# 20 month old schutzhund male - this is when I decided to decide on neutering



## ayoitzrimz (Apr 14, 2010)

Dont know what to do...

He's obviously not going to be a world champion dog - his grips are not and never will be full, he doesn't have much (true) defense drive and works solely out of prey (I have a great helper in our club and even he cant bring the D out of him) and so I don't know what to do.

He's now 20 months old, perfectly behaved around the house, good on-leash / off-leash, no excessive marking, no wondering, great recall, just an awesome companion.

So now's the time I decided to neuter him when he was a puppy (I wanted to wait until after 18 months). And I have to make a decision... 

No issues with other dogs but he does challenge unfixed males (he's ok with fixed males). 

Don't know what to do - I know being intact helps in the sport but I want to be responsible, I want to do the right thing, and I kind of want to shut the vets up and have them leave me alone about it already...

Oh also, I'll never breed him - too many health issues (allergies) and I'm not exactly a knowledgeable breeder (I'm barely a knowledgeable owner lol) so I'll leave that one up to the pros...

Don't want to start another neuter / don't neuter thread but I'm just confused and not sure what to do (I wish we could have a do-over button in real life this way I dont have to see this as such a large decision).


----------



## vomlittlehaus (Aug 24, 2010)

So your wondering if neutering him will change the way he is in Schutzhund (for the worse), since he has no (to little) defense drive. Or will leaving him intact help bring out the defense drive or at least not hinder it?


----------



## ShenzisMom (Apr 27, 2010)

Do what is best for YOU and YOUR DOG. Not the vets.


----------



## southernfiction (Oct 5, 2011)

Amen, Cassie. This is a totally personal decision. What I'm reading is that you really, really don't want to have him neutered. So don't. If you need to later, then you'll know.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

This sounds like my male!  Like, to a "T"! 

Personally, I am keeping my male intact, just because I believe it is a healthier choice for him. 

He will be 3 years old in April.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

If this were my dog I would neuter him for health reasons and also so that I wouldn't ever have to worry about an accidental mating. 

I think you're going to get every opinion in the book on here though so I guess you'll just have to make an informed decision.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ayoitzrimz said:


> I know being intact helps in the sport but I want to be responsible, I want to do the right thing, and I kind of want to shut the vets up and have them leave me alone about it already...


Do what you want to do............this will turn into a debate, just so you know  (kidding...hopefully)

However, why do you think this?? I"ve never heard of such a thing. OK, maybe doing it early would make him mature less "manly." But once development is done, I can see no legtimate reasoning that staying intact helps with SchH.


----------



## Virginia (Oct 2, 2008)

I've heard that police like to use intact male dogs for patrol K9s because they are more aggressive. I'm not sure I buy it completely though. All the facets of temperament are more complex than a simple correlation between testosterone and X,Y and Z.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

I wouldn't even want my dogs to be worked in defense....


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

If you don't want to, then don't. It sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders concerning the necessity (or lack thereof) of breeding him, so as long as you can manage him, I don't see the need.

You definitely shouldn't succumb to the vet's bullying (forgive me for the assumption but from how you phrased it, that is what it sounds like is going on).

Shenzi's mom said it best. Do what is best for you and your dog. Not anyone else.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

Someone will always tell you it was the wrong decision.
Someone will always tell you it was the right decision.
Ignore them all.
It is YOUR decision.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

PaddyD said:


> Someone will always tell you it was the wrong decision.
> Someone will always tell you it was the right decision.
> Ignore them all.
> It is YOUR decision.


That is the best darn advise that has ever been given on this forum! :thumbup:


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

Yes, its totally up to you. Just keep in mind that his recall may not be good when he is around a female in heat. You sound responsible, so I am sure you know that already. Also, I don't know if vets have talked to you about this, but about 50% of males over 5 years old end up needing to be neutered because of benign prostatic hyperplasia. 

I'm not saying to go one way or the other, just putting the information out there.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

sharkey19 said:


> Also, I don't know if vets have talked to you about this, but about 50% of males over 5 years old end up needing to be neutered because of benign prostatic hyperplasia.


Do you have a link for this?

That seems insanely high. I know most if not all male dogs wind up with BPH but it's normally - as the name would suggest - benign. Perhaps you meant, they get it, not that they need neutered for it? A small percentage do wind up with complications that a neuter will cure. But I've never read anything even closer to 50%.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

You know what, I had to neuter an 8 year old with BPH. My puppy, a male, will be left intact. I think its healther personally................it was a bit harder on him than neutering a puppy but not a whole lot.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

Draugr said:


> Do you have a link for this?
> 
> That seems insanely high. I know most if not all male dogs wind up with BPH but it's normally - as the name would suggest - benign. Perhaps you meant, they get it, not that they need neutered for it? A small percentage do wind up with complications that a neuter will cure. But I've never read anything even closer to 50%.


