems with joints, growing, cancer and the rest of the long list of problems people try to make it sound like your dog is destined to get if you neuter young.


It's not "people who try to make it sound like."

Have you read any of the recent information?

Also, you wouldn't yet have any of these problems at 14 months.

The joint problems are not visible. You wouldn't be able to see them.

Except when the dog gets leggy because his growth plates didn't close and he was neutered early.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Sunflowers said:


> From Yahoo answers, LOL
> 
> "_Spaying and neutering in Europe?
> 
> ...


Where are prongs banned? Isn't that in some places in Europe? It's a cultural thing IMO. I know it's not the same as spaying/neutering, but it's another way of different thinking.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

llombardo said:


> Where are prongs banned? Isn't that in some places in Europe? It's a cultural thing IMO. I know it's not the same as spaying/neutering, but it's another way of different thinking.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

People please... Each European country is completely different to the next...
People really need to understand this when talking about what happens in Europe.

Its like Saying U.S.A, Canada Mexico and even Brazil from a different continent are the same.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Lykoz said:


> Depends on the country...
> 
> I can only comment on my little Island in Europe - Cypru.s...
> 
> ...



I'm thinking you are confused regarding my question....I did not suggest whether Europeans are more "knowledgeable" or not. I just was curious about whether or not what I have read is true and hoped somebody "knowledgeable" about this notion that Europeans sterilize their dogs at a lesser rate would respond to my query.

Sunflowers reply with the included link helps me with my question and I will accept that on an overview Europeans do in fact sterilize their dogs at a lesser rate.


SuperG


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

SuperG said:


> I'm thinking you are confused regarding my question....I did not suggest whether Europeans are more "knowledgeable" or not. I just was curious about whether or not what I have read is true and hoped somebody "knowledgeable" about this notion that Europeans sterilize their dogs at a lesser rate would respond to my query.
> 
> Sunflowers reply with the included link helps me with my question and I will accept that on an overview Europeans do in fact sterilize their dogs at a lesser rate.
> 
> ...


No I am not confused.
I think you are confused.

Americans do this a lot with Africa... 
Now they are doing it with Europe...

The link sunflower provided is not indicative of Europe as a whole.

As much as I like Dr Becker...
When she refers to Europe 'collectively' on these matters I cringe a bit.
She is probably doing it for 'effect'.
If you watch her podcast, she specifically names countries that dont sterlise.. Not a theme across Europe at all.

Europe is so diverse... And each Country is as different to each other country as the USA is to any country in Europe..

There is nothing really collective on these themes with Europe.

Dog law/Mentality etc.. Europe or the EU holds no stance or influence...
Greece is completely different to Spain.. As it is to the UK and Sweden.

I saw a post a while ago about some sort of individual from america on some sort of missionary work in Africa... 
The post stated, as you can understand I am in Africa, and I dont have access to vetenary care...
Which is bullocks... South Africa is a world leader in Veterinary Care, and have some of the best schools.
You cant generalise a whole continent, when each country is completely different to the next.

Again... The U.S.A may be more similar to the UK than the UK is similar to Holland...


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Lykoz said:


> No I am not confused.
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Americans do this a lot with Africa...
> ...



Am I the only who finds it hilarious that the argument against generalizing an entire continent is made starting with "Americans do this a lot" a generalization about Americans? 

Sorry. It just struck me as funny. 

But there is a point there are crud dog owners everywhere. The fact that neutering is less common in other countries does not make them better dog owners. It doesn't make it so anywhere. It just is.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Lykoz said:


> No I am not confused.
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Americans do this a lot with Africa...
> ...



oh.....geeezzzz....you missed it again by a 100 miles...you still have no idea about my original question and the use of "knowledgeable". I really don't care about the specifics of the individual countries and their practices inside of Europe...it's the same as assuming all of North America is a specific way BUT...on an OVERVIEW...Europe sterilizes their dogs at a lesser rate than the USA....if Liechtenstein or another country in Europe sterilizes at a much higher or lower rate...it averages into the overall percentage of Europe.....notice I used the word "Europe" in my original post...thanks for the effort however...anyway...carry on...


SuperG


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I've been to enough countries in Europe to realize it's probably a lot like the United States. The dogs in the cities, tend to get spuetered, the dogs in the country, tend to stay intact. If you think about the United States, we all know that the south has a much bigger stray dog problem and tend to have a lot more puppies than the northern states in which people live in cities and the dogs just can't have the freedom their rural cousins do. So the dogs tend to get spayed and neutered.

I also noticed that in the places I've gone in Europe...dogs are much more likely to still be used for a purpose. People that live in the cities in Europe, don't have that much room (even a small United States apartment in the city is huge by European standards) and so they have smaller dogs. The larger dogs I saw tended to be trained better and most times were used for something. Even if not actually trained for guard work, the larger dogs lived outside and guarded their yard, they were meant to keep people out 100%, I don't feel like that is so in the United States. I know for a fact that there are plenty of people on this forum that don't want their dog to ever bite or do anything to actually defend themselves unless the human has clearly made the distinction that they're in danger. I know this is generally said regards to a stray attacking a dog, but how often have we read, "It is my job to protect my dog not the other way around." Trust me...most Europeans wouldn't feel that way, I definitely don't.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

SuperG said:


> oh.....geeezzzz....you missed it again by a 100 miles...you still have no idea about my original question and the use of "knowledgeable". I really don't care about the specifics of the individual countries and their practices inside of Europe...it's the same as assuming all of North America is a specific way BUT...on an OVERVIEW...Europe sterilizes their dogs at a lesser rate than the USA....if Liechtenstein or another country in Europe sterilizes at a much higher or lower rate...it averages into the overall percentage of Europe.....notice I used the word "Europe" in my original post...thanks for the effort however...anyway...carry on...
> 
> 
> SuperG


To get a 'European' average.. Whatever that means, you need to get statistics from every single country in the continent. (Maybe just members in of the EU. - Not the same thing)

Most dogs where I am at are not even registered. And even the ones that are, vets do not send in statistics of weather a dog was neutered or not. 

I know American's keep statistics for everything, and this is hard for you to understand.
Crikey, in the USA you could know the exact Yardage an NFL football player made in his entire career...

Not every Nation works like that.

So yes you could observe some week trends.

But you asked a question... 
And I am telling you the reality is the answer is not as cut and dry as you are making it.

If you want to ignore what I am saying, and just 'accept' an unprovable and inaccurate generalisation... Fine..

Maybe American's Neuter/spay SOO much, that it is probably an easy generalisation to make.
But there is no way you can get an accurate answer to that question.

