Dog vasectomy

ipswish

Tourist
Why is it that everyone in mainstrem America pushes to neuter dogs when we could control male breeding potential just as easily with a vasectomy and not effect their hormonal health. My mother wanted to get this done for her dog and we checked and couldn't find a single vet out of the dozens upon dozens we contacted that would even consider this they all said "no just neuter him". Hes still got his danglers since no one would do this incredibly simple procedure.
I would love to hear if anyone has a good reason as to why this is such a sticking point for vets. Is there something I just don't get?
 
I think its something of habit for them, among other things. Ive heard many tell me "well if im gonna get my hands in there, I might as well just go all the way." They preform many neuters and its 'to much of a hassle' for them to do something other then the norm.

To me it always felt like a "well ive been doing it this way for years and its been working just fine. So why should I learn how to do something else?" Kind of thing. But like I said there are probably many other factors.
 
Why is it that everyone in mainstrem America pushes to neuter dogs when we could control male breeding potential just as easily with a vasectomy and not effect their hormonal health. My mother wanted to get this done for her dog and we checked and couldn't find a single vet out of the dozens upon dozens we contacted that would even consider this they all said "no just neuter him". Hes still got his danglers since no one would do this incredibly simple procedure.
I would love to hear if anyone has a good reason as to why this is such a sticking point for vets. Is there something I just don't get?
I know all says ‘neuter’, that is an euphemism for castration.
I have never had a dog, and at the farm I grow up, we had a female German shepherd. So no knowledge there.
But as far i know of, when you castrate a dog, both male and female, the hormones is disturbed and among other things the bone strength diminishes because of loss of calcium.
The only reason for it is to have a male dog neutered, is to make him calm, less aggressive.
So people love to have this strong alfa-dog, but at once ruin him.
Many humans do the same - well, not actually castration - but begins to change him / her, and when at some time they don’t like there spouse anymore, the divorces. Next round.
 
I think its something of habit for them, among other things. Ive heard many tell me "well if im gonna get my hands in there, I might as well just go all the way." They preform many neuters and its 'to much of a hassle' for them to do something other then the norm.

To me it always felt like a "well ive been doing it this way for years and its been working just fine. So why should I learn how to do something else?" Kind of thing. But like I said there are probably many other factors.
That seems ridiculous could you imagine if your doctor said well if I'm going to be working on heart anyway might as well go all the way and transplant, it's not like vasectomies are a new thing that said there was a thread in the search that dogdaddy69 posted that liked to a resource to find vets that do offer it so I might check that out.
 
I know all says ‘neuter’, that is an euphemism for castration.
I have never had a dog, and at the farm I grow up, we had a female German shepherd. So no knowledge there.
But as far i know of, when you castrate a dog, both male and female, the hormones is disturbed and among other things the bone strength diminishes because of loss of calcium.
The only reason for it is to have a male dog neutered, is to make him calm, less aggressive.
So people love to have this strong alfa-dog, but at once ruin him.
Many humans do the same - well, not actually castration - but begins to change him / her, and when at some time they don’t like there spouse anymore, the divorces. Next round.
Yeah it seems like lazy people doing lazy things and the animals have to suck up the consequences :/
 
Happens daily. Better to be subtle than be a dick about it. Plus, likely where you will find most of the answers as this probably won't see as many. Good luck.
 
That's why I do not accept "to stop them reproduce an reducing strays" as a valid answer for neutering. Because the way less intrusive way of a vasectomy exists.

In the USA its just a trend, that won't stop, to castrate. It's the same with circumsition. Americans just love mutilated genitals...
 
I believe, at least here, it’s only a castrate option because the main reason to do a vasectomy is prevent pregnancies, which a castration will achieve while giving the added benefits of hormone reduction ( less aggression ) and preventing prostate cancer. There isn’t really a good non-zoo reason for choosing vasectomy over castration 😔
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Aka
Why is it that everyone in mainstrem America pushes to neuter dogs when we could control male breeding potential just as easily with a vasectomy and not effect their hormonal health.
There are multiple reasons. For the TL;DR people very quickly described: less risk for side effects related the testicles, health, cancer, impregnating chance 2-6 weeks after surgery, hormone based behavior changes are basically one of - if not the - reason for selecting it (and recommending it from vets side). Combined with full ignorance towards the negative results, which are quite often given to some degree.

