# neutering max next week!!



## pshah0002 (Mar 18, 2011)

hey guys max will be 7 months old in a week. i was told by my vet to get him neutered ASAP. will he be OK at this age? i really dont have any problem with max other than being really hyper and excited about every little things. i heard that he will gain lots of weight after neutered, is that true? give me all suggestion about this situation as much as possible.


----------



## zyppi (Jun 2, 2006)

why does your vet want him neutered right now?

If you're in control and he's not apt to impregnate some random female, I would wait until he's at least a year old.

Jack is intact and never caused a single problem. My vet sees no reason to neuter him at all.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

He will not gain lots of weight. If you and your vet have decided that now is the best time I see no problem with it. He'll be fine with the surgery recovery and everything.


----------



## pshah0002 (Mar 18, 2011)

zyppi said:


> why does your vet want him neutered right now?


i was told that waiting long for neutered means taking risks for prostate cancer.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I would ask your vet which study shows that to be true.

I was told recently by a vet at the doggie ER that recent research shows higher rates of prostate cancer in neutered than intact dogs. It is true that an intact dog is more likely to get benign enlargement of the prostate gland, but not necessarily cancer. 

There are many posts discussing pros and cons of early neutering or even neutering at all.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i've never neutered my dogs and i've never had any problems with them
because they weren't neutered.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Grim had an enlarged prostate gland at 8.5 and was neutered then as it was interfering with bowel movements.....I have no plans to neuter Beau and, as a matter of fact, his breeder said her hip warranty was void if he was neutered before the age of 2 anyway. 

I have not been responsible for any oops litters and the dogs are capable of working supervised around females in heat if they are properly trained. No temperament problems either. People say you have to be more responsible about containment but, honestly, if I have an 80lb dog capable of inflincting serious injury on anyone, regardless of how nice that dog is, containment is extremely important to me when the dog is not under my direct supervision.


----------



## vicky2200 (Oct 29, 2010)

I don't think you will necessarily due harm by neutering him at this age but I also think it would be okay to wait another 5-7 months if you have him under control. Regardless of what the studies say about prostate cancer, it is a FACT that a dog is more likely to get testicular cancer if he is left intact.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

That (hyperness) sounds like normal behavior for a 7mo old and not a reason to have him neutered. I would wait until the dog has fully grown (2yrs) until you neuter. It's a lot easier to hold-off with a male than with a female.

If you lop off his testicles the chance of him getting testicular cancer is zero. Same as in human males, but I don't see many humans rushing out to get lopped. The risks are relatively small.

It is also a FACT that an animal undergoing a medical operation has a chance of serious complications, or even death.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Had two male brothers same litter. Neutered one young and waited on the other one. There is no nice way to put this but the neutered one has been, since the neuter, and will always be a wuss. That being said I like wusses.  It depends on what you want in a dog.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

I disagree with neutering before two years of age unless there is a medical concern that would benefit the dog from being neutered before he has a chance to grow up. There are some cancers that go up in risk if you neuter too young as well.

It's your dog, your money and your decision. I would wait at least another year.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Wild Wolf said:


> I disagree with neutering before two years of age unless there is a medical concern that would benefit the dog from being neutered before he has a chance to grow up. There are some cancers that go up in risk if you neuter too young as well.
> 
> It's your dog, your money and your decision. I would wait at least another year.


^ I agree with Wild and the post before.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

pshah0002 said:


> hey guys max will be 7 months old in a week. i was told by my vet to get him neutered ASAP. will he be OK at this age? i really dont have any problem with max other than being really hyper and excited about every little things. i heard that he will gain lots of weight after neutered, is that true? give me all suggestion about this situation as much as possible.


My female is 7.5 months and already spayed. She healed nice and quick, she hasn't gained a ton of weight. I personally favor spay/neuter and prefer to have it done by the age of 6 months. All dogs I've had have lived long healthy lives with no problems. I would prefer not to take chances with cancer(its a fact that spay/neuter reduces the risk), because most of the time that doesn't end well and I wouldn't want to always wonder if I could have prevented it if I fixed them. This is a good example of stacking the deck in the dogs favor. Its a personal choice, you'll have to do what you feel is best. Good Luck.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Emoore said:


> He will not gain lots of weight. If you and your vet have decided that now is the best time I see no problem with it. He'll be fine with the surgery recovery and everything.


Exactly. Listen to your vet.
It's a myth that neuter/spay causes weight gain. What causes weight gain is feeding more calories (intake) than they are burning/expending. 
Every one of our dogs (except our Shepherd pup) is altered and none are overweight - on the scale from 1-5 (5 being fat, 1 being emaciated) they always get a 3 



> has been, since the neuter, and will always be a wuss.


None of our dogs are "wusses" and all are neutered. If you met my Dachshund, well, any of them, actually, you'd certainly never think "wuss".
There's individual traits and your dog would have been "wussy" either way, I am sure.


----------



## jetscarbie (Feb 29, 2008)

To snip or not to snip? There are many, many opinions on that one.

There is NO right or wrong answer. Some people don't, some people wait until dog is older, and some do it ASAP.

I will tell you one thing that I found when neutering mine......it is cheaper when you do it when they are younger.(or atleast at my vet's office) That may be something you want to talk to your vet about.


----------



## GizmoGSD (Jul 18, 2011)

cheaper maybe , but not much... i dont see the point of neutering a dog under at least 1 year. i did dexter at 13 and Enzo atm is 9 month and i didnt see any behavior or anything...

these balls need to stay here until he's fully grown imo ! im wondering how a Man would end to be if we remove his balls at 16 years old ...

anyway that the way I see things .. my oppinion.

when i chosed my GSD to be a male , its because i wanted to have a big muscle looking gsd.. so i would not risk his growing spur by neutering him .


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

GizmoGSD said:


> when i chosed my GSD to be a male , its because i wanted to have a big muscle looking gsd.. so i would not risk his growing spur by neutering him .



Really? I've had a ton of male dogs that still looked big and muscular after being fixed and this has to be one of the poorest reasons not to fix a dog....lets worry about looks over health issues?


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

I love how everyone here assumes OP is fully committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent a litter. Did it occur to anyone that might be why the vet is pushing the neuter?


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

GizmoGSD said:


> when i chosed my GSD to be a male , its because i wanted to have a big muscle looking gsd.. so i would not risk his growing spur by neutering him .


 I had to neuter my male at 5 yrs for health reasons. He was a big muscular athletic male. It did not take long for that to change and he quickly lost his muscle mass even though activity levels stayed the same. Also, food portions had to be severely restricted as his metabolism plummeted.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> Had two male brothers same litter. Neutered one young and waited on the other one. There is no nice way to put this but the neutered one has been, since the neuter, and will always be a wuss. That being said I like wusses.  It depends on what you want in a dog.


What made you choose that particular pup to neuter first?


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Emoore said:


> I love how everyone here assumes OP is fully committed to doing whatever it takes to prevent a litter. Did it occur to anyone that might be why the vet is pushing the neuter?


I think that most vets push neuter/spay and push it early to prevent pet over population...in my mind that is a given.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

llombardo said:


> I think that most vets push neuter/spay and push it early to prevent pet over population...in my mind that is a given.


I agree. I also think that for the majority of owners it's a good idea. Waiting until two or whatever is fine and noble (I'm doing it) but only if the owner is 100% committed to, and comfortable that they can, prevent any litters. If the dog lives out in a fenced-in yard, if the dog is ever left outside unattended, if the dog is out in an invisible fence-- SNIP!


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Emoore said:


> I agree. I also think that for the majority of owners it's a good idea. Waiting until two or whatever is fine and noble (I'm doing it) but only if the owner is 100% committed to, and comfortable that they can, prevent any litters. If the dog lives out in a fenced-in yard, if the dog is ever left outside unattended, if the dog is out in an invisible fence-- SNIP!


In reality I'm just happy when someone gets their pet spayed or neutered, whether its a 6 months or 2 years. I've always done it early based on the healing process...I've had one dog(she started out as my sisters) that was about 2 when she was fixed. She had so much pain and the healing process took a lot longer, I felt so bad for her. After going through that I decided that I would just get them done earlier and it has proved to be less painful for them.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

There's plenty of muscular neutered boys. The pit bull Wallace is an excellent example. Exercise and genetics play a larger role than neuter! 
Our most muscular dachshund was neutered prepubescently.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

shepherdmom said:


> Had two male brothers same litter. Neutered one young and waited on the other one. There is no nice way to put this but the neutered one has been, since the neuter, and will always be a wuss. That being said I like wusses.  It depends on what you want in a dog.


Interesting! Can you elaborate?


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

My gsd Basu was neutered at 6 months and he was very muscular and had what people consider a typically masculine gsd build. He was well proportioned, not overly tall and not overweight at all. 

I'm not crazy about super early speuters (before 6 months) but most of my dogs have been speutered around 6 months and they have developed just fine. Rafi was neutered when he was a little over a year. I think it's ok to wait only if you are committed to being hyper-vigilant about keeping your dog contained and away from females in heat.

Also, Rafi is a confident dog and the confidence comes from his natural temperament and training and socialization, as well as his place in the canine pack. It has nothing to do with when he was neutered (in fact, he gained a ton of confidence when he reached maturity at around 3 years old).


----------



## ~Saphira~ (Apr 25, 2012)

Is it alright if I can ask a question of my own? 
Is it okay to spay a female at that age, or would you wait on that, too?


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

It is perfectly fine to spay at 6mos. as well. My 10yr. old girl (non GSD - she's a Sheltie mix) was spayed at 5-6mos. and is doing fine still w/no breast tumors or other health issues.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

~Saphira~ said:


> Is it alright if I can ask a question of my own?
> Is it okay to spay a female at that age, or would you wait on that, too?


I would wait on a female too, at least until their bones have fully developed.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

~Saphira~ said:


> Is it alright if I can ask a question of my own?
> Is it okay to spay a female at that age, or would you wait on that, too?



