When to sterilize

[CanadianGolden]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've yet to meet a dog who has tried to sue the vet when he was unable to reverse his castration.

Apple, say hello to Orange.

Ignoring the legal aspect, which was not the point, there's obviously no medical indication whatsoever for castration in young, healthy humans. So why is there one for dogs?

🙂

 

[david594]

Sure--like a pyo that maybe you could treat medically or maybe you should spay. But we're not advocating prophylactic appendectomies, so prophylactic castration also doesn't make sense. 🙂 Sorry your visit was canceled. 🙁

Actually they removed my mothers appendix because they were in there anyways for another abdominal procedure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendicectomy#Prophylactic_appendectomy


Castrated animals are less likely to get STD's. 😉

 

[CanadianGolden]

Actually they removed my mothers appendix because they were in there anyways for another abdominal procedure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appendicectomy#Prophylactic_appendectomy


Castrated animals are less likely to get STD's. 😉

Interesting re: appendectomy. The article actually says, about prophylactic appendectomy:

"However, recent findings on the possible usefulness of the appendix has led to an abatement of this practice."

Sounds a lot like neuter. 😉 And again it's still not medical doctors recommending an anesthetic event just for appendectomy, so closer, but not quite the same as sterilization.

Castrated animals are no more likely to get STDs than intact animals if their owners keep them properly contained and supervised. 🙂

 

[david594]

Castrated animals are no more likely to get STDs than intact animals if their owners keep them properly contained and supervised. 🙂

Someone just needs to invent chihuahua sized condoms and then it won't matter any more.

 

[nyanko]

Castrated animals are no more likely to get STDs than intact animals if their owners keep them properly contained and supervised. 🙂

This is a caveat that keeps being brought up, and I think is really at the root of the debate. The difference between European and American ideals on pet ownership has even been mentioned here, right? The Italian post-doc in my lab saw absolutely nothing wrong with adopting an intact cat and letting it out to roam unsupervised, balls and all. That doesn't seem like proper containment or supervision is necessarily the problem...it actually seems as if in some European countries they see animals as more disposable than we do here, not less...

This doesn't seem to apply to the UK, where their laws on animal ownership are getting more and more restrictive and animal-rights-ish, but maybe it's just that in our culture there's more of an actual divide in how we view pets.

 

[DVMDream]

There has been research on the appendix suggesting that it has a small function in the immune system (mostly to aid in protecting the digestive tract), but nothing conclusive or major to say that it has any impact upon removing it (most scientists are starting to believe it is a vesitgial organ). Most doctors however will remove the appendix if a patient is having another sugery in the same area just to avoid having to go in again (kind of a I am already here; might as well take this thing that does not do anything and can potentially cause a problem.)

Also, I have never seen a pyo treated medically. I have read about a case or two where they did this and in both cases the pyo came back either once or multiple times and spaying of the pet was the end result. So, why take the chance of the infection becoming systemic? Spaying is the best treatment, I have seen, for a pyo.

Most young, healthy men also do not try to escape from their house to hunt down an in heat young female either (there are exceptions, creepers). Most young, healthy dogs will travel for miles looking for an in heat female to breed with. (Almost euthanized a 10 month old not-neutered beagle puppy a few months ago because he escaped from the yard and got hit by a car (dug his way out and was right next to a fence with a female dog on the other side.) Roaming behavior is very common in non-neutered dogs and cats. Also, cats have many more sexual behavioral problems as they get older than dogs do.

Yes, education can help some (most irresponsible owners who allow their pets to breed are not the ones bringing them to the vet every year for shots and exams) but disregarding some of the benefits of spaying/neutering is not a good idea either. Honeslty, I would take it on a case by case basis to determine whether neutering/spaying early is a good idea or not.

 

[david594]

Also, I have never seen a pyo treated medically. I have read about a case or two where they did this and in both cases the pyo came back either once or multiple times and spaying of the pet was the end result. So, why take the chance of the infection becoming systemic? Spaying is the best treatment, I have seen, for a pyo.

You really only do it for valuable breeding animals. And its not a cheap alternative by any means. We did it fairly frequently where I worked, but only because the vet was boarded therio and the breeders knew what they were getting into with the treatment.