If you want to read a bit further:

The most comical aspect: It is still possible that there could be sperms in "front" of the cut, so there is a very, very small chance for a successful impregnation shortly (2-6 weeks on humans, on dogs no idea) after the surgical process. But no, that's none of the vets reasons.

One reason is: the behavior changes through (very early, in most cases) spaying / ovariohysterectomy or neutering / castration is highly wished for. Not only by the owners but also by many vets which assume that it is "easier" or "stress-free" for the animal to be reduced into an oversized sex-less teddy bear without normal natural sexual cycles and hormonal reaction.

Animal "protection" groups and dog trainers are as well playing a role because it's recommended to tell the owners about the possible positive outcomes which are neither guaranteed nor do they often tell the owners about a whole bunch of negative, almost guaranteed results.

Very young female dogs which get ovariohysterectomy will not develop cancer in the mammary glands / ducs as often, it will get highly reduced in risk. Surely enough a removed uterus can't develop tumors as well..

The animals also tend to be more puppy-like in behavior, not marking, less odor, no sexual striving. As they never learned about their natural sexual behavior from hormonal changes and ways too much owners in reality don't want animals as pets which behave naturally, including sexual striving, this is also some recommended and "wished for" outcome. It also works for male dogs to a degree (less territorial guarding, less fights about other dogs (females mostly) and so on).

All those aspect don't count for vasectomy or ovariectomy (even less for leaving them in and just parting the connection which is possible, but very rare with dogs), as the hormones will mostly stay in place and the dogs grow into young dog / "teen" and then mature developments of the reproductive organs. Which might result in cancer some time later in life, some breeds more often, some less often.

But who would accept the removal of his lungs, liver and heart to prevent lung, liver and heart tumors? :ROFLMAO: Why is it important to reduce a risk by taking away a whole part of normalcy for those animals. You won't get this thought into the mind of those who suggest neutering or spaying. No matter the logical argumentation.

Some disadvantages of neutering / spaying include:
irregular, round-the-year fur growth
irregular fur loosening
irregular behavior in packs with dogs of same or different sex (which can result in less aggression but also less acceptance, both is possible)
less liveliness, more of a depressed state
loss of appetite
fat growing (getting mass even eating the same amount)
risk for heart or organ failures in higher age (missing protective hormones, mostly female dogs)
incontinence (quite often and mostly for the lifetime)
loss of sensual feelings in the area of the surgery
changes in muscle mass or sportive energy levels
changes in behavior, not only positive ones
loss of sexual interest and thriving (surely enough, this is wanted from many owners, less from zoophiles..)
less acceptance of new dogs in the pack in higher age due to no sexual interest feeding curiosity

.. and many more. But like said, for vets the "positive" aspects mostly count more. Spoke about this on an scientific argumentative level with several vets and a good vet friend of mine and you'll hear arguments like: "Your dog is 5/6/7/8/9 years old, if she develops cervical cancer (or if he develops testicle / prostate cancer as example) she/he might be 10-12 and the risks of a surgery in that age are high!". 🤦‍♂️

So lots of "if", "when", "but" as decision pointers on vets, trainers, "protection" groups and so on.. The result of a whole life difference for the animals to get their normative sexual thriving surgically removed gets thrown under the table ways too universally.

TL;DR? I warned you. :husky_wink:
English is not my main language, so there might be wording errors.
 
Until recently a lot of vets didn't know how to do vasectomies also a lot still neuter to help prevent running away after females in heat and sexual agression I say do either but there are reasons people neuter over doing vasectomies
 
Hes still got his danglers since no one would do this incredibly simple procedure.
How many accidental litters has he caused? If the answer is 0, then honestly what would have been the benefit of vasectomy? If he's out chasing the girls all day, they'd probable recommend neutering him to reduce chances of getting hit by a car, shot by a neighbor, bit by another dog, etc. That's probably one of the reasons vasectomy has never really been a real option. Also, although still not brain surgery, it is a more intricate procedure then orchiectomy.