You need to at least, consider and understand the point I am making.
You dont have to like it. You can ignore it.
But the fact is, I understood exactly what you wanted. And I am telling you why it is not a simple observation to make, based on a comprehensive European Average..

You cant do that with anywhere close to the accuracy you can do it in the USA.

So can you show me the statistics for Spain, Greece or Cyprus?
How about countries not in the EU... Maybe Iceland or Norway (Still in Europe)...

You will find good records for some countries. Not for others.
Now if America Speuters every single dog.. you can easily make assumptions on the fact that America, has a general problem.. You might as well just generalise, and say America Speuters more than the rest of the world.
But I am sure you will probably find some countries in Europe Africa Asia Australia etc. that do it more...

So I fully understand you were looking for an answer like sunflowers.. Sure it makes sense.. And could be valid.
But if you just read what I am saying, you would understand, that those generalisations, can be made with limited scope and accuracy.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

gsdsar said:


> Am I the only who finds it hilarious that the argument against generalizing an entire continent is made starting with "Americans do this a lot" a generalization about Americans?
> 
> Sorry. It just struck me as funny.
> 
> But there is a point there are crud dog owners everywhere. The fact that neutering is less common in other countries does not make them better dog owners. It doesn't make it so anywhere. It just is.


I dont know if you ever realised this...

But the USA... is not a continent.

When people say American's they refer to the USA.

Now if you consider Brazilians and Argentines as American's because they are from South America. Sorry.

If you consider Mexicans, as Americans, then sorry again.
I think you all identify as 'Americans' being that you are from the USA...
The movie American Sniper made the same generalisation. 
Maybe he was a soldier from the Canadian Army.. I might have been confused.
Australia... Sure you can generalise, they are the only continent that is also a country.. Although it is ussually refered to as Australia and Oceania..

Maybe Antarctica...

My generalisations that American's do this a lot can be supported by my interaction in this forum.
It can also be supported by American ex-pats/travellers that say the same thing. 

They see it more, when they leave the states.

On a lighter note.. And if you like top quality comedy based on our theme here (and some very real and valid points):


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Of course I know The US is a country, not a continent. My point was that you were berating people for making sweeping generalizations by you yourself making a sweeping generalization. I found it funny. 

If you base "all Americans" off your interactions on this board and tourists, then others can base all Europe off their interactions and travels as well. What's good for the goose...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

gsdsar said:


> Of course I know The US is a country, not a continent. My point was that you were berating people for making sweeping generalizations by you yourself making a sweeping generalization. I found it funny.
> 
> If you base "all Americans" off your interactions on this board and tourists, then others can base all Europe off their interactions and travels as well. What's good for the goose...


Hahaha.. Good point. I will only generalise Americans on this board.

Here is the thing, although I would also be guilty of generalisations. It is a lot easier to generalise about a single country, than a large group of countries.

It is also easier to draw conclusions about American's based on the large visibility and influence they have to the rest of the world.

However yes I agree. It is hard to generalise any nation.
With regards to neutering, american opinions on that matter is actually even more visible to me than it is in my own country, due to their systematic and efficient use of recording and statistics.
Professionals like Dr Becker, make it pretty clear, what the situation is in America on the matter for example.

So to be completely honest, I cant even generalise the country I live in. Its based on my own experiences... which can also be flawed.


----------



## Ace GSD (May 30, 2014)

Neuter/spay is not for the dog at all, its for the owner and goverment.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

What.....the USA is not a continent ??? Who'd a thunk?

Americans vs the term North Americans. The continent North America has about 40 plus countries/territories/possessions. Everybody knows a Canadien, Mexican, Guatemalan, Jamaian..etc are North Americans because of the continent they reside in...however the term "American" is used for those who are citizens or native to the USA....even though South Americans could certainly label themselves the same ( though it is a different continent ) they choose not to....they consider themselves Brazilians, Argentines, Bolivians.. etc. "American" generally refers to a nationality not an ethnicity. "American" is then broken into subcategories such as Asian-Americans, Latin-Americans, Hispanic- Americans etc...which then can be broken down into even more refined and definitive categories....

Okay enough of the geography and terminology.....

My original question centered on the notion...do American dog owners sterilize their dogs at a higher rate than Europeans? Perhaps, this where I caused some confusion...yes " Americans" is not an equal term when compared to " Europeans", I would have used the term " North Americans" if I sensed there would have been confusion....however I would guess by using that comparison...the numbers would be changed significantly. I could have asked the question...Do French dog owners sterilize their dogs at a higher rate than the rest of Europe? Or...Do Americans sterilize their dogs more than the Brits? But the articles I read used Europe and the USA ( Americans ) as the comparison....hence my question. I fully understand by using "Europe" as the comparison, it included many countries, ethnic groups etc. I suppose I could have said "Old World " instead of Europe and made the comparison group even larger ( including more than Europe ). But a larger group of countries such as Europe makes this comparison more noteworthy and of interest due to the diversity inside of Europe because of the many countries and cultures. Somewhat the same exists in the USA...if one investigated the differences in sterilization rates amongst regions and states in the USA there would be a noticeable variance no doubt. 

Yes, I also believe your assumption ( sweeping generalization ) regarding "Americans" is amusing...however had I said.." All Europeans have the same culture, religion, mentalities, diets etc...then you certainly would have been warranted in your responses.


SuperG


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

SuperG said:


> I have read that Europeans sterilize their dogs at a significantly lower rate...maybe some Europeans or anyone knowledgeable about this can...1.) tell me if this is true and 2.) the rationale behind this difference versus the high rate of sterilization found in the USA.
> 
> SuperG


I was replying to other posters amongst also replying to you.. So you did not really answer my posts quoting you, but rather posts directed to other users and conversations.

So lets get back to the original question. And speak directly about what you asked.
As I was saying each country is completely different.

Lets talk about the country I live in. (The only one I have first hand experience)

I will make the assumption, and I strongly believe they neuter/spay much less than the U.S.A.

So why do they neuter/spay less? Well most vets ARE recommending early spay neuters across the board. The Animal rights people are going mad with the situation here. They are pushing that spaying/N is for better health...