 

[VeganSoprano]

From a medical standpoint, I do agree that there is no real medical reason to neuter a male dog. But I wonder what the QOL is for an intact pet. The drive to reproduce is strong. A responsible owner will not allow their dog to mate, but if his strongest desire is being thwarted his entire life, that must affect his QOL. If a dog's desire is to mate and being a pet is incompatible with mating, then it seems very reasonable that a neutered dog is a happier pet. For me, that would be reason enough to do it. Maybe the best comparison for a human would be cosmetic sx like a rhinoplasty to alter a huge, hooked nose with a big mole on it. Sure, keeping that nose in its natural state is not going to affect someone's physical health, but it will affect their quality of life enough that many people would choose to have the surgery.

I would definitely say that unless you can afford a pyo sx, spaying a female dog (with a prophylactic gastropexy if she has a susceptible conformation) is absolutely the appropriate decision, to protect the dog's health, control her reproduction, and protect the family's finances (to me, a very legitimate balancing of the dog's and humans' interests). As for cats...I honestly don't see how an average family can control an intact cat's reproduction. The sheer number of accidental litters (and by extension, the number of stray and feral cats and shelter euthanasias) tells us very clearly that many people do a pretty terrible job for whatever reason. For me personally, it's not a responsibility I'd like to undertake. I have enough responsibilities as it is and I'm much happier with my cats and I just being able to enjoy each other.

I'm certainly a huge advocate of responsible ownership, but I also think getting the number of animals in this country down to a level that corresponds with the demand for pets cannot be ignored. Sterilization is an important key here. It's a lot easier to be careless with something when it can be replaced pretty much for free!

 

[CanadianGolden]

None of the performance owners/showers/breeders I know who have intact dogs have ever noticed a change in QOL before or after neutering. I know hundreds of intact dogs and they all look very happy to me when I see them at trials and shows. They are able to focus on their jobs (agility, obedience, conformation) and do not appear distressed. I suspect that if this were a major issue we'd have heard something about it from someone who owned intact dogs.

 

[bunnity]

Well, if we're just going by anecdotes, I can show you a couple hundred unhappy intact animals that are at my shelter because their intact-ness made them run away, spray in the house, etc.

It would be nice if people would be responsible, but they aren't. And until all the vastly superior Europeans and Canadians can send some of their righteous responsibility to us Americans, I don't see how sitting around waiting for people to become responsible is going to do anything. As an adoption counselor, I can talk for hours about the benefits of neutering, and most people still won't do it. Or, I can give them a neutered animal (that is healthy with a good temperament, at a reasonable price) and say, "Yep, they all come neutered. Too many animals without homes" and send them on their way. Realistically, which is going to make a difference?

It's kind of like saying, well people should be responsible with their kids. It's true, but we still have programs to help feed and clothe and educate and intervene for kids that need it, because as a society we care about the kids and recognize that it's not their fault when their parents don't get things right. We wouldn't sit around saying, well the parents should be responsible, and do nothing to correct it. I think it is the same with these animals. As a society we should do our best to prevent their suffering. Animals suffer because of overpopulation, so we should do our best to fix it.

I think CG has a logical issue here. It should be:
no overpopulation --> less emphasis on sterilization
not:
less emphasis on sterilization ---> no overpopulation.

 

[CanadianGolden]

But interestingly, being intact doesn't cause animals to be in shelters. Behavior problems (which have been associated with being sterilized) do.

I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of my "logic problem".

And I'm not Canadian or European.

 

[bunnity]

The Canadian/European thing wasn't specifically at you, CanadianGolden. There have been several posts about how Europe, the UK, Sweden, etc have less overpopulation issues.

You're saying that sterilization causes behavior problems? More than not-sterilization?

The logic thing - you were making the argument that lower sterilization rates lead to less overpopulation, whereas I am saying that it is more probable that less overpopulation leads to lower sterilization rates (or that there is no particular causation either way).

 

[TractorKid]