All my males and females have been spayed/neutered around 6 months of age...I never let them go into there first heat


----------



## LindaDwyer (Apr 9, 2012)

I do not spay or neuter before 18 months. To much evidence suggests many joint and knee problems if done early. The legs continue to grow and it stretches the ligaments especially in the knees. 90% of dogs that that that crucia tear in the knee were done before a year old.

Everyone has their own opinion of this subject but this is just my opinion


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Oft cited paper. At least this lays out an opinion as well as journal references.

You need to make your own decisions on that one.


http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

That paper is too biased to make a good decision.

People advise leaving dogs intact without taking into consideration that perhaps this isn't an ideal situation to do so. It depends on the owner more than the dog, really. All the recommendations to leave the animal intact past sexual maturity should come with the caveat "if you can keep the animal from reproducing". That is, for a female, when in heat, it never can be let outside by itself. Even in a fenced yard, outings must be supervised. No dog parks while in heat, etc. etc. If you don't even have a fenced yard, and you have to use a tie out to potty your dog, then by all means, do s/n before puberty. 

BTW, this is the rebuttal to the Early neuter/canine athlete paper.
http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Just for clarificication i did not post dr zinks paper but a paper that lays out pros and cons....it is trie that dr zink who is known for her canine sports physiology is not an advocate of early altering......all i suggest is that people go i.to it with the argumemts laid put and make their own decision.


----------



## LindaDwyer (Apr 9, 2012)

responsible people don't have unwanted litters. I know accidents happen but generally its the people that just let their dogs wander and breed at will. That is why so many animals are put down because they have no homes. Personally I think it should be a law that unless you are a licensed breeder you should be fined for breeding. That would eliminate a lot of the problems. If you notice its the people that are looking for free dogs or cheap dogs that don't really care. A good breeder will put a value on their pups, if you don't value them no one else will either. I have never had any unwanted litters, I wait until they are 18 months and have two heat cycles then I know they are fully mature then they are spayed. Sure its an inconvience but in the long run I feel its best for the dog. As long as its done before they are two the risk of cancer is minimal. I am a buyer, not a breeder. I have never bred and never will. Leave it to the professionals. People that breed anything with a pulse just to get money for the pups are the reason there are so many health problems with not just shepherds but all popular breeds


----------



## guddu (Mar 14, 2012)

Neutering at 6 months is a crime...perpetuated by vets out to get their $$. the only reason to neuter is if you leave your dog loose, or think there might be an unwanted preg. The fear of the risk of cancer etc is bogus. Yes if you take out the testis, there cannot be testicular cancer, but it does not prevent risk of other cancers. It helps to apply the situation to human males, who live with the risk of testicular cancer everyday.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> That paper is too biased to make a good decision.
> 
> BTW, this is the rebuttal to the Early neuter/canine athlete paper.
> http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedRebuttal .pdf



That's the thing. One expert says this another expert says that, just like a court trial, two "expert witnesses" can have completely conflicting opinions. Aren't we still arguing over whether smoking causes cancer?

My vet (and several GSD breeders/trainers I've asked) all recommended waiting until full maturity before considering spay/neuter.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

guddu said:


> Neutering at 6 months is a crime...perpetuated by vets out to get their $$.


A little dramatic, don't you think?
It's _not_ a crime, it is a perfectly safe practice.
Just as people have opinions it's "better to wait", there are opinions that it's fine to do s/n early, in many cases, the earlier the better.
It is a _proven fact _that s/n is easier on a pup who has not reached puberty.
Recovery time is mere days, instead of up to 2-3 weeks as in an adult dog.

Veterinarians aren't out to rob people by early s/n  That is a falsehood, for a number of reasons, including 1) pups weigh less, the younger they are, and since anesthesia is gauged by weight, vets usually charge more, the larger the pet; 2) s/n is one of the cheapest surgeries in most vet's practices. 

For instance, for a s/n, we pay anywhere from $70-100 any of the clinics we use.
For that same size dog to have a dental cleaning (even a non-complicated, no extractions one) is well over $100, usually closer to $150-200 base fee, and add a few extractions and we've spent well over $200-300 for some dental cleanings.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

guddu said:


> Neutering at 6 months is a crime...perpetuated by vets out to get their $$. the only reason to neuter is if you leave your dog loose, or think there might be an unwanted preg. The fear of the risk of cancer etc is bogus. Yes if you take out the testis, there cannot be testicular cancer, but it does not prevent risk of other cancers. It helps to apply the situation to human males, who live with the risk of testicular cancer everyday.



Are you a vet, a doctor, or just one of those people that believe your dog will be less of a dog if it doesn't have all of its parts? Sadly in this world there are more morons out there that you aren't aware of and if you don't believe that go to any animal shelter and see all the dogs getting put to sleep or living in cages because someone thought they wanted their dog to keep his balls There are many people here that can testify that the fear of a female/male getting cancer are bogus is a very real fear and unless you have worked at a vet and seen a female come in with an infection in the uterus, etc then you really can't say what is bogus and what isn't. If you are going to argue the point at least have a valid argument


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I agree with guddu, neutering before 6 months is a crime. And vets are out to get money.

A friend of mine -- yupp heresay, went to a seminar that was given for vet students and veterinarians. She and her friend somehow got invited, though they were not vets. Anyhow, this was years ago. And one of the things she told me was that they were letting the vet students know that a lot of the time, the last you will see of a dog is his neuter. People lose their enthusiasm for the new puppy within a few months of having him, so there is a thrust to get all those shots in and the neuter done BEFORE the romance/new puppy thing has gone away. So you shoot the poor pup up with a slew of vaccinations, and set up a second set of vaccinations, and a third set and a speuter. Then you have gotten the most out of this little bundle of dog flesh. Move on. 

It is unfortunate, but we women may want to give up certain of our unused parts that often cause us pain and issues, but doctors are reluctant to do so. Why? Because they find that women tend to age quicker and die quicker after a full hysterectomy. So they will freeze it, or they will cut and tie, or they will take the womb and leave an ovary, but they really do not like to do the whole works. 

So, no, I do not spay bitches early or ever. The two animals I did spay/neuter I was sorry that I did. If I have a problem, pyometra, I will spay the bitch. But I think those hormones that are created are for more than just reproduction.

I think that there are vets out there that care about pet over-population. But I think just as many if not more are way more concerned about paying their staff and overhead.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

msvette2u said:


> A little dramatic, don't you think?
> It's _not_ a crime, it is a perfectly safe practice.
> Just as people have opinions it's "better to wait", there are opinions that it's fine to do s/n early, in many cases, the earlier the better.
> It is a _proven fact _that s/n is easier on a pup who has not reached puberty.
> ...


Totally agree

I've always done mine at 6 months, and have never had issues. But I'm not against people leaving their dogs until as long as they're responsible owners

I'm considering waiting until a year for Delgado but I haven't made my mind up yet, my vet told him he's fine either way


----------



## spiritsmom (Mar 1, 2003)

In dogs testosterone peaks at 10 months of age and drops off dramatically at 18 months of age (just found this out today from Dr. Dunbar) so neutering at 18 months is not a bad idea - testosterone levels are already dropping and are much lower than when he was younger. Neutering will make him smell like a bitch to other males so they are less likely to harass him - neutered males tend to harass intact males (not vice versa) and that's because they smell different. Also just found that out from Dr. Dunbar. He did studies to prove all that. If I had a male (I don't) I would wait to neuter. But then I know how to manage intact animals and not every pet owner is capable of that.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

selzer said:


> I agree with guddu, neutering before 6 months is a crime. And vets are out to get money.




Neutering before 6 months is generally/normally cheaper by quite a bit compared to fixing a full grown dog at 18 months..either way the vets are going to make money(some more then others) doing this procedure, so if they were smart and greedy then all of them would say to wait until the dog is 18 months. It doesn't matter to me how old a dog is when they get spayed/neutered and I think I know maybe and that is a big maybe 2 people out of everyone that I know that has never spayed/neutered their dog. In my circle its not a matter of if, its a matter of when. And where I live we can get a dog spayed/neutered at any age for $65.00, so it really isn't an expensive decision and vets are not making lots of money off of this procedure here.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> I agree with guddu, neutering before 6 months is a crime. And vets are out to get money.





> I think that there are vets out there that care about pet over-population. But I think just as many if not more are way more concerned about paying their staff and overhead.


These statements are inflammatory and nonsense, IMO.

If vets worried so much about their "overhead" (they are in business, I'm sure they _do_ like to eat weekly!) they'd leave pets intact so they are guaranteed more income!
In fact, in our area, vets like to charge over $200 for s/n services, and I'm not sure why, other than they may be afraid they'll s/n themselves out of a job. 
To me, that makes more sense than the argument they want to just alter pets to "earn money". 

And if spaying/neutering before 6mos. was a "crime", there'd be many veterinarians in jail.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

msvette2u said:


> A little dramatic, don't you think?
> *It's not a crime, it is a perfectly safe practice.*
> Just as people have opinions it's "better to wait", there are opinions that it's fine to do s/n early, in many cases, the earlier the better.
> It is a _proven fact _that s/n is easier on a pup who has not reached puberty.
> Recovery time is mere days, instead of up to 2-3 weeks as in an adult dog.


Abby was spayed at 6 months. $350
She got a staph infection and peritonitis. Had to be opened up and cleaned out $2500.
Granted, the odds were very low of that occurring.
You be the judge.
I know, the age had nothing to do with it.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

That is unrelated to the age at which she was altered, and yes, any surgery can lead to complications. 
A pyo (more common in girls as they get older from what I understand) can do the same thing, however.



> You be the judge.


We rescue and spay/neuter roughly 150 dogs per year. In that time, one (female 10week) puppy did develop a secondary infection, and one puppy (20lb. 4-5mos. female) died on the table. One kitten (10-12 weeks) also passed away shortly after her surgery to spay.