Why are dogs not neutered like in the USA? (Rationalle was the word you used.. Not knowledge.. I understand why you may have bit a bit inclined to think i missed what you meant. Together with the fact you used the word Knowledge in a different context)
1) They dont care about their dogs or other dogs. Often keep them in little cages... In fact there is actual legislature of the minumum dimensions of that little cage, acceptable for dogs to 'live' in... Many people use even smaller cages... 
2)Dont want to spend money on the operation
3) Think maybe their dog, mixed pure or otherwise can have a quick pregnancy and they can sell the dogs, or worst case just throw them away if they cant sell or give away.
4) They think maybe their male dog is 'less of a man' if they neuter.
5) They think it is maybe unnatural (common sense to an extent)- However not based on science or health... Just a personal opinion.
6) All shelters are private owned. The state offers 15 days in kennels, and then a strict kill policy, unless a private community funded shelter can take over the dogs.

So as you can see in my European country... The situation would be very different to Germany, Norway or the Netherlands. (And each of those countries would work different to each other, goes without saying.)

The fact is you asked a question, and I answered based on the only European country I kind of had the experience to answer for.
Sure my country is tiny and not considered a European mentality..
But the fact remains that each and every European country thinks very differently and have different sociopolitical reasons for the decisions they make.

That is my point. Take it or leave it. I dont mind.
But I understood what you were asking, and that is why I answered the way I did.

My experiences as a citizen of Europe and a member state of the EU, is that.

There is no collective think model in Europe.
So you can make generalisations. We all do with many things. My post was just putting it in context. 
Sunflower may have gave you the answer you wanted. I am doing a little critical appraisal.

What I replied is not because I don't understand what you are asking. It is simply part of the answer, weather you like it or not.

You asked for the outlook of an actual European.. There are not too many on the board. So I thought I could add value by replying.

So would my country benefit sociopolitically from Spaying... Certainly..
Could most Americans who read this forum, make a more responsible decision based on health and not add to the problem? Most certainly.


----------



## Debanneball (Aug 28, 2014)

May I add something here... The population of Cyprus (where you were from) is 1.2 million, South Africa (where you live) 53 million, versus the United States of America (aka USA) at 418 million. Taking this into account it makes sence that the USA would spay/neuter more...





Lykoz said:


> I was replying to other posters amongst also replying to you.. So you did not really answer my posts quoting you, but rather posts directed to other users and conversations.
> 
> So lets get back to the original question. And speak directly about what you asked.
> As I was saying each country is completely different.
> ...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Debanneball said:


> May I add something here... The population of Cyprus (where you were from) is 1.2 million, South Africa (where you live) 53 million, versus the United States of America (aka USA) at 418 million. Taking this into account it makes sence that the USA would spay/neuter more...


I live in Cyprus now. Anyways...

Yes you make a valid and brilliant point.
However I think it would make more sense to talk about % values of Sterlised/non-sterilised. (And based on your points and very valid at that, the figures I am talking about are even harder to get. As many of the unregistered animals are likely not to be spayed.)
We are talking comparative, proportional statistics.. Not necessarily total number of spays.
Either way... You would not be able to find total figures here by any means..

Also yes.. like I said my country is not representative of Europe. But my point is I dont really think any individual country is.

He asked for why and rational.. An impossible question to answer...
Because each country is a DIFFERENT country, and the attitude and rational is completely different.

There is no communal rational systemic to Europe. It just can not exist.
It's the same reason some countries in Europe are littered in debt and failing, and others are thriving.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Lykoz said:


> 1) They dont care about their dogs or other dogs. Often keep them in little cages... In fact there is actual legislature of the minumum dimensions of that little cage, acceptable for dogs to 'live' in... Many people use even smaller cages...
> 2)Dont want to spend money on the operation
> 3) Think maybe their dog, mixed pure or otherwise can have a quick pregnancy and they can sell the dogs, or worst case just throw them away if they cant sell or give away.
> *4) They think maybe their male dog is 'less of a man' if they neuter.
> ...



Wonderful response...makes great sense to me....thank you.

I had been led to believe (besides some of the more obvious reasons...cost, indifference, quick profit...etc).... that your number 4 & 5 observations were also cited as reasons for not sterilizing in the articles I have read. Now, I may be guilty here of making a generalization ( so I'll be careful )...but this notion that sterilization is viewed as unnatural and compromises the masculinity/femininity of the dog as a reason not to sterilize, I find very interesting. Here's the generalization I may be guilty of....I believe this particular attitude regarding sterilization of dogs does not exist in the USA nearly to the degree it exists in particular countries inside of Europe...or maybe overall on an average. Since this mentality existed in certain countries in Europe ( or overall on average ) as a reason not to sterilize, I weighed that against the main thrust of the article's opinion which was for health reasons. Obviously, items 4 & 5 have little if anything to do with health benefits....more an indication of different cultural and social beliefs and behavior. So, if I just read the headline on articles proclaiming that Europeans sterilize their dogs at a lesser rate than Americans and this is based on health benefits, I would be misled and not properly informed. Your reply was excellent because it cited so many other reasons for not sterilizing and not one of them was health related basically. So, if I want to go forward believing that Europeans ( the majority ) do not sterilize their dogs because of health concerns....well, I would in error. If this noted health benefit of leaving a dog intact is in fact true...then it is merely a coincidence of their actions not their intentions.

I had this conversation with at least 3 vets when I was contemplating getting my bitch spayed and was still left with no real answer and facts. I asked them questions such as..."well, what is the health differences in the USA between intact dogs vs. sterilized dogs?"...all I received was ambiguity. So, I tried to make it easier by asking " There must be studies done regarding this exact situation ? "...once again, no answer...so I guess no studies have been done..which is surprising to me. Yes, University of California, Davis and University of Georgia, Athens have a study or two which might suggest health benefits but nothing of enough substance to get any of the 3 vets to bring them up in their answers.

I chose to leave my bitch intact, strictly for health reasons...and the more I search for any definitive answer, it seems the more clouded the answers become. 

Sorry I had to harangue you to the degree I did....but this last response was spot on....thanks.


SuperG


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you are making your generalizations about Americans by what you see on TV, then you will be way off in left field. Americans are just people with many different cultures and blended cultures. They certainly do not reflect what is seen on TV at all. We used to laugh at the Brady Bunch with their maid and spotless house, or Leave it to Beaver. That may be like someone somewhere, but I have never met these people.

The reason I mention this, is because when my sister was in grad school, she and a woman from India got an apartment to share costs. And what this woman thought was that Americans were all like what was seen on TV, westerns mostly. She was surprised we weren't all wearing cowboy hats. 

Perhaps your impression of Americans is closer than my impression of some of the people from many areas. Though in the US, we often work with people who are first generation Americans, or people over here on work visas. So I have worked for a time with people from Jordan, India, Korea, China, Scotland, Japan, Nyrobi (spelling?), Romania, and probably many others I am not thinking of right now. That doesn't mean I know how they live, or what they believe in about every aspect of dog ownership. But that is what we base our opinions on about various locations, that and literature moreso than television. 