CanadianGolden doesn’t have a logic problem, Bunnity. You have a perspective problem.
I think we can all agree that there are 2 perspectives here: the shelter medicine one of spay/neuter early to help the overall pet population (herd perspective) and the other one of delayed spay/neuter because it is beneficial to the animal (individual perspective).
It is my opinion that as potential private practice veterinarians (which is who I am addressing this to) our obligation is to the health and welfare of the pet and client before us, not to the pet population at large. I think that the shelter medicine perspective is like the following scenario:
I take my child in to see the pediatrician (or to make this more shelter medicine like – my adopted child). He says to me “Well Mrs. TractorKid, L’il Trac looks healthy. Because of world hunger, global warming, deforestation and the depletion of natural resources, I’m recommending we go ahead and schedule his castration. I have an opening next Thursday. Don’t worry, it’s a simple procedure. And just look at the benefits! Without testicles, there’s no risk that he will get testicular cancer when he gets older. And when he turns 15 you’ll be so glad we did this! No sneaking out in the night trying to meet up with his girlfriend and get her pregnant, which, as we all know, is pretty much guaranteed if he were to keep his testicles. Plus, if he can sing, you’re looking at a great career in opera.”
Now, we are talking about a dog and not a child, so I admit it’s a little hyperbolic. But as I said before, it’s about your perspective. Individual versus herd/population. If there are legitimate risks to early spay and neuter, or at the very least a lack of proven benefit, then we must take that into consideration and advise our clients what is the best for their individual animal’s health.

Now – what do you say we all agree to disagree and let this one die, hmm? CanadianGolden I’m looking at you.

 

[bunnity]

I don't see a particular reason to let this discussion die. I think it is an important one to be had and I am learning a lot from the private practice perspective - as I think the private practice people can learn from the shelter perspective.

To be clear, I wasn't arguing about the age of sterilization, but about whether or not to sterilize in general - which has been the most recent turn of the discussion. I realize that while spaying a two pound kitten is the best choice in many high volume shelter situations, that a private practice vet would not recommend the same thing. I can definitely see why. My arguments were about sterilization in general, not the specific age.

I also would like to point out that just because we have different perspectives does not mean that mine is wrong. Just as you feel the need (and rightly so) to advocate for your future patients, I feel the need to advocate for mine. I think this discussion could also benefit from large animal perspectives. We castrate horses mostly for behavior, and I don't think anyone would argue that there is no behavior difference between stallions and geldings.

I believe that as a vet you have a responsibility to your patients in particular and a responsibility toward general animal and human health as well. We don't vaccinate solely for the sake of one patient - it is for individual health, herd health and (in the case of rabies) human health. No patient exists in a vacuum. If you had a client bring in a patient with canine influenza, you would recommend keeping it away from other dogs until it recovered - even if those dogs weren't your patients. If you had a patient with giardia you would recommend keeping it away from children, even if the dog would be happier around children and the children weren't your patients.

I don't think you can reasonably compare to a human patient here. Animals do not have the same societally influenced sexuality as humans. They do not have the same right to reproduce as we do. The very act of domestication puts all kinds of restraints on normal behavior. Most people wouldn't microchip their kids or walk them on leashes or put them in crates or leave them in kennels when they go on vacation. Apples and oranges.

All I was saying about the logical issue is that we cannot assume that Sweden etc. has low overpopulation as a result of low sterilization. It may be causative in either direction or it may merely correlate. Without evidence I'm not going to assume that they relate any more than I think low overpopulation results from speaking Swedish to your pets.

 

[CanadianGolden]

I never said that low sterilization causes lower overpopulation.

I also didn't say that sterilization causes behavior problems, although I personally think it does. But several studies have shown an increased incidence of behavior problems in spayed/neutered animals compared to intact animals.

If we're concerned about reproduction, what about vasectomy and tubal ligation?

 

[VeganSoprano]

I personally think that, for dogs, vasectomy and tubal ligation are alternatives that may be of great usefulness. I would still be very concerned about the possibility for pyometra in females, though. It wouldn't be a deal-breaker in itself, just something I would have to be sure the client was prepared for. If a client approached me about tubal ligation or vasectomy, I'd certainly do it - especially if the animal probably wouldn't be sterilized otherwise.

For cats, I don't see it as a viable alternative. Spraying, fighting tomcats and seasonally polyestrus females are not going to be acceptable or happy companions for most people.

 

[DVMDream]

I don't see a particular reason to let this discussion die. I think it is an important one to be had and I am learning a lot from the private practice perspective - as I think the private practice people can learn from the shelter perspective.

To be clear, I wasn't arguing about the age of sterilization, but about whether or not to sterilize in general - which has been the most recent turn of the discussion. I realize that while spaying a two pound kitten is the best choice in many high volume shelter situations, that a private practice vet would not recommend the same thing. I can definitely see why. My arguments were about sterilization in general, not the specific age.