Well I looked into it last year when deciding to neuter my dog. I looked in the research in the scientific literature, and also talked to theriogenology specialists, so I can't really provide a link unless you can access scientific journals, and even then I have to look into it again, not sure when I will have the time... I think 50% is typical for dogs that need to be treated, and something like over 80% of dogs will have BPH after age 6 (and I believe they use the term "benign" to mean that it is not a malignant neoplasm, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems).

There are also certain cancers that are avoided by neutering, as well as other infections such as prostatitis.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

sharkey19 said:


> Well I looked into it last year when deciding to neuter my dog. I looked in the research in the scientific literature, and also talked to theriogenology specialists, so I can't really provide a link unless you can access scientific journals, and even then I have to look into it again, not sure when I will have the time... I think 50% is typical for dogs that need to be treated, and something like over 80% of dogs will have BPH after age 6 (and I believe they use the term "benign" to mean that it is not a malignant neoplasm, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems).
> 
> There are also certain cancers that are avoided by neutering, as well as other infections such as prostatitis.


There's also cancer risks that are significantly raised - bone cancer, for one, which is a particularly nasty way to go. Hemangiosarcoma is another, which isn't nasty but it's very quick and sudden. Ironically enough prostate cancer is another. (important to note here that regardless of the dog's sex status all of these are still low risks and as such should only be a small factor in any decision one might make).

BPH isn't a neoplasm of any sort, malignant or benign - which is why I presume the "benign" is meant to describe the prostate hyperplasia. Not a neoplasm. It's simply an enlargement of the prostate which is no less normal a process of aging than gray hair is. By age 10, IIRC, virtually all intact males will have some level of prostate enlargement (I believe the statistics are similar for humans - adult human males will virtually all, given that they live long enough, experience prostate enlargement).

In some dogs it is a problem but without further evidence I really cannot believe 50% require a neuter to treat it. If that were the case we'd be seeing that all over veterinary literature as that would be quite a striking statistic and the PETA-whackjobs would be all over that one as evidence that it is "cruel" to keep a dog intact.

Forgive my bewilderment, but, the most I can find is this, which certainly seems to contradict anything close to 50%:



> Neither BPH nor prostatitis is commonly associated with substantial morbidity, and castration is an integral part of the treatment of both conditions.


This was from JAVMA. Scanning through abstracts on PubMed did not reveal any studies which would reveal what percentage of BPH cases cause clinical symptoms requiring castration.

Sorry. I don't mean to single you out. This is just a stat I've never seen referenced before, anywhere.


----------



## sharkey19 (Sep 25, 2011)

@Draugr

Thats ok, I understand, lol.

As far as for those cancers you are talking about, have you read the actual studies? I know at least the osteosarcoma one that I found didn't control for age, so if you take that into account, there isn't actually an increased risk with neutered dogs. Neutered dogs typically live longer (there can be many reasons for this, including the fact that most people who go to the vet neuter, whereas a lot of people who don't neuter don't go to the vet, a lot of strays aren't neutered, etc). So yes, more neutered dogs get those cancers, but it is more of a reflection of age. 

I didn't find the stat in the abstracts, you more have to delve into the literature, which I don't exactly have time to do this week (again, sorry, but I did this last year). 

And with PETA, I always assumed they were against neutering since they are against doing anything to animals, lol. Do they even want people to have pets? I always confuse them with ALF.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

sharkey19 said:


> As far as for those cancers you are talking about, have you read the actual studies? I know at least the osteosarcoma one that I found didn't control for age, so if you take that into account, there isn't actually an increased risk with neutered dogs. Neutered dogs typically live longer (there can be many reasons for this, including the fact that most people who go to the vet neuter, whereas a lot of people who don't neuter don't go to the vet, a lot of strays aren't neutered, etc). So yes, more neutered dogs get those cancers, but it is more of a reflection of age.


While I understand the explanation, I am not only hesitant to agree that "neutered dogs live longer" (considering I've also not seen any comprehensive studies concerning lifespan and sexual status - although if there is a difference, I'd agree it is due to the example you gave), I am reluctant to attribute the two-fold increase in osteosarcoma soley to a few months difference in lifespan. I cannot help but think that there would need to be a far greater statistical difference in lifespan between altered and intact dogs to account for that large an increase (though the "base" level in intact dogs is less than 1% - so we are still talking about tiny increases). Also, unless I am mistaken, doesn't osteosarcoma typically take dogs before they are close to dying of "natural causes"? (and considering there is a greater correlation with height, an owner of a small breed could brush this worry off entirely, I'd wager).

And in breeds more prone to said cancer (Rottweilers, in this study), there's a very definite correlation.



> I didn't find the stat in the abstracts, you more have to delve into the literature, which I don't exactly have time to do this week (again, sorry, but I did this last year).