I am waiting to find some Americans that look even close to what is depicted on TV though.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

selzer said:


> If you are making your generalizations about Americans by what you see on TV, then you will be way off in left field. Americans are just people with many different cultures and blended cultures. They certainly do not reflect what is seen on TV at all. We used to laugh at the Brady Bunch with their maid and spotless house, or Leave it to Beaver. That may be like someone somewhere, but I have never met these people.
> 
> The reason I mention this, is because when my sister was in grad school, she and a woman from India got an apartment to share costs. And what this woman thought was that Americans were all like what was seen on TV, westerns mostly. She was surprised we weren't all wearing cowboy hats.
> 
> ...


Have not watched the Brady Bunch... 
You cant argue about American Visibility both on television and on the internet.

We are talking news channels. Articles written by Americans. 
Dr. Karen Becker for example. Views of american dog trainers...
Many articles specific to health and well being.
Problems relating to Obesity. (I know you all are not as pretty as they make you look in the movies ).
Watching your president make political decisions. 
Gun law controversy.
Facebook friends.
Have been to america.
Following sports in america and certain sporting individuals, sometimes before they made it big, or became 'celebrities'.

I can make a list so long...
I understand when to watch something with a grain of salt... Or if its biopic for Muhhamed Ali... Reading Lance Armstrong's Autobiography... 
Social media.. 
Heck, even good old Oprah Winfrey..
Watching american shows... Comedy shows...

Look here is the thing.. America offers so much...
I doubt you even know who the president of Cyprus is without googling his name... It is not relevant to you...
You might know Putin (Russia).. But most of the time you have no idea what he is saying in Russian to his people... 

In fact half the time, I am more interested in watching international shows than anything locally produced...
I am more inclined to watch CNN than my 8 o'clock news.
Reading material from the US is often of more relevance and of interest to me than just about anything this side. Here is the thing. Your culture is visible. 

I promise you if you asked any European/African about America they would give you some decent answers....
Ask an American about Africa.. And often the first thing they ask is if they live with lions.

It is just the way of the world. American's have no reason to look outside of it.
Most americans just speak English as far as I am aware. Most of you could not look into other cultures from a media perspective even if you wanted to.
We have every reason to look in. Some of the best scientific literature comes from America.

So no.. I did not watch the brady bunch and formulate an opinion.
I know you are not the perfect family in clean little houses that are fit as a fiddle and beautiful. I know americans have a problem with obesity.. Its in all the literature. 

How much do you guys know of other cultures? It is harder for you guys to look outside your bubble because it is a nice bubble to be in.

PS that indian girl was confused... We all know they only wear cowboy hats in Texas (Haha j/k)


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Lykoz said:


> How much do you guys know of other cultures? It is harder for you guys to look outside your bubble because it is a nice bubble to be in.


There is truth in that....The USA used to be the envy of much of the world unless you lived in a country where the USA was your sworn enemy. The USA still has some allure today but not what it once had. When people in the USA start emigrating in large numbers...well, we won't be able to say this any more.


SuperG


----------



## DobbyDad (Jan 28, 2014)

Read the first page and the last 2. What happened to neutering?


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

DobbyDad said:


> Read the first page and the last 2. What happened to neutering?


The concept of neutering was neutered. 

Good point.
I think the general consensus is that neutering should be done for many socio-political and human management reasons.

Cultures think differently.

If your decision is based strictly on the health of the dog... All things Equal you would not neuter your dog at certain age for better health.

If you are strictly concerned with the health of your dog... Talk to your vet... And see the best fit...
Dont accept the reply that all dogs are healthier if neutered early...
It is simply not true.
For health reasons, its all about the dogs, history, presentation, physical examination etc. 
Neutering can not be a one size fits all procedure for all dogs... That is not an acceptable way for any vet, or any health professional to practise.

Things to consider are: Can you manage an intact dog... Can you stop him from running away.. or getting pregnant... How are dogs split... how do you manage the situation... Is there a medical risk if the dog gets pregnant.. Is this a possibility... Does the dog have a disproportionate chance a certain dog may get reproductory type cancer...

Then you look at other health considerations... Does the dog have hip Dysplasia? This is a condition that could create negative osteoarthritic changes over time, more so in a neutered dog..

All things equal, no operative procedure in the history of medicine is a one size fits all procedure strictly for health reasons... 
This has happened in vetinary practise...
I believe this is wrong.


----------



## DobbyDad (Jan 28, 2014)

What I love about these threads is that one person always seems to take possession and feel the need to answer everyone's posts.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Time after time I tell everyone how these studies are terrible. They don't prove causation, they prove a slight, and almost insignificant correlation. None of the studies can ever isolate spuetering in their sample, the dogs are taken from all over, and there is so much variation within the sample of things that can affect health that it's almost comical that people can draw the types of conclusions they do from these studies. Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics will know that the only reason these studies, with conclusions based on less than 5% increase/decrease, are only published because they have to do with animals and not with people. A 5% statistical variation, is no where near enough to make the kinds of blanket statements that are made in most of these studies if they had to do with people.

I have a bitch that was spayed at 6 months, has excellent hips according to the OFA. Not sure how she fits into those statistical studies.

In regards to Americans on the internet/tv. I thought I had already covered this in the last neuter thread...the research done behind a computer screen is a joke. When a member from across the world tries to educate me on the breeding that is going on in my back yard, or at least in my own state, it's again one of the most comical things that could ever happen. But some people will always think that what they read from some smart doctor or some other person that has 1,000 likes on Facebook as the truth. It's just what's going to happen in today's day and age.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Time after time I tell everyone how these studies are terrible. They don't prove causation, they prove a slight, and almost insignificant correlation. None of the studies can ever isolate spuetering in their sample, the dogs are taken from all over, and there is so much variation within the sample of things that can affect health that it's almost comical that people can draw the types of conclusions they do from these studies. Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics will know that the only reason these studies, with conclusions based on less than 5% increase/decrease, are only published because they have to do with animals and not with people. A 5% statistical variation, is no where near enough to make the kinds of blanket statements that are made in most of these studies if they had to do with people.
> 
> I have a bitch that was spayed at 6 months, has excellent hips according to the OFA. Not sure how she fits into those statistical studies.
> 
> In regards to Americans on the internet/tv. I thought I had already covered this in the last neuter thread...the research done behind a computer screen is a joke. When a member from across the world tries to educate me on the breeding that is going on in my back yard, or at least in my own state, it's again one of the most comical things that could ever happen. But some people will always think that what they read from some smart doctor or some other person that has 1,000 likes on Facebook as the truth. It's just what's going to happen in today's day and age.