That's in almost 5yrs. of rescue, over 600 dogs. Out of those, 2 dog deaths (and one kitty) isn't bad odds. During the past 5yrs., we spay/neuter everything from 8 week puppies to 5+ yr. old dogs. Those that come in over 5yrs. are usually either already altered or need a dental so both procedures are done at once.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It is cheaper if the people are going to do it at all. Some are much happier with the $75 in the hand, than the possible $200 in the bush. 

When people first get a puppy, it is new, and they are excited, and they expect to put out some money on the pup. So they follow everything the vet says, they buy the over-priced crappy food the vet sells, they sign up for the puppy training or day care, they go to the well-puppy visits and they pay for the neuter. 

Most people do spay bitches, because keeping them intact is a nuisance. But dogs, if they don't neuter them by 12 months, chances are good they will not neuter them. Cha-ching! The vet just lost out on a neuter. 

And it is really a toss up whether a dog has more medical expenses if neutered early than not. Cujo has had way more than Babsy or Jenna his litter sisters. But he is just one case. 

I guess, I am more in the mindset, if it isn't broken, why fix it? You can introduce very real problems by trying to prevent possible problems. And then how to do you feel? Well, you do not feel any way at all, because no one is going to tell you that that early neuter might have contributed to your dog's cancer, or seizures, or joint problems. Mammals are very intricate beings with a lot of systems working and we don't know it all, what each gland effects, how much each gland effects what functions. Dogs are not as healthy today, and their over all longevity is less than it was 15 or 20 years ago, and we have better food, vaccines, pest control, and much higher rates of spay/neuter. Maybe it is all not so good after all.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Dogs are not as healthy today, and their over all longevity is less than it was 15 or 20 years ago, and we have better food, vaccines, pest control, and much higher rates of spay/neuter. Maybe it is all not so good after all


My thoughts on that are that overbreeding has caused way more health issues than s/n ever would or could. In fact if less dogs were out there intact, we'd have healthier dogs, if breeding were more tightly controlled than it is now.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

I agree with Selzer. There IS a lot of money to be made in the spay/neuter market. Outside of forums like this for example, "everyone" says, you must speuter -- and soon. People throw many fear tactics at you -- the bitch will get breast cancer! The boy will be aggressive and mark all over your house! ... so what does the typical person do? Speuter. 

For the majority of owners, it is likely the best decision, because *how many times* have we read the posts about accidental litters.. heck, my own son had one and I have *two* of the results of that in the living room *right now*!!

These threads always become interesting. I once started one myself when I was considering neutering my boy, then around 16 weeks.


Well, I changed my mind based on the thread -- actually, more so, by the way some people presented their side of things and encouraged me to learn more. So I did my own research and decided to wait.


No one who said oh YOU MUST do "this" or do "that" got any credibility with me. I do not appreciate or like the "my way is the only way" posts.

*So many things* must be taken into account. Your dog. Your lifestyle. Containment. Many things. 


I've also waited to see the "effects" of an intact male. He marked in the house exactly *once.* He marks all over at the dog park, though we don't go anymore. He licks the urine of my female (spayed) girls. (He's one year old in a couple days.) Not a big deal. He's in a fenced yard, never allowed to roam and I can absolutely assure he will never impregnate.


He's an "intense" sort of dog, and it is hard to say if he'd lose that if neutered. I don't want that, as it is a big positive in obedience classes. 

Then I took in his littermate a couple months ago and decided to neuter the new guy, so he was neutered around 10 months of age. My original intention was to have him adopted out, and believed neutering would be a positive, as well as that it would be best to not have two intact males in the house.


I can't make a fair comparison of the intact vs non-intact male littermates, as they had entirely different raisings and are in so many ways, entirely different dogs. 


I can say that Bailey remains the focused and intensive type of dog, and Tucker is even more so the human-focused, less driven dog. Bailey is more bossy, more controlling, but that may only have to do with the fact another dog came into his house, and not the fact he's intact. (although I can't say I believe that.)


Time will tell. I intend to neuter Bailey at some point. Not sure when. There are no ill effects at this point that he is intact, so he will remain that way until 18 mos to 2 years. I do honestly feel that is best for his overall health.

I'll also throw in that other than a skirmish or two a couple weeks back, the two littermates are really good buddies, however, just *today*, for the first time ever, the neutered male attempted to hump the intact male and I shut that down ASAP. The intact male once tried to hump a dog or two at the dog park long ago, but got shut down hard and has never humped a single thing since. I found it interested the neutered guy tried it. Hopefully that was a one-time event, but I'll certainly be watching. (The intact guy didn't even notice -- it was stopped very fast.)

OP, my best advice is read, research, read, research and read more. There is NOT a cut and dried "best" answer.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

There are good, responsible owners who it wouldn't matter, but we can't assume _everyone_ is a responsible owner. If everyone was, shelters wouldn't be overflowing with dogs 
If your dog is prone to escaping, _at all_, then neuter it.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I have worked at a couple different vets and they didn't push spay/neuter. They gave the pros and the cons and the pros outweigh the cons hands down. I guess this would be understood easier if everyone had the opportunity to work at a vet, a shelter, or do any kind of rescues. Some of the things that you see that could have been prevented is pretty sad. I personally have not been present when a dog/cat died on the table during a neuter/spay, but I know it happens and it happens very rarely. All my dogs are fixed and were fixed well before they were a year old, I can tell you they aren't over weight, they are focused on me, they still have their drive, they don't mark anywhere, they don't lick urine, etc...I can go on and on. I'm not saying that anyone has to do anything, BUT I am saying that in 40 years I can guarantee fixing a pet has proven to be better for the pet in the long run in about 95% of the cases. I can read all the arguments one way or another, but I base my opinion strictly on EXPERIENCE and first hand knowledge. I do think that vets can and do charge quite a bit for any procedure....shots can be purchased online for $3.00 but if you go to the vet its $30.00--do we not get the dogs their shots? There are places all over the place that offer low cost spay/neuter and I really don't condone someone that is gun hoe on rescuing or saving a dog then not having them spayed/neutered, it defeats the purpose and accidents happen....just look at and go visit any shelter At least if someone gets a dog from a shelter they already are fixed and those vets don't make alot of money..they are truly in it because they care and love animals and their jobs.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> At least if someone gets a dog from a shelter they already are fixed and those vets don't make alot of money..they are truly in it because they care and love animals and their jobs.


This is true. The vets we work with get sick and tired of doing c-sections on Chis because they have a puppy stuck, sick of treating parvo puppies because the owner wouldn't alter (and can't afford or doesn't know about vaccines), sick of having to pick up dogs alongside roads, having puppies brought to them in boxes, etc. the list goes on; and they offer reduced costs for s/n, they are not "raking it in". 

Perhaps in other areas they do that - in more wealthy neighborhoods or whatever - but I know many vets who give up their weekends to do low cost/free s/n for low income families. They don't even make $$ on those, they do it to help people out and help _pets_ out. Here, anyway, it's the _pets_ that suffer because people fail to alter them. We just stand by and try to help the ones we can.

As LL said, vaccines are the "soda pop" of vet services, we get our vax at $3-4.00 and vets do charge up the ying yang for those.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> As LL said, vaccines are the "soda pop" of vet services, we get our vax at $3-4.00 and vets do charge up the ying yang for those.



Don't forget about the $50.00 vet visit when they need there shots


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Perhaps in other areas they do that - in more wealthy neighborhoods or whatever -


My friend was quoted $900 for a spay of her 1 yr old wolf hybrid, and that was with a $400 discount, from her regular vet. Needless to say she changed her vet and got her dog spayed for about $300 at another clinic.

She showed me the breakdown of the quote, the list of chargeable items was as long as your arm.

So there are definitely vets out there milking the system.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

pfitzpa1 said:


> My friend was quoted $900 for a spay of her 1 yr old wolf hybrid, and that was with a $400 discount, from her regular vet. Needless to say she changed her vet and got her dog spayed for about $300 at another clinic.
> 
> She showed me the breakdown of the quote, the list of chargeable items was as long as your arm.
> 
> So there are definitely vets out there milking the system.



I think the average where I live is about $350 for the surgery itself, not including blood work or any medications, but oddly enough those same vets take part in the spay/neuter program where the customer(me) only pays $65. I think its all a matter of doing research and finding what you are looking for...it is possible


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

llombardo said:


> I have worked at a couple different vets and they didn't push spay/neuter. They gave the pros and the cons and the *pros outweigh the cons hands down*. I guess this would be understood easier if everyone had the opportunity to work at a vet, a shelter, or do any kind of rescues. Some of the things that you see that could have been prevented is pretty sad. I personally have not been present when a dog/cat died on the table during a neuter/spay, but I know it happens and it happens very rarely. All my dogs are fixed and were fixed well before they were a year old, I can tell you they aren't over weight, they are focused on me, they still have their drive, they don't mark anywhere, they don't lick urine, etc...I can go on and on. I'm not saying that anyone has to do anything, BUT I am saying that in 40 years I can guarantee *fixing a pet has proven to be better for the pet in the long run in about 95% of the cases.* I can read all the arguments one way or another, but I base my opinion strictly on EXPERIENCE and first hand knowledge. I do think that vets can and do charge quite a bit for any procedure....shots can be purchased online for $3.00 but if you go to the vet its $30.00--do we not get the dogs their shots? There are places all over the place that offer low cost spay/neuter and I really don't condone someone that is gun hoe on rescuing or saving a dog then not having them spayed/neutered, it defeats the purpose and accidents happen....just look at and go visit any shelter At least if someone gets a dog from a shelter they already are fixed and those vets don't make alot of money..they are truly in it because they care and love animals and their jobs.


No offense intended, but this comes across as very altruistic and one of the "all or none" type of attitudes I encountered as I tried to make my decision.

You state you've always early speutered, so how would you honestly know the difference in your own house pets?

You claim a high number, 95%!!!, being "better off" for early speutering -- that is a BIG claim! Did you follow those owners and pets? What IS your basis for this claim? I mean, you yourself state you're basing this on your "experience," so I'd like to hear more.