I don't have a subscription, so if you could find it, I'd appreciate it. Like I said, I find it mindboggling that if 50% of intact males had to be neutered due to BPH complications, that's all we'd be hearing about from animal rights groups =/. Or heck even the more benign animal welfare groups. You get the X% of intact males have BPH, but I never see what percent of BPH cases actually cause complications, or what those complications might be (ie, "difficulty urinating" could be measured to very different degrees - do they count where it "takes a couple seconds" for the flow to start? Because I'd argue that is not something worth using surgery to correct. Is it where it is painful? What % of these cases do medications fail to correct? Etc, etc, etc).

European countries have mostly intact dogs - in Norway I know it's even illegal to do an elective spay/neuter. And I know it's a fallacy, a sample bias, to draw on one's own experiences, but I've certainly never seen in my area (where most dogs are not altered), anywhere near that number of males having BPH-related problems as they get older. I can think of one dog that had problems relieving himself and that's about it. A facebook friend had an older dog with prostatitis, but she neutered him before anyone could tell if it was a chronic case or not. Not passing judgement on her, just as a disclaimer here, but personally I'd not neuter just for a single case. If it was chronic and it was the best course of treatment? Sure. That's just me though .



> And with PETA, I always assumed they were against neutering since they are against doing anything to animals, lol. Do they even want people to have pets? I always confuse them with ALF.


That's an easy confusion to make considering PETA and the ALF have *very* close ties, and in more way than one.

PETA doesn't want people to own pets, they consider it slave ownership (highly offensive to compare it to that...but then again they compared eating meat to the holocaust so nothing is beyond them, I think).

They are all for speutering because in their mind, once you "speuter everything" - no more dogs and cats born, no more pets, and the animals are "free."

It would make sense that they'd be against altering, like you said, but you're asking that a group of crazy people make sense LOL.


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

sharkey19 said:


> As far as for those cancers you are talking about, have you read the actual studies? I know at least the osteosarcoma one that I found didn't control for age, so if you take that into account, there isn't actually an increased risk with neutered dogs. Neutered dogs typically live longer (there can be many reasons for this, including the fact that most people who go to the vet neuter, whereas a lot of people who don't neuter don't go to the vet, a lot of strays aren't neutered, etc). So yes, more neutered dogs get those cancers, but it is more of a reflection of age.


While I understand the explanation, I am not only hesitant to agree that "neutered dogs live longer" (considering I've also not seen any comprehensive studies concerning lifespan and sexual status - although if there is a difference, I'd agree it is due to the example you gave), I am reluctant to attribute the two-fold increase in osteosarcoma soley to a few months difference in lifespan. I cannot help but think that there would need to be a far greater statistical difference in lifespan between altered and intact dogs to account for that large an increase (though the "base" level in intact dogs is less than 1% - so we are still talking about tiny increases). Also, unless I am mistaken, doesn't osteosarcoma typically take dogs before they are close to dying of "natural causes"?

And in breeds more prone to said cancer (Rottweilers, in this study), there's a very definite correlation.



> I didn't find the stat in the abstracts, you more have to delve into the literature, which I don't exactly have time to do this week (again, sorry, but I did this last year).


I don't have a subscription, so if you could find it, I'd appreciate it. Like I said, I find it mind-boggling that if 50% of intact males had to be neutered due to BPH complications, that's all we'd be hearing about from animal rights groups =/. Or heck even the more benign animal welfare groups. You get the X% of intact males have BPH from everywhere, but I never see what percent of BPH cases actually cause complications, or what those complications might be (ie, "difficulty urinating" could be measured to very different degrees - do they count where it "takes a couple seconds" for the flow to start? Because I'd argue that is something worth using surgery to correct. Is it where it is painful? What % of these cases do medications fail to correct? Etc, etc, etc).

European countries have mostly intact dogs - in Norway I know it's even illegal to do an elective spay/neuter. And I know it's a fallacy, a sample bias, to draw on one's own experiences, but I've certainly never seen in my area (where most dogs are not altered), anywhere near that number of males having BPH-related problems as they get older. I can think of one dog that had problems relieving himself and that's about it.



> And with PETA, I always assumed they were against neutering since they are against doing anything to animals, lol. Do they even want people to have pets? I always confuse them with ALF.


That's an easy confusion to make considering PETA and the ALF have *very* close ties, and in more way than one.

PETA doesn't want people to own pets, they consider it slave ownership (highly offensive to compare it to that...but then again they compared eating meat to the holocaust so nothing is beyond them, I think).

They are all for speutering because in their mind, once you "speuter everything" - no more dogs and cats born, no more pets, and the animals are "free."

It would make sense that they'd be against altering, like you said, but you're asking that a group of crazy people make sense LOL.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

OP do what YOU want to do. Not what your vet is trying to force. He is your dog and its your choice. No one else can make that choice for you.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

ayoitzrimz said:


> Don't know what to do - I know being intact helps in the sport but I want to be responsible, I want to do the right thing, and I kind of want to shut the vets up and have them leave me alone about it already...


People say the extra testosterone helps in the sport, but I don't know if that's really true. I don't think prey/defense drives have anything to do with whether a dog has testicles or not... look at all the great females in the sport!


----------