What is more comical is that somebody in his back yard and his own experiences thinks he can generalise opinions and way of thinking for 53 million people.

The USA is not your back yard  just saying.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Time after time I tell everyone how these studies are terrible. They don't prove causation, they prove a slight, and almost insignificant correlation. None of the studies can ever isolate spuetering in their sample, the dogs are taken from all over, and there is so much variation within the sample of things that can affect health that it's almost comical that people can draw the types of conclusions they do from these studies. Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics will know that the only reason these studies, with conclusions based on less than 5% increase/decrease, are only published because they have to do with animals and not with people. A 5% statistical variation, is no where near enough to make the kinds of blanket statements that are made in most of these studies if they had to do with people.
> 
> I have a bitch that was spayed at 6 months, has excellent hips according to the OFA. Not sure how she fits into those statistical studies.
> 
> In regards to Americans on the internet/tv. I thought I had already covered this in the last neuter thread...the research done behind a computer screen is a joke. When a member from across the world tries to educate me on the breeding that is going on in my back yard, or at least in my own state, it's again one of the most comical things that could ever happen. But some people will always think that what they read from some smart doctor or some other person that has 1,000 likes on Facebook as the truth. It's just what's going to happen in today's day and age.


Also what is your educational background for critical appraisal of medical scientific journals?

Which studies are you referring to that are rubbish?
And what studies do YOU back YOUR assumptions on?

There is no such thing as a study with no limitations in cotext... In fact the studies themselves always cite and explain most limitations if you actually read them, instead of reading a second hand article by some person online.

I have also spayed many dogs (some not my decision after all I grew up as a kid with dogs)... Does not mean I did it for health reasons... I only spayed one dog for health reasons.

In light of no studies... Surely the most basic assumption is that an operation can not be std. Procedure...
You need to PROVE that Neutering is necessary...Not that it is unnecessary...


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Lykoz, do you mean to imply that all of us are ignorant, or do you simply not realize how you come accross?


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sunflowers said:


> Lykoz, do you mean to imply that all of us are ignorant, or do you simply not realize how you come accross?


Everyone is ignorant. Me included.
I am ignorant of my own country too to an extent...
The generalisations I made for the country I live in, was because I was pushed to do so. Not everyone is like that. Not to mention the whole country is pretty much a 3 hour drive from top to bottom...

People here keep telling me that the USA is their back yard... I fail to believe that.

Yes I know how I sound.

Unfortunately in pushing across points to different people, it is hard to accommodate and be "politically" correct.
Everyone has views. I get shut down too often because I am not from the USA and it is always a fighting battle.

The fact is the USA compromises of 53 million.
In that 53 million are some of the smartest people in the world.
Many are culturally diverse. My point is that each persons personal opinions and experiences do not define America. 
Now my arguments had less to do with america, and more to do with generalisations of Europe.
The questions asked of me were often comparing Europe to america. How else can I answer.
I have a pretty good idea on neutering in america because of the conversations I have had on this forum, as well as other sources. The USA is a hub of English language, high quality information.

I agree with pretty much everything you post for example. Is that because I am not american? or is it because I think similarly on the issues of discussion?


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Lykoz said:


> The fact is the USA compromises of 53 million.


Which 53 million are compromised? 

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...5-320-million-and-world-population-72-billion


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sunflowers said:


> Which 53 million are compromised?
> 
> U.S. Population 2015: 320 Million and World Population 7.2 Billion - US News


Eh I quoted the South African population statistics by accident...
Comprised...


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

My educational background is in finance…so math, financial analysis, statistics, ect. But you don’t have to have any medical scientific background to understand that a variation of 5% is not significant in a study. The types of studies being done on this subject when it comes to dogs, are the types of studies that become news anecdotes when they’re done about people. Like the “drink red wine” study, I’m pretty positive there aren’t doctors using that as the basis of any medical diagnosis.

All of the studies that collect data, without a control group, are not proving causation. They’re proving correlation. And anyone that’s taken even one statistics course could tell you that you can basically find a correlation between any two things if you just collect the right data. A statistical analysis will generally have a significance level (its why in political poling you get that margin of error) and that is usually set at some number less than 5%. Then when you run the statistical analysis, you get a p-value of less than that figure, it basically means your results are inconclusive and more than likely anything you see is due to statistical variation in the sample and cannot be used to make a conclusion about the whole population as a whole. The idea being that if you continued to collect data from the whole population, you’d probably end up not seeing any significant causation/correlation.

On top of all that, the studies don’t have a control group. There are so many variables when you’re talking about dogs that when you see a 5% increase in risk, how does any reasonable person equate it to JUST the single variable. All the dogs have differing genetics, they’re of different ages, they live in different areas, they eat different things, they have different levels of exercise, ect. So to make a conclusion that JUST the spueter is causing the increase, is just unreasonable.

The studies then try to eliminate some variation by doing a single breed…well, as GSD owners we all know that if you do a study about our breed, there is still tons of variation. ASL, WGSL, WL, these are three different variations within our breed that all have differing genetics. On top of that, anyone with half a brain understands that it really depends on what’s actually in a dog’s pedigree and not some over branching line that matters when it comes to how the dog is health/temperament wise.

I base this question on social life more than random health statistics. I get to see how people interact with dogs in my area, and most of them interact with dogs in a way that spuetering would help them enjoy their dogs more. Most people love to go to parks, let their dogs off lead, but not really train them to a super high level. So an intact bitch, becomes a problem every 6 months when for a month they can’t take her out and about the way they want to and enjoy the 10 or so years they have with their dog. Same with an intact male, they do have a propensity to be more aggressive towards other males, especially if there is a breeding female somewhere nearby.