Not to mix all things up here, but speutering and vaccinations are a pretty huge budget in many vets' offices. It pays them to push both. I'm not buying that all vets are "in it" due to their true and sincere love for the animals... those things make them money and keep their offices open. The more I learn, the less inclined I am to vaccinate my dogs annually, because my vet "tells me" it is due. In fact, due to issues over the past couple of years, the more inclined I am to second guess the vet. Not every issue is solved by speutering and Science Diet.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Our vets have never pushed SD or s/n on us. They do share our believes about rescued dogs and s/n however.



> You claim a high number, 95%!!!,


I don't know where that number came from...but when you consider at least 1/2 the pet owners out there should not even own a pet, maybe it makes more sense for them all to s/n their dogs rather than leave them intact. 

If everyone was as responsible as the owners _here_, it would not be an issue, but to assume everyone is, is just plain foolhardy.

In fact I was talking to some Petsmart groomers a few weeks ago and they agreed heartily that at least 1/2 the pet owners out there should not own more than a houseplant. Yet they do, they own living, breathing, _procreating_ animals. 

So maybe vets push s/n so hard because they see all kinds and they know that these people aren't to be trusted with intact animals??


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

chelle said:


> You claim a high number, 95%!!!, being "better off" for early speutering -- that is a BIG claim! Did you follow those owners and pets? What IS your basis for this claim? I mean, you yourself state you're basing this on your "experience," so I'd like to hear more.
> 
> .


I never said 95% for *early* speutering, I was referring to 95% as in dogs that were spayed/neutered in general(regardless of age). This percentage would come into play based mostly on my experience working at a vet and seeing dogs(especially females) coming in with infections because they weren't fixed, etc. And any dog that I have found homes for I have kept up with and I also made it clear to all the new owners that if at any point they could not keep the dog I would take it back. The golden retriever I had over the summer was almost a year old and not fixed, I had two people interested in him(I should have kept him-very good dog)..one refused to get him fixed, the other had no problem with it..well I'm happy to report that the person that got him fixed got the dog(no charge..free..pure bred golden) and I see him at least once week. I have brought dogs to get them fixed before I got them homes and honestly all dogs that I have placed are doing extremely well and spoiled rotten I love hearing about them and seeing pictures and every now and then I get one back to dog sit while there new owner is on vacation.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> I don't know where that number came from...but when you consider at least 1/2 the pet owners out there should not even own a pet, maybe it makes more sense for them all to s/n their dogs rather than leave them intact.
> 
> If everyone was as responsible as the owners _here_, it would not be an issue, but to assume everyone is, is just plain foolhardy.
> 
> ...


This is exactly how and why based on my experience with pets and people that I came up with that number


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

llombardo said:


> I never said 95% for *early* speutering, I was referring to 95% as in dogs that were spayed/neutered in general(regardless of age). This percentage would come into play based mostly on my experience working at a vet and seeing dogs(especially females) coming in with infections because they weren't fixed, etc. And any dog that I have found homes for I have kept up with and I also made it clear to all the new owners that if at any point they could not keep the dog I would take it back. The golden retriever I had over the summer was almost a year old and not fixed, I had two people interested in him(I should have kept him-very good dog)..one refused to get him fixed, the other had no problem with it..well I'm happy to report that the person that got him fixed got the dog(no charge..free..pure bred golden) and I see him at least once week. I have brought dogs to get them fixed before I got them homes and honestly all dogs that I have placed are doing extremely well and spoiled rotten I love hearing about them and seeing pictures and every now and then I get one back to dog sit while there new owner is on vacation.


And yes all of my own personal dogs have been fixed early on, I can compare what I've seen with my own versus all the strays that I have come into contact with and oddly enough all the strays weren't fixed I see the difference in calmness, hyper, humping(this is very annoying) aggressiveness, marking territory, etc...all the issues dogs have that people get rid of them over And yet when they get rid of them or bring them to a shelter with these issues I'll be darn if the dog isn't fixed...coincidence?? I don't think so.


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

I've spoken extensively with my ortho vet regarding speutering. His feedback was that it is best to neuter males after 18 months of age because of their hormones and how it affects their development. I can't remember verbatim, but he says it throws the chemical balance off and can cause abnormal growth and you see it in males who have grown really tall and lanky. He said the case is not the same in females but he generally recommends waiting until after their first heat which can be anywhere from 7 months to over a year old. I waited until Kaiya went through 2 heats around 18 mos and will do Achilles at age 2. He has had enough developmental problems and I don't have any issues with keeping him intact or preventing an oops litter.


----------



## Beau (Feb 12, 2012)

I think we can all agree that in any industy there are those who will find a way to "game" the system to generate more revenue. I'm certain that in the veterinary world that is true as well. It points out the need to make sure we're all doing our research, getting first-hand feedback and asking questions of anyone who is providing care for our dogs.

I'm adopting a new dog this week. Pure bred GS, 1 yr to 1 1/2 yr old. He comes with a rabies shot, Heartworm test, all vaccinations up to date and neutered. In addition, we got a new collar, and 2 bags of food for him. 

Total cost: $65.00 

Somebody in this equation is losing money.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

llombardo said:


> I can compare what I've seen with my own versus all the strays that I have come into contact with and oddly enough all the strays weren't fixed I see the difference in calmness, hyper, humping(this is very annoying) aggressiveness, marking territory, etc...)


Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're strays, could it?

Correlation does not imply causation. More than likely both are effects of a third cause, like the type of owners they have. 

Your dogs are owned by a responsible person who trains them, works with them exercises them, and also happens to neuter them. The strays you come in contact were at one time owned by irresponsible people who didn't train or work with them and also did not neuter them. 

Strays that are intact are worse-behaved than neutered dogs with responsible owners. You can't prove which are causes and which are effects.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Emoore said:


> Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're strays, could it?
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation. More than likely both are effects of a third cause, like the type of owners they have.
> 
> ...


 This is what I was thinking. Lol


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Emoore said:


> Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're strays, could it?
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation. More than likely both are effects of a third cause, like the type of owners they have.
> 
> ...



Marking territories, humping, running at large, escaping are not always because of bad/good owners, this stuff will happen if the dogs aren't fixed(especially the first 2) and I can't say that a dog not being fixed has a bad owner in some cases. But there are lots of examples of things dogs will do when they are not fixed compared to when they are fixed...these things aren't going to change because of a bad/good owner. I don't believe in a bad dog but I do believe in bad owners But I do agree with your last statement somewhat up until the part you can't prove which are causes and which are effects.


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

Odd...my moms male poodle who was neutered before he turned a year old is constantly marking, quite the humper, and always wandering off, while my intact male only pees when he has to go, has no humping issues, and would not let me out of his sight unleashed. I just don't buy the whole neutering fixes behavioral issues thing.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Lakl said:


> Odd...my moms male poodle who was neutered before he turned a year old is constantly marking, quite the humper, and always wandering off, while my intact male only pees when he has to go, has no humping issues, and would not let me out of his sight unleashed. I just don't buy the whole neutering fixes behavioral issues thing.


Oddly enough the only dog I had any issues with was a male poodle that was found in an alley(he was right around a year old too)..he didn't like other dogs and he humped anything and everything It was awful, I would walk and he would hump my leg from point A to B...it did keep him distracted enough around the other dogs though I was very surprised that I found someone to take him because of his issues, but they did We had to wait 2 weeks to get him fixed--a very long two weeks, but within a month of getting fixed he stopped humping all together and they are very happy with their dog


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Dogs need discipline, neutered or intact.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Dogs need discipline, neutered or intact.


:thumbup:


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Dogs need discipline, neutered or intact.


Quoted for truth!


----------



## jkscandi50 (Nov 17, 2010)

My vet recommended we wait til our boy was 2 - she said to us they were finding a correlation between hip issues and snipping too early.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

I'd counter with, "how many of those dogs had HD in their history/genetics already?"
I'd want to see OFA results for parents, and grandparents before concluding that HD was a byproduct of neutering before age 2.
Because, as already pointed out, correlation does not prove causation.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

jkscandi50 said:


> My vet recommended we wait til our boy was 2 - she said to us they were finding a correlation between hip issues and snipping too early.


Sounds like you have a good vet.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Lakl said:


> Odd...my moms male poodle who was neutered before he turned a year old is constantly marking, quite the humper, and always wandering off, while my intact male only pees when he has to go, has no humping issues, and would not let me out of his sight unleashed. I just don't buy the whole neutering fixes behavioral issues thing.


:thumbup: My friend's dog, Tattonka, is neutered. He has been since he was six months old. But he humps any and everything. While my other friend has an intact male who only marks their yard and has no other issues. Cheeko, Kiba and Dronimoe (my two past sheps and shep/wolf) were all left intact and they were all perfect. Doggiedad has no issues with his intact males.

I think it really all depends on the owner, dog, and training. I also think that you can't compare strays who aren't altered to dogs who have loving, responsible owners and are altered.
Strays are stray. They have no owner, and no-one to train them or teach them manners. JMO


----------



## Dakotasmom23 (Jan 11, 2012)

If you have a 7 month old who is soooo hyper that even the vet thinks you need to get better control of your dog, then yes, I'd say, neuter him sooner rather than later.


----------



## Dakotasmom23 (Jan 11, 2012)

msvette2u said:


> My thoughts on that are that overbreeding has caused way more health issues than s/n ever would or could. In fact if less dogs were out there intact, we'd have healthier dogs, if breeding were more tightly controlled than it is now.


I could not agree more.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

Dakotasmom23 said:


> I could not agree more.


Add me as to that list too. The health problems & benefits that are rolled up into S/N absolutely pale next to the genetic problems we've caused by breeding animals deliberately or negligently that have no business passing on their genes.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

I agree that we would have healthier dogs if breeding was more closely monitered, but I don't believe neutering will stop him from being hyper.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

llombardo said:


> Marking territories, humping, running at large, escaping are not always because of bad/good owners, *this stuff will happen if the dogs aren't fixe*d(especially the first 2) and I can't say that a dog not being fixed has a bad owner in some cases. But there are lots of examples of things dogs will do when they are not fixed compared to when they are fixed...these things aren't going to change because of a bad/good owner. I don't believe in a bad dog but I do believe in bad owners But I do agree with your last statement somewhat up until the part you can't prove which are causes and which are effects.