I also would like to point out that just because we have different perspectives does not mean that mine is wrong. Just as you feel the need (and rightly so) to advocate for your future patients, I feel the need to advocate for mine. I think this discussion could also benefit from large animal perspectives. We castrate horses mostly for behavior, and I don't think anyone would argue that there is no behavior difference between stallions and geldings.

I believe that as a vet you have a responsibility to your patients in particular and a responsibility toward general animal and human health as well. We don't vaccinate solely for the sake of one patient - it is for individual health, herd health and (in the case of rabies) human health. No patient exists in a vacuum. If you had a client bring in a patient with canine influenza, you would recommend keeping it away from other dogs until it recovered - even if those dogs weren't your patients. If you had a patient with giardia you would recommend keeping it away from children, even if the dog would be happier around children and the children weren't your patients.

I don't think you can reasonably compare to a human patient here. Animals do not have the same societally influenced sexuality as humans. They do not have the same right to reproduce as we do. The very act of domestication puts all kinds of restraints on normal behavior. Most people wouldn't microchip their kids or walk them on leashes or put them in crates or leave them in kennels when they go on vacation. Apples and oranges.

All I was saying about the logical issue is that we cannot assume that Sweden etc. has low overpopulation as a result of low sterilization. It may be causative in either direction or it may merely correlate. Without evidence I'm not going to assume that they relate any more than I think low overpopulation results from speaking Swedish to your pets.

👍 I completely agree. The private practice veterinarian is not always just about individual attention, most of the time yes, but there are cases where you have to look at other pets/people and tell the owners what they need to do to prevent those animals/people from getting sick. Like the owner who we had to tell to not let her kid around the puppy because the puppy had giardia. When we came back into the room the kid was sticking her face in the dog's butt and the mother did not seem at all concerned. I could not even imagine having to tell her to keep an intact female/male away from other intact females/males. It would have been a nightmare. This same thing goes for owners who have had dogs with kennel cough, or parvo and cats with ringworm. You tell them to STAY inside the ONE room...they walk all over the lobby. In and out of the clinic. Touch the counter at the front desk. Let their kids run around the entire clinic. And that type of behavior is from the MAJORITY of pet owners around here. Most people do not care/do not listen.

Another situation we had. This client was coming in regularly because he had an intact male basset hound and an intact female jack russell terrier. He did not want to spay because it was too expensive and he did not want to neuter because, "I want my dog to have his balls." He was constantly coming in to make sure the female jack russell wasn't pregnant. Apparently, it was too hard for him to keep them apart because they would get high strung and aggressive when she was in heat and he could not deal with it. Eventually, the female jack russell ended up pregnant with puppies way too big for her to ever develop to full term and deliver. So we ended up aborting the litter and spaying her anyway. Pregnancy was about mid-way through and the puppies were the size of jack russell newborns.

I like the idea of the vasectomy/tubal ligation. Pyometra is still a concern though as are mammary tumors. But, another concern is how are you going to determing which animals have/have not been sterilized? Say your dog gets out, gets picked up by animal control, and still has his testicles in-tact. Animal control (at least where I live) charges more for picking up your un-sterilized dog than for your sterilized dog. How well they be able to tell the difference?

Anyway I really think it depends on where you are working as a vet/what type of field you are in. I would much rather spay/neuter in the area I live in then to leave it up to some of the people I have encountered to keep their intact pets away from other intact pets.

 

[DVMDream]

Most people wouldn't microchip their kids or walk them on leashes

😉

 

[CanadianGolden]

👍 I completely agree. The private practice veterinarian is not always just about individual attention, most of the time yes, but there are cases where you have to look at other pets/people and tell the owners what they need to do to prevent those animals/people from getting sick. Like the owner who we had to tell to not let her kid around the puppy because the puppy had giardia. When we came back into the room the kid was sticking her face in the dog's butt and the mother did not seem at all concerned. I could not even imagine having to tell her to keep an intact female/male away from other intact females/males.

regardless, we can't lie and say that spay/neuter has no risks and tons of benefits. Lying to your clients is wrong, no matter how irresponsible you think they are. It's their dog and they get to make the choice based on accurate, actual information provided by you. You can stress the expense and health risks of pregnancy, but you can't tell them that neutering their male dog has great behavioral benefits--because it doesn't!

I like the idea of the vasectomy/tubal ligation. Pyometra is still a concern though as are mammary tumors. But, another concern is how are you going to determing which animals have/have not been sterilized? Say your dog gets out, gets picked up by animal control, and still has his testicles in-tact. Animal control (at least where I live) charges more for picking up your un-sterilized dog than for your sterilized dog. How well they be able to tell the difference?