Most vets, aren’t quoting health statistics when they recommend a spueter, they are trying to convince people to help control the pet population. Sometimes they’ll do some sort of behavior stat, but that’s mostly because the majority of people don’t train their dogs and the extra hormones do tend to make some dogs a bit more uncontrollable. On top of that, people are irresponsible and let their dogs do stupid things all the time, so it’s just safer for the vet to recommend a spueter. The one study that was recently posted about Vizlas…it showed that 50% of intact dogs were reported to have had/produced a litter. That means, that in general, for every 2 people that leave their dog intact, one will end up having puppies. No matter how “responsible” they claim to be, we all know that not 50% of people are doing the breeding thing right. So when you’re on this forum telling random people that you’ve never met, have no idea what their level of involvement is in the breed, and what kind of owners they really are to keep their dogs intact due to the fact that their dog might have a 5% higher chance of getting some random bone cancer, for every two people you tell that, one of them will end up breeding their dog. Sorry, but to me, that’s just way too many.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Do Spayed and Neutered Dogs Get Cancer More Often? | Dog Spies, Scientific American Blog Network is a great article. Hopefully people will take a look! From it - 



> Meanwhile, another 2013 study presented some other interesting results. This study drew data from multiple referral hospitals to determine the causes of death in spayed or neutered versus intact dogs – and they found that spayed and neutered dogs, on average, lived longer than intact dogs. Intact dogs were more likely to die of infectious disease or trauma, while spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to die of immune-mediated diseases or (again) cancer. In other words, while spayed or neutered dogs did get cancer, it didn’t seem to shorten their lifespans.
> 
> This study shed a new light on the cancer question. It suggested that perhaps spayed or neutered animals might be more likely to get cancer simply because they were living long enough to get it. Intact animals were more likely to die younger, perhaps simply not aging into the time of life when the risk of cancer rises.




Don't forget that castrated men may have longevity. Could Castration Help Men Live Longer? Eunuchs Studied in Korean Records - ABC News
and 


> his scenario predicts that removal of the testes (castration) might extend male lifespan. This possibility is supported by a study of mentally disabled men who had the misfortune to live in the USA in the early-mid 20th century, where sterilization of the “genetically unfit” was common as a result of policies initiated by the eugenics movement [36]. Analysis of mortality data from 297 castrated men, and 735 age-matched intact controls revealed a significant increase in lifespan in the former (70.7 vs. 64.7 yrs, p < 0.001) [37]. If only those castrated earlier in life were considered, the effect on lifespan was more profound: an increase in median lifespan of 11.6 years.


 from Evolution of sexually dimorphic longevity in humans

Thanks, martemchik for explaining the thinking and science behind your posts. 

 I always love this causation/correlation chart:


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> I promise you if you asked any European/African about America they would give you some decent answers....
> Ask an American about Africa.. And often the first thing they ask is if they live with lions.
> 
> It is just the way of the world. American's have no reason to look outside of it.
> ...


You are being as biased in your opinions about us as you say we are about you. I know that people in Africa don't live with lions. I know that Africa was split up years ago by the colonization of Europe and that the artificial boundaries not taking into account the people and cultures of Africa are a major source of the many civil wars in the region. I know that our own cold war polices as well as that of Russia and others led to support of armed dictators and that the arms we all shipped over there have helped fuel many more conflicts. I have met several people living in the United States who have come from Africa to get away from the many civil wars and have had some of those people as professors in college classes teaching others about that region. You forget that the United States is the great melting pot. It would be ignorant and a mistake of major proportions to assume that just because our media is shallow and our politicians put on a show, that our people are not educated enough to be aware of the big picture.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Jean you forgot to include the most important message and conclusive statement of that study:

"*Although a retrospective, epidemiological study such as this cannot prove causality, our results suggest that close scrutiny of specific causes of death*,* rather than lifespan alone*, will greatly improve our understanding of the cumulative impact of reproductive capability on mortality. Our results strongly demonstrate the need to determine the *physiologic consequences of sterilization that influence causes of death and lifespan*. *Shifting the focus from when* death occurs *to why* death occurs could also help to explain *contradictory findings from human studies*" 

There can not be a 'one size fits all' neuter age... That is my main message..


Furthermore people need to understand that 'stud dogs' that are never neutered often have a smaller genetic variation, so that breeders can standardise and reproduce the behavioural traits they desire. (also smaller pool of dogs)

Mixed breed dogs and owners who are not very interested in performance breeding, or reproducing 'champion' dogs have a much bigger genetic pool to chose from. (They can match any dogs - And are not repetitively breeding the same bunch of dogs.)

This is something I brought up to Matchik earlier, and he still does not understand the simple concept of a smaller genetic pool of dogs, has implications on overall health. 
This effect should have a huge implications in which dogs are neutered, which are not, and why there are often unfavourable generalisations towards pure-bred non-sterelised stud dogs.

Basically what I am saying is all the dogs that would not make good breeding prospects because of weaker lineage due to conformation and performance tests are also more often than not the healthier dogs and the ones that are invariably neutered/spayed.

Mixed breed dogs for example often significantly outlive pure-bred dogs. This effect although less obvious, is also inherent in pure-bred lines due to genetic variability.

Popular Sire-syndrome
http://clubs.akc.org/NBC/Bell Handout - NBC.pdf


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Actually, the “mixed breed healthier than pure-bred” theory has been debunked countless times. It’s basically a hearsay thing and has never been proven. Most times its just because people love to tell stories about how “the mutt they got from the shelter lived to be 27 and yet the pure bred dog they got from a breeder died at 7 from cancer.” Well…awesome, a sample size of a whole two dogs. It’s a joke. The theory grows because a lot of people have these types of stories, but they’re still not a good representation of the population.

On top of that, mixed-breed owners rarely actually health test their dogs. There is no reason to. The majority of genetic and hip testing gets done in order to understand the repercussions of breeding the dog, not to find out what the dog itself has. So there is very little data about the health of mixed breed dogs.

This statement…” Basically what I am saying is all the dogs that would not make good breeding prospects because of weaker lineage due to conformation and performance tests are also more often than not the healthier dogs and the ones that are invariably neutered/spayed.” Has absolutely no scientific or even practical backing behind it. You’ve admitted yourself that you don’t have the practical knowledge of breeders/breeding because of where you live and it’s basically impossible for you to get that kind of knowledge. You can read all the articles you want until you’re blue in the face, but you’ll never get to see the amount of breedings/dogs that many of us have already seen. The fact that you make such statements is disgusting and quite unfortunate that someone might take them as fact.

The “popular sire syndrome” you keep bringing up. You have no practical backing for this either. Sure, currently in the United States there are about 4-5 popular sires. But even they sire so few litters compared to the tens of thousands of dogs being born, that they are basically insignificant. It’s hard for you, sitting on the internet, to understand that there are other dogs being bred because when you google “GSD Breeding” the big names will pop up. But that’s such a small portion of actual breeding occurring in the United States and even Germany. Unknown studs are being used all the time, you’ll be hard pressed to even find a breeder on this forum that has used one of the “major studs” of today. So please, stop making ridiculous blanket statements about things that you have no practical backing behind and believing every single article you find scattered on the internet.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Exploring mechanisms of sex differences in longevity: lifetime ovary exposure and exceptional longevity in dogs - Waters - 2009 - Aging Cell - Wiley Online Library

This study is more extensive and descriptive focusing on a single breed. (Even though the sample is smaller.)