My nearly year old does mark outside. (Marked exactly one time in the house and found out how acceptable that was not going to be. The end. That was quite awhile ago.) He humped a few times at the dog park months ago, got busted and stopped. Issue did not come back. He's never humped a chair, or me, or anything at home. Absolutely *not* an issue for my intact one year old. 

He does not "run at large." When he hit about eight months, he did suddenly lose some desire for recall -- mostly due to chasing the deer that are heavy here - so back to long lead, and then I got a fence. He's never attempted to escape the yard. 

So, please do not tell me what "stuff will happen." You also cannot say it happens *only* because the animal is intact. Some things more likely? Sure, perhaps, but you cannot positively say the dog will do it *no matter what* if they're intact. And then you cannot discount the owner's role in working on unwanted behavior(s). If I had allowed him to hump, he may have become a hump monster. I did not and he did not. Now, if he had been an over the top hump monster that seriously became a constant behavior problem, I would've certainly considered neutering. As a side note, I've actually noticed in my observations at the dog park, the worst humpers were young, neutered males.

You cannot take a a dog and speuter it and then un-speuter it, and you'd have to be able to do that in order to *truly* know what behaviors change completely and only due to speutering.

Your example of comparing your trained dogs to the rescue dogs is totally apples and oranges and honestly doesn't even register as a valid point.

I also would not depend on groomers to make judgments about who should or should not own a dog. I'm sure plenty of very nice dogs do not enjoy their time at the groomer and don't present their best behavior. Similar to vet's office behavior. 

I think the all or none, my way is always the best choice attitude is dangerous and irresponsible. No matter which side of the fence you're on. I do not like using scare tactics on people. People, no matter how un dog educated they may be, should be made aware there are pros AND cons to speutering, and specificically early speutering in larger breeds. 

My vet has never pushed neutering my boy. They brought it up once and I said I was waiting. They sure have pushed the Science Diet, though.


----------



## Dakotasmom23 (Jan 11, 2012)

If you have a veterinary professional offering advice, its wise for the "average" owner to accept it. I'm not talking about those of you who are responsible dog owners with intact males who train, socialize, confine, educate, compete, and have dogs from a fabulous breeding program. You are the minority, sadly, and I wish there were more dog owners like you! The vast majority of the general public would do the world a favor by neutering their dogs ASAP. Forget the health/behavior debate, think about the overcrowded shelters and the genetically screwed up dogs.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

I understand what you're saying, but if the owner is preventing oops litters then it should not be a problem for her to wait to neuter, and the vet should respect her wishes.  However, if she cannot prevent a litter then by all means, neuter away.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

llombardo said:


> Marking territories, humping, running at large, escaping are not always because of bad/good owners, this stuff will happen if the dogs aren't fixed(especially the first 2) and I can't say that a dog not being fixed has a bad owner in some cases. But there are lots of examples of things dogs will do when they are not fixed compared to when they are fixed...these things aren't going to change because of a bad/good owner. I don't believe in a bad dog but I do believe in bad owners But I do agree with your last statement somewhat up until the part you can't prove which are causes and which are effects.


The only way you can do this is with a double-blind study. 

Your dog is neutered, has a responsible owner, and does not mark, hump, run at large or escape.

My dog is intact, has a responsible owner, and does not mark, hump, run at large, or escape.

My mother-in-law's GSD was intact until the day he died and did not mark, hump, run at large, or escape. 

Josie's Koda is intact and does not mark, hump, run at large or escape.

If being intact caused these behaviors, all intact dogs would do them and neutered dogs would not. But there are plenty of intact dogs that do not do them, and plenty of neutered dogs who do. Therefor, you can't possibly prove that being intact causes the behaviors.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Emoore said:


> The only way you can do this is with a double-blind study.
> 
> Your dog is neutered, has a responsible owner, and does not mark, hump, run at large or escape.
> 
> ...


:thumbup: Em, you are fast becoming one of my favorite knowledgeable people lol.


----------



## krystyne73 (Oct 13, 2010)

I have always been a huge advocate of s/n programs. I worked at the local humane society and now help with the local finacial support of needy families looking for funds to s/n their pets.
Over the years I have had issues with my females being spayed to early and my Great dane was very small (130lbs compared to others in his litter at 185lbs).
Recently I have acquired a new male and I am testing out the theory of keeping my male intact. 
I am going to play it by ear and see how it goes the first year.
Do I know if neutering runted my Dane? no, or that spaying my GSD at 6 mom caused her incontinence ? no. But I am a very responsible dog owner and I would like to try out another theory for a while.
No breeding or roaming, just an intact male until further notice.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Good idea  I trust you will be responsible with him. And with that attitude, I don't think any problems will arise from him.


----------



## guddu (Mar 14, 2012)

As I mentioned, there is zero rationale for neutering a puppy before it has matured (18 months) fully. By doing it early, the vets grab their $, Waiting for 18 months, leaves the chance that someone else could get the business.
Yes, there is a risk of unwanted pregnancy, and if it is so get it neutered...however those of us who live in a more controlled environment dont need to do it.
Again, the risk of cancer is bogus...best example is the many human males living dangerously...


----------



## RubyTuesday (Jan 20, 2008)

Msvette2u, when a vet advocate neutering at 7 mos your response is:
_"Exactly. Listen to your vet"_

Yet when the vet recommends delaying neutering until 2 yrs your response is:
_"I'd counter with, "how many of those dogs had HD in their history/genetics already?"_

Sooo, we should listen to our vets only if they agree with you? Not happening here. 

Djibouti is intact & 4yrs old. He will not be bred & will remain intact unless there's a compelling reason to neuter him.
My vet understands my decision & is supportive of it. I won't risk Djibouti's health b/c there's a world of irresponsible owners who fail to control & commit to their animals.

IMO, pet overpopulation is a misnomer. We don't have too many dogs. We have too many crummy owners who fail to commit. Owners that blame the dog they failed (& dumped). All too often these criminally irresponsible people get another, then another over & over & over. Each one is eventually dumped b/c it's unruly, doesn't listen, soils the house or simply becomes inconvenient due to a move, a new job, a baby. Neutering Djibouti in no way improves these jerks or makes them disappear. My focus is o him & his well being.

Each owner should carefully & responsibly determine the best decision for their pet. That decision will vary from one person to another & quite possibly from one dog to another. I believe an objective appraisal of the health info supports keeping them intact, but that's only one part, albeit an important one, in making the decision. Pack dynamics, living circumstances, access to intact animals of the opposite gender etc all need to be considered.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

RubyTuesday said:


> Djibouti is intact & 4yrs old. He will not be bred & will remain intact unless there's a compelling reason to neuter him.
> My vet understands my decision & is supportive of it. I won't risk Djibouti's health b/c there's a world of irresponsible owners who fail to control & commit to their animals.
> 
> IMO, pet overpopulation is a misnomer. We don't have too many dogs. We have too many crummy owners who fail to commit. Owners that blame the dog they failed (& dumped). All too often these criminally irresponsible people get another, then another over & over & over. Each one is eventually dumped b/c it's unruly, doesn't listen, soils the house or simply becomes inconvenient due to a move, a new job, a baby. Neutering Djibouti in no way improves these jerks or makes them disappear. My focus is o him & his well being.
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

RubyTuesday said:


> Msvette2u, when a vet advocate neutering at 7 mos your response is:
> _"Exactly. Listen to your vet"_
> 
> Yet when the vet recommends delaying neutering until 2 yrs your response is:
> ...


Best comment on the subject so far. Nicely put.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

llombardo said:


> Marking territories, humping, running at large, escaping are not always because of bad/good owners, this stuff will happen if the dogs aren't fixed(especially the first 2) and I can't say that a dog not being fixed has a bad owner in some cases. But there are lots of examples of things dogs will do when they are not fixed compared to when they are fixed...these things aren't going to change because of a bad/good owner. I don't believe in a bad dog but I do believe in bad owners But I do agree with your last statement somewhat up until the part you can't prove which are causes and which are effects.


You do not have unneutered males to speak of for experience. I have had many unneutered male German Shepherds, other breeds too. None of them marked territories in the house, yard and walks yes, but not on leash either, who cares if they mark while exploring off leash? That is not a valid reason to neuter. None of mine hump, run off when given freedom or escape. Your experience with strays just does not hold water with people who have experience owning and living with unneutered males. 

I do not train for sport, agility, schutzhund or anything else. I put minimum obedience on my dogs but teach them social skills. I do not have the problems you claim plague unneutered dogs. I am not a bad owner, I am not a good owner, I am an average owner. The behavioral problems you speak of have little to nothing to do with neutering.


----------



## gsdsteve (Apr 24, 2010)

the only reason I can think of to having him neutered before 2 yrs. is if u want him to join the boy's choir.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Dakotasmom23 said:


> If you have a 7 month old who is soooo hyper that even the vet thinks you need to get better control of your dog, then yes, I'd say, neuter him sooner rather than later.


Activity levels are genetic, neutering would not change energy levels. Training is the key to having better control of a dog, not neutering.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

llombardo said:


> Marking territories, humping, running at large, escaping are not always because of bad/good owners, this stuff will happen if the dogs aren't fixed(especially the first 2) and I can't say that a dog not being fixed has a bad owner in some cases. But there are lots of examples of things dogs will do when they are not fixed compared to when they are fixed...these things aren't going to change because of a bad/good owner. I don't believe in a bad dog but I do believe in bad owners But I do agree with your last statement somewhat up until the part you can't prove which are causes and which are effects.


I am sorry, but no way. 

I have had intact males who did not mark in unacceptable locations, hump, run at large, or escape. 