Most jurisdictions also require animals to be registered. Just indicate "sterilized--vasectomy" and provide a veterinary certification the way vets do for animals that have been microchipped. Here, you can purchase a permanent license (which is what I did) but the animal must be chipped. You just mail a vet note stating that they verified the animal is chipped with ID#XXXXX--it would be no different for tubal ligation or vasectomy. And most people (often including vets) cannot tell a spayed animal from an unspayed animal, so that doesn't factor in.

Anyway I really think it depends on where you are working as a vet/what type of field you are in. I would much rather spay/neuter in the area I live in then to leave it up to some of the people I have encountered to keep their intact pets away from other intact pets.

But now you're discussing the public health benefits again. It's still about the owner's responsibility. Any dog running loose can get hit by a car/cause a car accident/breed, even if it is neutered. Just because neutering prevents one of those possibilities doesn't mean that the "overpopulation problem" is caused by intact dogs. It's caused by irresponsible ownership.

 

[VeganSoprano]

The thing is, a sterilized animal owned by an irresponsible person still will not reproduce. An intact animal owned by a normally responsible person who does one irresponsible thing (trusts his not-so-responsible friend to petsit perhaps?) can easily reproduce. As long as overpopulation is the problem it is right now, I think it is necessary to treat fertility in pet-quality animals as a problem that is best served by the permanent solution of sterilization. After all, if any disease killed as many cats and dogs as shelter euthanasia due to overpopulation, I expect you would advocate attacking that problem from every conceivable angle.

 

[DVMDream]

regardless, we can't lie and say that spay/neuter has no risks and tons of benefits. Lying to your clients is wrong, no matter how irresponsible you think they are. It's their dog and they get to make the choice based on accurate, actual information provided by you. You can stress the expense and health risks of pregnancy, but you can't tell them that neutering their male dog has great behavioral benefits--because it doesn't!

I never said anything about lying to clients. Even now I tell ALL of the clients the truth including that neutering your male dogs can increase chance of prostate cancers/problems. Lying does not get you anywhere nor would I ever do it. I do tell clients that neutering can reduce roaming behavior of male dogs which has been proven to be true (in research and in my own observations), but I do tell them that it is not a guarantee. I am 100% honest with the clients and have no reason not to be. Yes, it is their decision as to what they want to do.

Most jurisdictions also require animals to be registered. Just indicate "sterilized--vasectomy" and provide a veterinary certification the way vets do for animals that have been microchipped. Here, you can purchase a permanent license (which is what I did) but the animal must be chipped. You just mail a vet note stating that they verified the animal is chipped with ID#XXXXX--it would be no different for tubal ligation or vasectomy. And most people (often including vets) cannot tell a spayed animal from an unspayed animal, so that doesn't factor in.

Yes. It would be impossible to tell if an animal has been spayed or not (we will try to look for a scar but even that is difficult) it would mainly be for males that it would be a problem. Good ideas of how to show whether or not the pet has been sterilized. Also, I have seen ferrets who have the blue tattoo marks on them showing that they have been sterilized so the same method might be good for vasectomies, tubal ligations and spays (since it is hard to find a spay scar sometimes).

It's still about the owner's responsibility. Any dog running loose can get hit by a car/cause a car accident/breed, even if it is neutered. Just because neutering prevents one of those possibilities doesn't mean that the "overpopulation problem" is caused by intact dogs. It's caused by irresponsible ownership.

I think we are actually agreeing here. The quote you quoted of mine is more or less saying it is irresponsible ownership that causes the overpopulation problem, for the most part. So if you can prevent these irresponsible owners from having the opportunity to increase the pet population then we should be taking that opportunity. Like someone else said you can sit a potential pet owner down before they adopt an intact pet and tell them how bad the pet overpopulation is and that they should possibly consider spaying/neutering, but it would be very hard to determine which owners will be the responsible ones and which ones will not. So spaying/neutering in shelters has become the norm so we can slow down the rate of pet overpopulation. Imagine if that were not the norm...pet overpopulation would skyrocket and we would end up with lots of pets with genetic problems and severe medical problems. Yes I know this is looking at the "bigger picture" but sometimes looking at the bigger picture helps on the individual level as well even if it is not a massive benefit that can be seen.