It also manages to draw conclusions on when the dog was neutered, whereas the other study you quoted had no records of this.

The focus on a single breed of dog with more specific criteria digs deeper...
After all we don't want to compare pigs to cows.

Selective breeding and variability in dogs has some very real challenges.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> actually, the “mixed breed healthier than pure-bred” theory has been debunked countless times. It’s basically a hearsay thing and has never been proven. Most times its just because people love to tell stories about how “the mutt they got from the shelter lived to be 27 and yet the pure bred dog they got from a breeder died at 7 from cancer.” well…awesome, a sample size of a whole two dogs. It’s a joke. The theory grows because a lot of people have these types of stories, but they’re still not a good representation of the population.
> 
> On top of that, mixed-breed owners rarely actually health test their dogs. There is no reason to. The majority of genetic and hip testing gets done in order to understand the repercussions of breeding the dog, not to find out what the dog itself has. So there is very little data about the health of mixed breed dogs.
> 
> ...


The reason there are no studies comparing mixed breed dogs to pure breds is because YOU CAN NOT STANDARDISE A STUDY.... HOW DO YOU DEFINE A MIX BREED DOG? EACH IS DIFFERENT!
My point is more based on the fact that dogs sired by a "famous" dog ussually are much less likely to be neutered.. They are more likely to produce 'breed std puppies" and are more likely to be bread again with other dogs that come from 'famous" or reputable lines.

You can not argue about the importance of genetic variability for health.
I dont know enough about breeding the perfect GSD... But I know for a fact that what they are doing WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES ON HEALTH.
It is well documented. Not only in dogs.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> My point is more based on the fact that dogs sired by a "famous" dog ussually are much less likely to be neutered.. They are more likely to produce 'breed std puppies" and are more likely to be bread again with other dogs that come from 'famous" or reputable lines.


Please provide where you got this information. I'm not sure how you can make a statement like that. I know of plenty of dogs that come from a sire you've never heard of that are intact, and plenty of dogs from a sire that you've probably read about on the internet that are neutered.

I can basically easily dispute your claim because the majority of the time, there still ends up being only one or two producers out of a popular sire, and they don't come anywhere near the production of their sire. Therefore, it's easy to conclude that the other dogs end up being neutered at about the same rate as the population. It's extremely rare to see a line of "popular sires" I'm actually at a loss to name one. They pop up, end up siring a bunch of dogs, and then none of their progeny ever end up producing as many dogs as them for whatever reason. The "popular sires" have a way of coming out of nowhere, they just work out, and many times, it's highly dependent on who's hands they're in for training and marketing. It's amazing when you look at it and realize it many times has very little to do with the lines.

Today's "famous sire" Drago vom Patriot. People are still breeding to him rather than his progeny. He's being bred at much higher levels than any of his progeny. This basically eliminates the chance for any of his progeny to be famous sires. Unfortunately, your internet theory on breeding is easily debunked when you remember that 50% of the genetic material comes from the dam. So no matter how great a sire is, if the genetics don't match well with the dam, the progeny will never be as good or great as the sire. So people end up finding other dogs to breed to. I don't know much about breeding, but I can see what's being done around me. And even those "famous sires" aren't being used as much as you'd be led to believe by the internet.

This was probably more of an issue decades ago when breeding was much more strictly regulated (especially for GSD) and puppies would be culled and they weren't really being produced for "pet market." Now days, a breeder is lucky if they can place 2 of their puppies into serious working homes (sport/real) and the rest generally go to the pet population. The dogs that go to the pet population, will never end up being popular sires, so it's not a worry.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> The reason there are no studies comparing mixed breed dogs to pure breds is because YOU CAN NOT STANDARDISE A STUDY.... HOW DO YOU DEFINE A MIX BREED DOG? EACH IS DIFFERENT!


And yet the fact that there can't be a legitimate or even close to legitimate study done on this, you still feel like it's acceptable to make the statements you did about mixed breeds being healthier than purebreds? That's kind of interesting.


----------



## k9kaiser (Feb 27, 2015)

We have decided to forego neutering Kaiser for at least 2.5-3yrs min.. if Ever.. Unless he needs to lose his goods for a medical reason between now and then.. 

I received a few very good PM's on this topic from GSD owner/members whom are also Vet techs and Vet's.. They brought up some very good reasons to have him snipped but done so much later in life.. like 5yrs. old or so.. their reasoning was a high level of anal issues they see with senior GSD's whom are not snipped, issues that they do not see in neutered GSD's.. namely stretching of the anal tissue that causes both cosmetic and fecal incontinence issues..

So.. We are on a what and see program on the issue for the foreseeable future with Kaiser and his goods.. 

Many thanks for all of the feedback on the topic.. It does look like there are a few topics within the topic that have grown legs with those participating.. Continue on as it looks like this is a quite relative and debated topic in the community. 

Cheers..

Kaiser's Human.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Please provide where you got this information. I'm not sure how you can make a statement like that. I know of plenty of dogs that come from a sire you've never heard of that are intact, and plenty of dogs from a sire that you've probably read about on the internet that are neutered.
> 
> I can basically easily dispute your claim because the majority of the time, there still ends up being only one or two producers out of a popular sire, and they don't come anywhere near the production of their sire. Therefore, it's easy to conclude that the other dogs end up being neutered at about the same rate as the population. It's extremely rare to see a line of "popular sires" I'm actually at a loss to name one. They pop up, end up siring a bunch of dogs, and then none of their progeny ever end up producing as many dogs as them for whatever reason. The "popular sires" have a way of coming out of nowhere, they just work out, and many times, it's highly dependent on who's hands they're in for training and marketing. It's amazing when you look at it and realize it many times has very little to do with the lines.
> 
> ...


You are actually such a blatant newb on these things that its ridiculous you actually think you are educated at all on these matters.

I am disgusted by how much you think you know compared to the strength of your opinion. You wont even let me bring up some very BASIC concepts.. Because you are simply in denial.

Genetic Variability has more to do with progeny than just similar father....
Sometimes its generations down the line..

The best dogs are always bred over and over again... 
This creates a small breeding pool.

Some countries have small populations of GSD's for example.
Other countries have more...
Please tell me how many GSD's there are in America! A giant geographical position, where the breed is very popular...