Running at large and escaping is a containment issue. Your dog sees a deer and if he can go after it he may go after it whether he has testicles or not. The answer is not to remove the testicles, but to improve the containment. Because in many cases, a loose dog is a dead dog, and the speeding auto does not pause to check whether the dog is intact or not before they hit it.

I agree that dogs that are out running at large, are most likely owned by people who are irresponsible. While having an intact dog is not a marker of an irresponsible owner, most irresponsible owners leave their dogs intact (not necessarily true of bitches). If that is indeed true, then there will be a much higher incidence of intact dogs running at large. 

It may be a responsible thing to do, to neuter your dog. For people with multiple dogs, it may make more sense to do so, remove the hormones, and have fewer problems within the pack, and no chance of any of them hooking up and producing puppies. 

I just hate the constant pro-neuter propaganda that includes the roaming, escaping. Because people will speuter their dogs and then think that is all they have to do, the dog will stay in the yard now. Containment issues need to be addressed by improving containment. Behavior issues need to be addressed with training, leadership, and management. Neutering a dog prevents progeny and that is all (except for testicular cancer).


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

Falkosmom said:


> Activity levels are genetic, neutering would not change energy levels. Training is the key to having better control of a dog, not neutering.


:thumbup: This!

Also, I like the way you put that Selzer.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

gsdsteve said:


> the only reason I can think of to having him neutered before 2 yrs. is if u want him to join the boy's choir.




Really? Dogs don't have the same kind of gender identity that humans do. Mindsets like this are why we have an pet population problem.

A neutered dog doesn't think of himself as any less a male than he was before. Or I guess, rather, I should say that there's no reason to believe they do, since we can't get in their heads to know 100% for sure.

~

Training may be the key to a well-behaved dog, I don't argue that at all - but having your dog neutered *CAN* help to set an easier stage to work with for a many pet owners, even the stellar pet owners that exist here. We are so fond of saying those hormones are there for a reason, and, well, yes, they are - testosterone plays a key role in "challenging" behaviors and pack dynamics. Taking away those hormones *CAN* help human and dog co-exist much easier.

Not that I am advocating one way or another for it. I'm still sort of flopping around in the middle I guess. But you can't decry the practice for its drawbacks and then completely ignore the benefits. Right now I choose to live with the extra challenges an intact male brings (mine has very little drive, and I suspect that helps a lot). I don't know that that will be true of future dogs I own. He does not submit as well to people who are either not consistent with him or that he does not know well; his best friend was neutered at fifteen months of age and shortly after that once the hormones had settled out of his system, became much more biddable toward "inconsistent" people and less-known people. Much easier dog to live with. He's much better off now that he's an honorary member of the boy's choir, as you say. I would probably say he's the dog that changed my mind about neutering being "oh so evil." Because the behavioral changes in him were quite drastic, and all of them beneficial for both him AND his owner. Not that I'm saying that would happen in every dog, it would not. But it is a case-by-case sort of thing.

~

All that said my intact dog has never had an issue with roaming or escaping, in fact, my irresponsible father has on more than one occasion left him outdoors, forgetting about him (he is now forbidden from bringing him outdoors unless that is ALL he is out there to do - play with the dog), and most of those times were in winter where I could see Samson's tracks. He didn't stray more than 50ft from the house in several hours (we have a very large yard, and it's probably five or six times that distance to the road). He has no inclination to stray even when he's left unsupervised (NOT that I would allow that, I do not, nor would I ever recommend that, whether your dog has balls or not).

As far as humping, I've never even seen it once. His neutered friend however did hump about a year after he was fixed, for a few months, then the behavior stopped and I've never seen it again. Quite odd.

Marking indoors, now that I think about it, it did happen once when there were some neurological problems going on from the rabies booster shot. Thankfully we are past all that now but he attempted to mark an odd smell that was VERY unfamiliar to him in my room. That was it. I shut that down very quickly. I don't think that ever would have happened if not for the medical problems going on at the time.

If I were to make a decision only based on what I've seen out of these two dogs and what academic, scholarly, well-performed research I've read concerning health and behavior, I would say that any future males I own will be neutered at about 15-16 months or so, pending some major issue that comes up that might make me change my mind.

But there is a LOT more that goes into it than just that.

There's issues surrounding mental development, your own personal ethics, the type of activities you want to do with the dog, the health and behavior changes which I already mentioned, your own past experience, the type of work you are involved in (while I do know a couple people involved in rescue work who own intact pets, the vast majority neuter their dogs very young. Some even believe, from a health perspective, that it's more harmful that leaving them intact - and I'd agree, particularly at that age - but it's more about setting an example and staying consistent with the type of work you are involved with, so I can see that rationale). There could be health problems that show up in your dog earlier enough to alter your decision on this. It's an incredibly complex decision and the only time you make a wrong decision is when you put no thought into it at all.

I'm not even asking for weeks and weeks of research and compiling point-by-point list and doing tons of math and statistics or anything crazy like that. Just a little bit of thought, at the very least. It shouldn't be something that is just an automatic yes or no, the decision-making process needs to be reset for every dog that finds a forever home with you (unless you are, of course, bound by contract to neuter).

Don't lock yourself into one thing or another because of politics. It's not a bad thing to have a "general game plan" but when it's "ALL my dogs will be neutered/left intact" - then that becomes a problem. You've set yourself up for absolutes where you can't make a good decision for a dog. You may come across a dog that, objectively, is better off intact. Or better off neutered. Be ready to change your general game plan for the individual, because dogs are just as unique as people are.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I honestly think the argument will not be resolved here. I think it is a matter of weighing the pros and cons. And the relative importance of each will be different for each of us.

FWIW, the only dog I had tie with an in heat female was a *neutered* male who had been neutered 6 months before. It was a first (and only) time for him and for the female. Who would have thought?. He always got aroused with females in heat after that, much moreso than my intact male. Of course no puppies came of it but I had to manage him like an intact dog. Both dogs were my dogs because he was neutered so I did not think it would be an issue.

The OP does leave the dog fenced during the day. I have and will continue to keep intact males but I work from home, don't leave the house with them in the backyard (6' wooden privacy fence), and am aware of behaviors that say there must be a female nearby. 

If I were to leave them outside it would be in a very secured dog pen, with a roof. My male was babysat by a friend and in the time she put him in her chainlink dog pen, and went back to the car to get my second dog, he had escaped and ran back to the car to check on my other dog. And that was not being left alone to think about getting to a female in heat.

But dogs can be trained. Mine has worked offlead right next to a female in heat and managed to keep his focus though his eyes did glaze over once when he smelled the urine on the ground. ..... but he snapped out of it. But I would never trust him without direct supervision in that circumstance.


----------



## Czech. Schutzhund (Apr 2, 2012)

pfitzpa1 said:


> That (hyperness) sounds like normal behavior for a 7mo old and not a reason to have him neutered. I would wait until the dog has fully grown (2yrs) until you neuter. It's a lot easier to hold-off with a male than with a female.
> 
> If you lop off his testicles the chance of him getting testicular cancer is zero. Same as in human males, but I don't see many humans rushing out to get lopped. The risks are relatively small.
> 
> It is also a FACT that an animal undergoing a medical operation has a chance of serious complications, or even death.


^ what this guy said. <Thumbs up>


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

selzer said:


> A friend of mine -- yupp heresay, went to a seminar that was given for vet students and veterinarians. She and her friend somehow got invited, though they were not vets. Anyhow, this was years ago. And one of the things she told me was that they were letting the vet students know that a lot of the time, the last you will see of a dog is his neuter. People lose their enthusiasm for the new puppy within a few months of having him, so there is a thrust to get all those shots in and the neuter done BEFORE the romance/new puppy thing has gone away. So you shoot the poor pup up with a slew of vaccinations, and set up a second set of vaccinations, and a third set and a speuter. Then you have gotten the most out of this little bundle of dog flesh. Move on.


I haven't read every post in this thread, but I just wanted to say that I heard the same thing from the words of a veterinarian herself. After a year, owners are less likely to bring their pets in for "annual" vaccines or check-ups, so it's best to get the majority of procedures done within the first year, while the owner still thinks a bunch of "puppy shots" are important - including spay/neuter. 

I don't necessarily agree with it, but it came straight from her mouth.


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

And the whole debate that having testicles increases the chances of testicular cancer is bull. A dog with a bladder also has an increased chance of having bladder cancer, but it's not like its a good idea to just get rid of that off the bat to "avoid the risk" either. IMO.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

GatorDog said:


> And the whole debate that having testicles increases the chances of testicular cancer is bull. A dog with a bladder also has an increased chance of having bladder cancer, but it's not like its a good idea to just get rid of that off the bat to "avoid the risk" either. IMO.


Right, but the bladder is necessary to sustain life.

The testicles are not. 

And before you mention something silly like a leg to lower bone cancer risk, removing a leg is (to ignore the ethical and moral issues about that...) is a massive quality of life change. And *definitively* for the worse.

Spayed/neutered dogs do experience quality of life changes (to an exponentially smaller degree), and I would argue that most often they are for the better. Sometimes worse. Worse often enough that any pet of yours, if you are given that choice, anyway, deserves to have a lot of thought put into that decision.


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

Draugr said:


> Right, but the bladder is necessary to sustain life.
> 
> The testicles are not.
> 
> ...


I have a spayed female and intact male, soo before you tell me what my pets "'deserve", maybe you should figure out who you're talking to and what thought I've already put into this.

My female was spayed when she was 3. We ran all the necessary blood-work before the surgery and she was ready to go. She had such complications with the surgery that she almost died on the table. She also developed thyroid issues immediately following the surgery and has to be medicated for the rest of her life.

My BF's sister also has a spayed female. She was spayed as a puppy and is now almost 8. She's been completely incontinent since the day of the surgery.

There are risks either way. Trust me, I've put some thought into it. 

Hemangiosarcomacan typically involve the spleen. The spleen is not necessary to sustain life. Should we remove that when we remove the testicles, just in case?


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Draugr said:


> He does not submit as well to people who are either not consistent with him or that he does not know well; his best friend was neutered at fifteen months of age and shortly after that once the hormones had settled out of his system, became much more biddable toward "inconsistent" people and less-known people.