Again, the decisions you make as a veterinarian are really going to depend on where you work. Private practice you may look at that one pet individually whereas the local shelter vet is going to care more about the entire population health. Your decisions will also vary depending on location. If you are the vet in an area with lots of dog breeders, dog agility people, etc. you will probably be less likely to be suggesting neutering/spaying at a young age. If you live in an area where everybody is lower class or low-middle class is gone from their homes working from 9-5 or possibly working two jobs and you know they will not be around to make sure Fluffy and Fido do not get out of their separate crates, rooms, etc. and reproduce you will be more likely to suggest spaying/neutering as an effective way to prevent accidental breedings (of which this owner does not want his dogs to reproduce and is not "irresponsible" but does not have the time to watch his dogs 24/7). It is all going to be a matter of perspective. As a veterinarian in private practice you are going to have to look at an individual and the entire population around to make the best decision just because you have one animal in front of you does not mean you should ignore the rest of the population of pets in the community (many of which are probably your patients).

In both areas I have worked we have euthanized so many animals from accidental pregnancies gone wrong (including a 10 year old dog that had been in labor for a week), done numerous c-sections on dogs with dead puppies in them, done way too many mammary tumor removals, euthanisias from mammary tumors, aborted many pregnancies, treated way more intact males from car accidents (even a train accident) than we have neutered males, and done numerous pyo surgeries and euthanasias because of pyos. If I never have to put down or watch the vet put down the approximately 20-30 animals/year that we put to sleep from problems that could been solved from spaying/neutering I will be one very happy person.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Sure but what about the problems that we believe are caused by (potentially) or correlated with spaying and neutering? I've lost lots of dogs to HSA. Many many animals have cruciate ruptures that owners can't afford to repair. Behavior problems are the #1 reason animals are relinquished to shelters. You can't ignore those things--just because they aren't directly linked to the reproductive tract doesn't mean that they aren't affected by S/N. You KNOW that spaying would prevent a pyometra (well, unless it was a stump pyo, which can also happen). What if we KNEW that animals who were spayed (or spayed early) would get hemangiosarcoma? I'm not saying that's true...but just because it's not a direct reproductive tract issue doesn't mean it isn't related.

And the train example kind of doesn't make sense. The dog was out loose because his owners let him. Testicles aren't thumbs...he didn't open the door of his house and leave on his own. 🙂 My male dog has never gotten loose, neither has my female when she was in estrus. I know plenty of breeders who have never had accidents and none of whose dogs have been hit by cars.

I suspect confounding in the above example: it looks like intact status is correlated with car accidents but really, intact status is correlated with less responsible ownership because in America "responsible owners spay and neuter" (supposedly) and so you're really seeing a correlation between responsible ownership and fewer car accidents, not intact status and car accidents. How many show and performance breeders do you think let their intact dogs run loose? 😉

I'm sure we agree in theory--I think we just disagree on how to handle the situation. But a LOT of vets discuss spay and neuter as if it's just something every dog has done (ie "at the next visit we'll schedule his neuter") rather than "let's decide whether your dog should be neutered, and if so, when".

(I'm also not necessarily advocating leaving a dog intact forever--just until LATER.)

 

[david594]

I also didn't say that sterilization causes behavior problems, although I personally think it does. But several studies have shown an increased incidence of certain behavior problems in spayed/neutered animals compared to intact animals.

I fixed that for ya. Last time I checked though it also reduced the incidence of other certain behavioral problems. Like aggression, humping, and urine marking/spraying.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Not according to this study.

http://www.cdoca.org/downloads/files/Early SN and Behavior.pdf

And this is the study that originally showed the "benefits" of neutering--look at the study design and the results.J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1997 Jul 15;211(2):180-2. Effects of castration on problem behaviors in male dogs with reference to age and duration of behavior.