Then tell me how many dogs are of breeding quality...
Sure a great breeder might get the balance right... 
But first time owners like yourself, might buy a 'famous' expensive puppy... Tittle it... then find another famous dog to breed it with... Neither of these dogs would be neutered... The puppies will likely not be bred right.

I can tell you FOR A FACT... 
That the USA funds a Neurological Institute in Cyprus just for research purposes...
They even provide finding to treat patients....

Why? 
Because there is a high prevalence of Neurological conditions in Cyprus due to a significantly LOWER Genetic Variability amongst the population. The USA wanted to study these phenomena... We are talking of a whole country of people... Who still feel effects of this.

Now I wonder how big you think the Genetic Variation is IN PURE BRED DOGS THAT ARE INBRED ON PURPOSE TO AN EXTENT TO REPRODUCE TEMPERMENTS....

The best dogs are bred over and over... And the genetic variability is OFTEN reduced. You will be hard pressed sometimes to find two dogs that do not share some sort of genetic progeny. In fact in pure-bred dogs, some of this is actually desired.

You don't get it.. because you have an opinion of a layman...
I am not going to baby you through a basic education when you are not willing to listen...

You base everything on dogs on your tiny limited experience of one dog and your little involvement in a Showline GSD IPO club.. You just regurgitate what they tell you.. 
Obviously a breeder will try downplay health concerns of their 'pure-bred' top of the line dogs... 

People need to get their head screwed back on their shoulders and stop getting lost of half truths presented by the dog world...

We are getting into a whole different debate now... Because you wont let me make what is an OBVIOUS POINT...

There is no argument here.
The population pools of the top GSD's lines are amazingly small... And these dogs are less likely to be neutered.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Showline IPO club? The two showlines in my club? Hmmm...you know so much about me its pretty amazing. Maybe at some point you'll realize how many more German Shepherds I've seen, how many more breeders I've met, and how many more people I've actually had REAL conversations with about the subject than you have. But until you figure that out and get over the fact that I guess you won't be able to have an educated conversation about this without resorting to name calling. You're the one constantly quoting studies and people that you've never met, yet for me to "regurgitate" what I actually hear from people that are involved in the breed is somehow a crime?

I'm not sure what the Neurological institute in Cyprus has to do with GSD. You tend to make these comparisons constantly and then tell other people their comparisons aren't valid. Like the time you ripped into people for comparing raising children to raising dogs. Yet now you're comparing a US funded institute in Cyprus to breeding German Shepherds? I'm lost.

The simple concept you're not getting is that there are tons of GSDs being bred in the United States. Even the "famous sires" aren't getting bred as often as you think they are. One of these "famous sires" lives less than an hour from me, and I've only met 3 of his progeny. Isn't that amazing, that he's bred probably 10 times a year or more and yet, no progeny doing anything of worth in the area except about 3. Take a look at this forum, how many people have a puppy out of Drago, Eros, or any of the other "famous sires" that you'll probably try to name? You don't want to see what's staring you in the face...that your internet theories aren't true in practice. But you just want to sit on your little island and tell yourself they do.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Showline IPO club? The two showlines in my club? Hmmm...you know so much about me its pretty amazing. Maybe at some point you'll realize how many more German Shepherds I've seen, how many more breeders I've met, and how many more people I've actually had REAL conversations with about the subject than you have. But until you figure that out and get over the fact that I guess you won't be able to have an educated conversation about this without resorting to name calling. You're the one constantly quoting studies and people that you've never met, yet for me to "regurgitate" what I actually hear from people that are involved in the breed is somehow a crime?
> 
> I'm not sure what the Neurological institute in Cyprus has to do with GSD. You tend to make these comparisons constantly and then tell other people their comparisons aren't valid. Like the time you ripped into people for comparing raising children to raising dogs. Yet now you're comparing a US funded institute in Cyprus to breeding German Shepherds? I'm lost.
> 
> The simple concept you're not getting is that there are tons of GSDs being bred in the United States. Even the "famous sires" aren't getting bred as often as you think they are. One of these "famous sires" lives less than an hour from me, and I've only met 3 of his progeny. Isn't that amazing, that he's bred probably 10 times a year or more and yet, no progeny doing anything of worth in the area except about 3. Take a look at this forum, how many people have a puppy out of Drago, Eros, or any of the other "famous sires" that you'll probably try to name? You don't want to see what's staring you in the face...that your internet theories aren't true in practice. But you just want to sit on your little island and tell yourself they do.


If you only could admit that genetic variability plays an important role in considering those studies we would move back on topic...

We are on a complete tangent now.
No point carrying on... We are losing sight of the topic, because you can never think outside the box.

Human Medical science has done experiments on animals systematically over the years to study treatments for humans. 
Why the dog world almost always refuses to learn from the human medical or other biological field, is beyond me.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I've already said that genetic variability plays a huge role in debunking those studies. Those studies aren't statistically reasonable BECAUSE of genetic variability. The dogs that are studied, are way too different genetically in order to make any assumption that SPUERING is the reason they're coming down with diseases or having orthopedic issues.

Now...admit that I've probably seen more GSD in my life than currently live on your little island please.


----------



## dhaney81 (Nov 5, 2014)

Lykos, you need to go get laid or go hit the weight room or something. All you ever do on here is argue.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

dhaney81 said:


> Lykos, you need to go get laid or go hit the weight room or something. All you ever do on here is argue.


With the same know it all.

martemchik - The GSD Working dog pro: What do these titles mean:
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/general-information/148335-what-do-all-these-titles-mean.html


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lol, a thread from 4 years ago. Thanks bud. Have you ever even been to a schutzhund training session? I won't bother asking about a trial, we'll start low with you.

Not all of us are born with the amazing googling ability you have. Many of us still find things out the old fashioned way.

Do you happen to know when Leerburg started breeding dogs? I hear he created some "pillars of the breed" at the age of 10.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Lol, a thread from 4 years ago. Thanks bud. Have you ever even been to a schutzhund training session? I won't bother asking about a trial, we'll start low with you.


So 4 years ago... you knew nothing about dogs or GSD's... Never owned a dog... Got your first dog..
And in those 4 years you became the authority on working dogs/pets/dog sports/dog health
Nice to know 

...But you work in Finance..


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I didn't realize there is an age requirement to gaining knowledge. It's amazing, at 18 years old I knew nothing about accounting, 3 years later, I knew more about accounting and taxes than 99% of people that have been doing their taxes for decades. It's amazing how that happens...and yet somehow no one seems to mind that this happens every day in professions all around the world.

I've been driving a car for 10 years now, yet a person that learns to be a mechanic knows more about the inter workings of my vehicle in just a few months.


----------