Really? I have never heard this before. Is this common?

Why would somebody want a dog that is more biddable to lesser known people? I deliberately train my dogs in foreign languages to acheive just the opposite, that way such people would not be as effective if trying to control my dogs. :thinking: I have not attended obedience classed for many years, back then, they would actually train the dogs to ignore other people giving commands, things must have sure have changed!


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Because people will speuter their dogs and then think that is all they have to do, the dog will stay in the yard now


Usually people who don't care about containing their dog, don't care about neutering either.
There's a reason the majority of dogs in pounds are still intact. 
When working a/c, in fact, hardly any of the dogs I picked up were altered, and most were not licensed. 
There are risks from altering your pets, same as leaving them intact. Testicular cancer is almost a given by the time a dog reaches a certain age, as is prostate cancer and also cancers of the rectum. We've seen them all in intact older males that come into rescue.
Pyos become common as girls get older, as does mammary cancer.
When you add to it the positive behavioral aspects of alter, plus the health benefits, plus the added benefit of no "oops" litters - ever - it makes sense to alter. 

If you're 100% positive your dog will never contribute to the sheer numbers of puppies in shelters (and even if you have an oopsie litter, that's still contributing, even if you found homes for your puppies) then leave them intact and play the odds game re: reproductive cancer risks. 
But if you're not, then the wisest choice is spay/neuter.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Testicular cancer is almost a given by the time a dog reaches a certain age, as is prostate cancer and also cancers of the rectum.


That's a pretty bold statement. Do you have a link to any study to back that up?

The only study I ever saw on the matter showed a <1% chance of dying of testicular cancer. Resulting in a very low overall risk of death.

I have had several intact male dogs over the years and none have had testicular cancer. I know of no friends of mine that have had intact dogs die/suffer from testicular cancer.


----------



## TheNamesNelson (Apr 4, 2011)

I got into a very interesting discussion with 2 fresh graduate vets from Michigan State University. They both asked if I was going to neuter my dog soon, he was around a year old at the time, and I told them I was going to wait at least until he was 2 years because I wanted him to physically mature as nature intended. They both said that was a fine plan, but when I asked them why they thought I should neuter him they both said because if I don't he is at risk for testicular cancer.

I argued that of course if you have testicles you can get testicular cancer, and if you don't you can't, but is that really a rational reason to neuter? Breast cancer is a tragic affliction, but would cutting womens breasts off to prevent cancer from forming on said breast tissue be a rational practice? Cancer can strike anywhere and obviously if you do not have a certain organ or appendage you cannot get cancer in that missing organ or appendage but C'mon that's a ridiculous excuse.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Testicular cancer is almost a given by the time a dog reaches a certain age, as is prostate cancer and also cancers of the rectum.


All my unneutered males died from old age or were euthanized due to dibilitating joint issues. Falko is my first dog to ever get cancer and it is none of those you listed.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Breast cancer is a tragic affliction, but would cutting womens breasts off to prevent cancer from forming on said breast tissue be a rational practice?


Actually yes. 
I've seen and read about women who do amputate to avoid cancer, if they have a very high rate of cancer in their family. I read recently as well about a woman who got a tumor in one breast and removed the other preventatively.
It meant more to them to live, than to have breasts at that point.

http://www.vetsurgerycentral.com/oncology_testicular_tumors.htm


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Actually yes.
> I've seen and read about women who do amputate to avoid cancer, if they have a very high rate of cancer in their family. I read recently as well about a woman who got a tumor in one breast and removed the other preventatively.
> It meant more to them to live, than to have breasts at that point.
> 
> Testicular tumors in dogs


That's a lot different than blindly amputating at a very young age, just because your doctor says that if you don't, there is a high likelihood you will get cancer.
Whereas another doctor says the complete opposite.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

msvette2u said:


> Actually yes.
> I've seen and read about women who do amputate to avoid cancer, if they have a very high rate of cancer in their family. I read recently as well about a woman who got a tumor in one breast and removed the other preventatively.
> *It meant more to them to live, than to have breasts at that point*


It's not unusual, most of the women with breast cancer that I know of have had both removed. 

I can't see any non essential body part being worth my life either if I personally had to make a choice


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

pfitzpa1 said:


> That's a lot different than blindly amputating at a very young age, just because your doctor says that if you don't, there is a high likelihood you will get cancer.
> Whereas another doctor says the complete opposite.


:thumbup:


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

There's a difference also between women with a huge family history of breast cancer, vs. a child without a family history of cancer.
From the studies I've read, they all state "testicular cancer is common" in aging male dogs.
And since we've seen it in rescued dogs, I tend to believe them. 
In fact, we've seen almost every form of reproductive cancer in our rescued dogs. 
The pet must be euthanized at that point, since treatment isn't feasible, plus carries a low chance of survival long-term, not to mention, nobody is going to adopt a cancer-ridden dog.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Testicular tumors in dogs


and here's the rebuttal..

Breed differences in the proportional morbidity of testicular tumours and distribution of histopathologic types in a population-based canine cancer registry - Ndtvedt - 2010 - Veterinary and Comparative Oncology - Wiley Online Library

2.4% out of a sample size of 14000+, vs your link showing 27% in 232 dogs.

Per all the referenced studies, testicular cancer is highly treatable, >90% in one report.




Histologically verified tumours submitted to the Norwegian Canine Cancer Register from 1990 to 1998 were studied (n = 14 401). The proportion of testicular tumours (n = 345) was 2.4%, and the breakdown of histological tumour diagnoses is presented. The frequency of the most common histopathological types was 33% interstitial (Leydig), 26.4% Sertoli and 33.9% seminomas/germ cell tumours. The average age at diagnosis was 10 years, but was significantly lower for Sertoli cell tumours (8.6 years) than for the other tumour types. Following a histopathological re-evaluation, 22.5% of the original tumor diagnoses were modified. Proportional morbidity ratios were calculated and individuals from the breeds Shetland sheepdog and Collie were five times more likely to have testicular tumours than the overall average for the registry. Breed differences in the distribution of histopathologic types were observed. Shetland sheepdog and Collie were most commonly diagnosed with Sertoli cell tumours, while all tumours from Norwegian elkhound in this material were seminomas.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

And another one to ponder (this only refers to short term complications, not long terms issues like incontinence)

Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay/Neuter in Dogs

Complications from Spay/Neuter Surgery
All surgery incurs some risk of complications, including adverse reactions to anesthesia, hemorrhage, inflammation, infection, etc. Complications include only immediate and near term impacts that are clearly linked to the surgery, not to longer term impacts that can only be assessed by research studies. At one veterinary teaching hospital where complications were tracked, the rates of intraoperative, postoperative and total complications were 6.3%, 14.1% and 20.6%, respectively as a result of spaying female dogs1. Other studies found a rate of total complications from spaying of 17.7%2 and 23%3. A study of Canadian veterinary private practitioners found complication rates of 22% and 19% for spaying female dogs and neutering male dogs, respectively.
.....


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

We have a 10yr. old spayed Sheltie who is not incontinent, never has been and was spayed pre-pubescently. Yet I spayed a Springer at age 6yrs. who grew incontinent by age 11.
And true spay incontinence can be corrected with hormone replacement and/or another drug (I forget the name). Proin or something similar.

It's so strange to read about studies that state health risks to leaving pets intact is "rare" yet every senior pet who is still intact that we've rescued has had cancers of reproductive systems. There is bias out there, for sure.


----------



## pfitzpa1 (Apr 26, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> It's so strange to read about studies that state health risks to leaving pets intact is "rare" yet every senior pet who is still intact that we've rescued has had cancers of reproductive systems. There is bias out there, for sure.


There's a high probability that dogs that end up in the "rescue" system, have not been well looked after (proper health care, proper feeding, proper exercise) and have likely lived high stress lives. This might point to why you see such a high incidence. There may also be environmental factors related to the area the dogs live in. Also an uncaring owner is more likely to dump a sick dog into the system (due to either unwillingness or inability to pay for medical care).

Same for humans, there is a higher death rate and lower life expectancy for homeless/marginally housed people.

The way I look at it, (looking from a purely medical viewpoint) vets who are in the wait/don't camp have just as much love for the dogs as the spay now camp. However there is clearly zero financial motivation for a vet to say wait/don't and plenty of them do.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

pfitzpa1 said:


> There's a high probability that dogs that end up in the "rescue" system, have not been well looked after (proper health care, proper feeding, proper exercise) and have likely lived high stress lives. This might point to why you see such a high incidence. There may also be environmental factors related to the area the dogs live in. Also an uncaring owner is more likely to dump a sick dog into the system (due to either unwillingness or inability to pay for medical care).


This. There's going to be a sampling bias for animals in the rescue system. They are less likely to have good genetics (not saying you don't wind up with animals with good genes - you definitely do - just talking about generally, which affects what you see), good health care, diet, exercise, etc, everything mentioned in the above.

And JAVMA places the incident rate of testicular cancer at less than 1%:

"Testicular tumors are the second most common tumor type in dogs, with a reported incidence of 0.9%."

Whether .9 or 2.4%, I would not let tiny numbers like that play into my decision at all. Particularly because of what follows:

"Most tumors are readily diagnosed during physical inspection. Malignancy is considered low for all types of testicular tumors; therefore, castration is curative."

There are scores of reasons to neuter your dog, or not, but none of them have to do with testicular cancer (unless one/both are retained, above assumes everything is healthy).

~

On a different note:

Complications from spay/neuter at any age may be "somewhat" common but you have to remember that most complications are incredibly mild. Any kind of surgery has complication rates - 20% may seem high but it is really nothing to worry about unless you break it down and find out that almost all of them are severe life-threatening problems or something (they are not).