Neilson JC, Eckstein RA, Hart BL.
Behavior Service, Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis 95616, USA.
Abstract

.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 9 problem behaviors in adult male dogs were affected by castration and to examine the influence of age and duration of problem behavior on behavioral effects of castration. DESIGN: Cohort study. ANIMALS: 57 male dogs > 2 years old at the time of castration that had > or = 1 of the targeted problem behaviors. PROCEDURE: Data were collected by telephone contact with owners to identify dogs that had > or = 1 problem behavior before castration and to estimate the improvement (ie, decrease) in the objectionable behaviors after castration. Problem behaviors of interest included urine marking in the house, mounting, roaming, fear of inanimate stimuli, aggression toward human family members, aggression toward unfamiliar people, aggression toward other dogs in the household, aggression toward unfamiliar dogs, and aggression toward human territorial intruders. RESULTS: Effects of castration on fear of inanimate stimuli or aggression toward unfamiliar people were not significant. For urine marking, mounting, and roaming, castration resulted in an improvement of > or = 50% in > or = 60% of dogs and an improvement of > or = 90% in 25 to 40% of dogs. For remaining behaviors, castration resulted in an improvement of > or = 50% in < 35% of dogs. Significant correlations were not found between the percentage of improvement and age of the dog or duration of the problem behavior at the time of castration. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Castration was most effective in altering objectionable urine making, mounting, and roaming. With various types of aggressive behavior, including aggression toward human family members, castration may be effective in decreasing aggression in some dogs, but fewer than a third can be expected to have marked improvement. Age of the dog or duration of the problem behavior does not have value in predicting whether castration will have a beneficial effect..

 

[david594]

You KNOW that spaying would prevent a pyometra (well, unless it was a stump pyo, which can also happen). What if we KNEW that animals who were spayed (or spayed early) would get hemangiosarcoma? I'm not saying that's true...but just because it's not a direct reproductive tract issue doesn't mean it isn't related.

I know quite a few people who will argue that a stump pyometra is only possibly if remnant ovarian(hormones) and uterine tissue(hormone responsive tissue) are left behind. So for a properly done spay, it's not a possibility.

 

[DVMDream]

Sure but what about the problems that we believe are caused by (potentially) or correlated with spaying and neutering? I've lost lots of dogs to HSA. Many many animals have cruciate ruptures that owners can't afford to repair. Behavior problems are the #1 reason animals are relinquished to shelters. You can't ignore those things--just because they aren't directly linked to the reproductive tract doesn't mean that they aren't affected by S/N. You KNOW that spaying would prevent a pyometra (well, unless it was a stump pyo, which can also happen). What if we KNEW that animals who were spayed (or spayed early) would get hemangiosarcoma? I'm not saying that's true...but just because it's not a direct reproductive tract issue doesn't mean it isn't related.

Ok. You are very partial to HSA, but the truth is MOST dogs are not at an increased risk for HSA. What breed of dogs do you own? Are these dogs ones that are genetically pre-disposed to those cancers because of their breed? And we also still do not know for sure that spaying/neutering does cause the very, very small increase in incidence of this cancer that happened to be noticed in one study/survey. Dogs can get cruciate ruptures any day at any time whether they are sterilized or not. Yes stump pyos do happen to, but I have never seen one. My assumption is that they are very, very rare (probably even more so than HSA). We have also put down animals due to extreme behavioral problems as well. But I can tell you that the # of animals put down at the clinic due to HSA/OSA/behavior problems is much less than those put down from direct reproductive issues. Really, you would have to tell clients the truth. So you would have to say there has been a studying showing a 4% increase in HSA/OSA in spayed dogs, but after the first heat cycle there is a 7% increase in mammary cancers and after the second heat cycle there is a 25% increase in mammary cancers. Then throw in pyometra. The certain behavioral problems spaying does reduce and include the ones spaying does not reduce, etc, etc.

And the train example kind of doesn't make sense. The dog was out loose because his owners let him. Testicles aren't thumbs...he didn't open the door of his house and leave on his own. 🙂 My male dog has never gotten loose, neither has my female when she was in estrus. I know plenty of breeders who have never had accidents and none of whose dogs have been hit by cars.

No they are not, but have you ever seen a dog dig? They are particularly good at it. They like to do this at the bottom of a fence and then slip out from under the fence. Not everyone keeps their dogs indoors all the time. Many people keep their dogs outdoors with food, water and shelter. And most people let their dogs outside to go to the bathroom even if they are indoor dogs. So the dog digs its way out when the owner is gone to work and goes off wandering...gets hit by a train, car, bus, etc. Just because a dog gets loose does not automatically mean the owner is irresponsible. We even had a breeder come in once who had an accidental breeding between two dogs (of different breeds) when the male dog scaled the 12 foot fence that he was in and climbed into the other fenced off area with the female dog...she was also at work when it happened. One of our receptionists had an intact male dog that she kept outside her husband did not want the dog neutered. The dog escaped 4 times from the backyard...they even fenced him to an area on the patio going all the way up to the overhanging roof. There was about 1 inch of space between the overhanging roof and the top of the fence and that dog still got out. She picked him up from animal control that 4th time brought him straight to the clinic and had him neutered. She kept him inside for the next two months and then let him back out....he never tried to escape again.

I suspect confounding in the above example: it looks like intact status is correlated with car accidents but really, intact status is correlated with less responsible ownership because in America "responsible owners spay and neuter" (supposedly) and so you're really seeing a correlation between responsible ownership and fewer car accidents, not intact status and car accidents. How many show and performance breeders do you think let their intact dogs run loose? 😉.

I mentioned above how accidents can happen to both responsible and irresponible pet owners, even breeders. So just because a dog gets loose does not automatically make the owners irresponsible. Even my dog got out when he was a puppy. Miscommunication between my parents. Both the fence to our pool gate and the fence to our backyard were left open because my dad had been working out there. My mom did not know and let him out in the back to go to the bathroom. Went back 5 minutes later to let him in and he was not there. Luckily, it scared the crap out of the little puppy and he was sitting at the front door to the house. He would also not leave the house for the next month without being terrified. He still to this day will not leave our front yard even when other dogs are walking down the street. The only time he will leave the front yard is when he has a leash on and we are walking him otherwise he refuses to leave the front yard. Weird dog if you ask me. 🙄

I'm sure we agree in theory--I think we just disagree on how to handle the situation. But a LOT of vets discuss spay and neuter as if it's just something every dog has done (ie "at the next visit we'll schedule his neuter") rather than "let's decide whether your dog should be neutered, and if so, when".

(I'm also not necessarily advocating leaving a dog intact forever--just until LATER.)

Yes, in theory, I do agree with you, but I really think you should look at the entire picture. Just because you personally have lost dogs to HSA does not mean you should be telling all of your clients that sterlizing will cause HSA. If I am presented with a specific breed of dog that has a high risk of HSA due to its breed I would probably recommend later spaying/neutering, but then again we still do not know if it is sterilizing itself that caused that higher incidence of HSA or if it was sterilizing at a younger age that caused it whereas we do know early spaying causes risk of mammary cancer (a much more common cancer among all breeds of dogs) to be significantly decreased. It really will have to be a case by case basis. But, really the ENTIRE picture needs to be looked at, not just one small study/survey that suggested an increased risk of HSA in a specific breed of dog.

 

[No Imagination]

Wow - Took a break from studying, 30 minutes in (only 3/4 way through second page) and I've learned a TON. I was initially afraid it was a stupid question! Learning a lot from you guys!

 

[CanadianGolden]

Replace HSA with LSA, OSA, mast cell tumors, hip dysplasia...need I go on? It's not just my breed. Many breeds, including mixes, get all of these diseases. Don't nitpick--it's about the big picture--that we really DON'T know all of the effects of spaying and neutering. Clearly, you've seen lots of dogs with reproductive-related problems. Personally, I have not seen as many of those as I have seen get all of the above listed cancers or conditions. Which is why a really good controlled lifespan study is needed--so that our own biases don't get in the way. Sadly, it is unlikely to be funded. Anyone want to donate a dollar? 🙂

 

[DVMDream]

Replace HSA with LSA, OSA, mast cell tumors, hip dysplasia...need I go on? It's not just my breed. Many breeds, including mixes, get all of these diseases. Don't nitpick--it's about the big picture--that we really DON'T know all of the effects of spaying and neutering. Clearly, you've seen lots of dogs with reproductive-related problems. Personally, I have not seen as many of those as I have seen get all of the above listed cancers or conditions. Which is why a really good controlled lifespan study is needed--so that our own biases don't get in the way. Sadly, it is unlikely to be funded. Anyone want to donate a dollar? 🙂

Yes I agree that we can not let biases get in the way. I would like to see more studies on the effects of spaying/neutering on behavioral issues and cancer incidence related ones. You have already shown me things that I did not know previously about spaying/neutering (ligament growth/bone growth in young animals) and I now would consider waiting longer for doing a spay/neuter on certain dogs because of some of the things you have shown me and other things that I have read since this thread started. I would also consider vasectomies and tubal ligation surgeries in certain situations.

Maybe we can combine forces and develop a study to determine the long-term effects of spaying/neutering. It sure would be one very interesting study.