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Pre-anesthesia bloodwork is recommended for all dogs undergoing surgery, and should always be done. 
This can increase the chances your dog won't have complications.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> Really? I have never heard this before. Is this common?
> 
> Why would somebody want a dog that is more biddable to lesser known people? I deliberately train my dogs in foreign languages to acheive just the opposite, that way such people would not be as effective if trying to control my dogs. :thinking: I have not attended obedience classed for many years, back then, they would actually train the dogs to ignore other people giving commands, things must have sure have changed!


By "lesser known" people I just mean family or friends that he's accepted but doesn't see that often. I can't say "inconsistent" because some of them are, and they aren't around him often enough to really show inconsistency OR consistency. They are people I want him to listen to, but he won't. Definitely not strangers.

I don't know how common it is. Based on what (admittedly) little I've seen "in real life" and what I've read I would say it is more common for intact males to act this way, even toward their owners (that's not to say a little bit of consistency won't go a LOOOONG way toward easily overcoming this!).

I wish I would have bookmarked the paper, but it did a good job of explaining (at least I thought) that testosterone is really not so much responsible for aggression in a direct sense, as the common idea is, but more socially-related challenging/assertive behaviors. And that *can* lead toward aggressive behavior.

But that's obviously not to say neutered dogs are "wimps" and are always going to back down, it's far more complex than that. That said the neutered males I've been around seem to follow this pattern more often than not - seem to be less likely to display behaviors we would call "stubborn" or "obstinate."

For a first time dog owner, particularly someone who "likes dogs" as opposed to being a "dog person," a neutered male *MAY* be a better option. Stress on the may. For those of us who more innately understand a dog and how he thinks I don't think it makes very much difference. We naturally meet these behaviors appropriately without even thinking about it.



msvette2u said:


> Pre-anesthesia bloodwork is recommended for all dogs undergoing surgery, and should always be done.
> This can increase the chances your dog won't have complications.


This too! A lot of serious complications could be avoided if the owners would have done bloodwork beforehand. It's done for people and it should be done for your dogs too.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

For those of you who think that vets are not in it for the money, here is an actual schedule that a pup not six months old yet went through:

1/18 visit four days after puppy came home from the breeder, already had first shots, but had some diarrhea so treated with Albon.

1/26 Distemper/parvo (2nd set) + well exam

2/16 Distemper/parvo (3rd set), heartworm, frontline, + well exam

3/8 Distemper/parvo (4th set), rabies + well exam

3/22 Lepto (1st), bordetella, Canine Influenza Vaccine, flea prevention, heartworm + well exam

4/5 day care, therapeutic bath, toenails

4/6 day care ($22)

4/10 day care, Influenza (2nd), Lepto (2nd) + well visit

4/12 day care

4/16 day care

4/19 day care

4/20 day care

4/21 giardia negative

4/24 day care

4/25 day care

4/26 day care, toe nails

= $897.75 and they did not even spay her.

The did want to give bordetella on 2/9, felt she was overdue for canine influenza -- prior to eight weeks, even though she had Parvo, Distemper, Adenovirus, Parainfluenza, and Hepititis prior to 8 weeks. And they wanted to spay her on 4/17. And they wanted to give lymes as well. 

The puppy is not even six months old yet. That is a LOT of money to charge a new owner and not even a spay in that figure. Outrageous in my onpinion. I put the cost in for the day camp as that is only 120 - 150 of the overall bill.

Sprawled over the top of their invoice, is something to the effect your dog's well-being is our Only concern, though I am paraphrasing. And yet they are applying Frontline, even though it is having issues? 

Whatever. The first six months of ownership are the honeymoon period and vets want to get as much out of it as they can. And the owners are really and truly trying to do the right things by the pup and taking the vet's advice (who has a ton of education and licenses). I do not encourage people to listen to their vets blindly because unfortunately, I and others can site instances where vets do not do what is best for the critters, and have been known to rob people blind at the cost of their furry friends. 

Think about it. What a racket. We will buy our dogs meds and take them to the vet when we ourselves will stay home and use home remedies, or forgo our prescriptions, but our dogs, we will do for them because we love them. And to even question a bill casts shadow on whether or not you care about your furry friend. This owner has not complained about the vet costs, not at all, not to me, she just wants what is best for her dog.

So we are supposed to tell people, the general public, the average owners, to go to their vets and do everything they recommend? No can do. Sorry. If a dog is sick, not acting normal, then I will definitely encourage people to go to their vet, but I think that everyone would do well to question the why and the when for things like preventatives, vaccines, and spay-neuter. What I think is unhealthy or not good for my dogs, I cannot encourage other people to do to their dogs, even if that means that maybe there will be an oops litter down the road. However, it is a personal decision, and I do not hinder people or look down on those that choose to do so.


----------



## reck0n3r (Jul 29, 2012)

selzer said:


> For those of you who think that vets are not in it for the money, here is an actual schedule that a pup not six months old yet went through:
> 
> 1/18 visit four days after puppy came home from the breeder, already had first shots, but had some diarrhea so treated with Albon.
> 
> ...


Sorry to bump an old thread but...
I completely and absolutely, 100% agree.

Sometimes, when there is no clear cut health answer (which in my eyes there seems to be, when taking a look at both sides presented here), the best way to figure something out is to see who benefits most by promoting one option, versus another.

In this case, it's the vets who have to make money - and so they're most likely taught all sorts of propaganda while in vet school, studies that have probably been skewed by Big Pharma to ultimately fill their own pockets, sometimes insidiously going as far as creating other health problems by "fixing" another. (for god sakes' they do this with humans, what makes you think they wouldn't do it with an animals?).

At the end of the day, companies (and the majority of vets) want to make their money. Unfortunately, what I've found is that most doctors (sorry to the docs out there) tend to be parrots, moreso than very genuinely intelligent/curious human beings - they just parrot what they've been taught in school. For the most part. Also, they have to, if they don't shut off their brains and memorize everything verbatim, chances are you won't last in school, everything has to be by the book.

Unfortunately, in the sad state of what we call capitalism, everyone is out to make a buck, and at any cost. It happens with us lowly humans on such a tremendous scale that people don't even see how their lives have been marginalized, and the life of every other living/non living thing on the planet. 

So yeah, just look to see who gains from it. The worst part is when they try to guilt trip you into things. Talk about cognitive dissonance. 

The doctor may even be sincere, but he/she may just be spewing the crap that the industry (ie: Pharmaceuticals) has taught them.

We live in a time where 2+2 now equals 5, so be extra diligent, and I thank some of you for your valuable input. I've decided to forego getting my boy neutered (he's 8 months), unless something serious changes. I keep a close enough eye on him when we're out, that its a non-issue. If I do decide to get him neutered one day, it'd most likely be due to the fact that I've become lazy and not willing to work with him, or because of some health problem that would warrant having them lopped. The idea of pre-emptive neutering sounds downright cruel to me, and while many people may be well intentioned, if you spend enough time thinking about it, you would see this as well.

Even lobotomies used to be popular once upon a time. Ultimately, I don't think they (s/n) should be done unless as a last resort.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> For those of you who think that vets are not in it for the money,


Vets have school loans, having attended college for what, 8 years by the time they get their license!?? 
Then they have to go and HORROR, start their own practice! If they have receptionists and techs, they have to pay them and purchase them insurance of some sort. And then when they are done working they have to go buy food, and GOSH, fill up their fuel tank to get back and forth to the clinic! Wow. 

I have no issue with them _making_ money - why should they go broke doing what they went to school for doing!?
Over selling vaccines is common, there's a nice mark up, but then again, puppies and dogs attending day care are exposed to everything under the sun, and then some, just as if the dog went to dog parks. 
Of course the vet wants to see the puppy healthy. Is it still alive, or did it die from that money grubbing vet's maltreatment!?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

MSVette, my vet offers a puppy package which includes all the sets of vaccinations, well-puppy visits, and a spay or neuter for around $300. If you think that the vet I cited before wasn't gouging people who would pay because they have a new puppy, then we just won't see eye to eye on that. 

Of course vets should make money. But they should never do so by doing things that will cause harm. Over-vaccination can, some preventatives have known issues, some vaccinations are unnecessary or not good for young puppies. 

There are some vets out there that are looking for a mark. Most of the vets are pulling down 60k or less at the end of the day, and you're right that's a lot of investment in time and money for the return. But that doesn't mean there are not scoundrels out there. If a clinic has only one customer, one poor new puppy owner, would it be right for them to do $500 bloodwork on the puppy every 3 days so that they can pay the mortgage, salaries and student loans back? Of course not.


----------



## reck0n3r (Jul 29, 2012)

I think it's cute that we still have people in the world that believe greed is non-existant in a world that is entirely capitalistic.

Yes, in an ideal world all vets would be benevolent, kind souls, but the truth is, that yes even for the ones that maybe aren't making enough money, they will HAVE TO resort to selling things/vaccinations/procedures that weren't necessarily needed.

I don't want this to turn into a rant on capitalism in itself (that is essentially what drives the whole issue, even the school loans to begin with are as high as they are for a reason), but to entirely dismiss the idea that SOME vets (ie: not all of them) aren't pushing the shots/foods/procedures/visits in order to fill their own pockets, well sorry to say, but that's the stuff of fantasy and not reality.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Why don't you wait with neutering and see if it is needed, hormone wise after he is 18 months old? Neutering is different from training and doesn't make a dog obedient or biddable. I hate it that every vet (tech) seems to want to neuter dogs just because they (the dogs) have testicles.
I worked WD through his horny adolescence and he is fine already, while any vet would have told me otherwise at that time.
A friend has a nice male GSD , neutered at 6 months, pressure from the vet, and that dog is not able to put on muscle despite plenty of exercise. 
Spaying I am on the fence for, still. I think we need to value testosterone more.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Yeah, okay. 
I think it's interesting that so many are anti-vet and think all vets are out to do their patients in so they can get rich 

I mean, because, you know, dead patients are so much better to make money on...um...right? 


There's quite a few threads lately where the owner neutered one or both dogs they had (thinking of one I read yesterday) and lo and behold, both dogs were much easier to work with. 
It is true, get the testosterone out of the way and you do often have a more biddable dog.


----------