The main reason for spaying and neutering was originally tied to population control, but now that pets mostly live indoors it's remained the norm because it unequivocally reduces pet relinquishment. They also realized they were seeing much less pyometra, mammary tumors, perineal hernias, bening prostatic hyperplasia, etc. So they put that in there as a win.
With some of the new papers looking at negetive effects of desexing, There's currently a shift towards taking an individual approach, but many of these papers are still inconclusive or contradictory on many fronts. Still lots of work to be done.
Im sure ultimately most people looking around here will be leaving tubes and danglers the way they are made regardless.
 
There are multiple reasons. For the TL;DR people very quickly described: less risk for side effects related the testicles, health, cancer, impregnating chance 2-6 weeks after surgery, hormone based behavior changes are basically one of - if not the - reason for selecting it (and recommending it from vets side). Combined with full ignorance towards the negative results, which are quite often given to some degree.

If you want to read a bit further:

The most comical aspect: It is still possible that there could be sperms in "front" of the cut, so there is a very, very small chance for a successful impregnation shortly (2-6 weeks on humans, on dogs no idea) after the surgical process. But no, that's none of the vets reasons.

One reason is: the behavior changes through (very early, in most cases) spaying / ovariohysterectomy or neutering / castration is highly wished for. Not only by the owners but also by many vets which assume that it is "easier" or "stress-free" for the animal to be reduced into an oversized sex-less teddy bear without normal natural sexual cycles and hormonal reaction.

Animal "protection" groups and dog trainers are as well playing a role because it's recommended to tell the owners about the possible positive outcomes which are neither guaranteed nor do they often tell the owners about a whole bunch of negative, almost guaranteed results.

Very young female dogs which get ovariohysterectomy will not develop cancer in the mammary glands / ducs as often, it will get highly reduced in risk. Surely enough a removed uterus can't develop tumors as well..

The animals also tend to be more puppy-like in behavior, not marking, less odor, no sexual striving. As they never learned about their natural sexual behavior from hormonal changes and ways too much owners in reality don't want animals as pets which behave naturally, including sexual striving, this is also some recommended and "wished for" outcome. It also works for male dogs to a degree (less territorial guarding, less fights about other dogs (females mostly) and so on).

All those aspect don't count for vasectomy or ovariectomy (even less for leaving them in and just parting the connection which is possible, but very rare with dogs), as the hormones will mostly stay in place and the dogs grow into young dog / "teen" and then mature developments of the reproductive organs. Which might result in cancer some time later in life, some breeds more often, some less often.

But who would accept the removal of his lungs, liver and heart to prevent lung, liver and heart tumors? :ROFLMAO: Why is it important to reduce a risk by taking away a whole part of normalcy for those animals. You won't get this thought into the mind of those who suggest neutering or spaying. No matter the logical argumentation.

Some disadvantages of neutering / spaying include:
irregular, round-the-year fur growth
irregular fur loosening
irregular behavior in packs with dogs of same or different sex (which can result in less aggression but also less acceptance, both is possible)
less liveliness, more of a depressed state
loss of appetite
fat growing (getting mass even eating the same amount)
risk for heart or organ failures in higher age (missing protective hormones, mostly female dogs)
incontinence (quite often and mostly for the lifetime)
loss of sensual feelings in the area of the surgery
changes in muscle mass or sportive energy levels
changes in behavior, not only positive ones
loss of sexual interest and thriving (surely enough, this is wanted from many owners, less from zoophiles..)
less acceptance of new dogs in the pack in higher age due to no sexual interest feeding curiosity

.. and many more. But like said, for vets the "positive" aspects mostly count more. Spoke about this on an scientific argumentative level with several vets and a good vet friend of mine and you'll hear arguments like: "Your dog is 5/6/7/8/9 years old, if she develops cervical cancer (or if he develops testicle / prostate cancer as example) she/he might be 10-12 and the risks of a surgery in that age are high!". 🤦‍♂️

So lots of "if", "when", "but" as decision pointers on vets, trainers, "protection" groups and so on.. The result of a whole life difference for the animals to get their normative sexual thriving surgically removed gets thrown under the table ways too universally.

TL;DR? I warned you. :husky_wink:
English is not my main language, so there might be wording errors.
I like your explanation, and the clear scientific way of speaking. One big thing I tell people when they ask is about the weight gain that happens. That tends to get their attention enough to consider that there could be negatives as well as positives about the procedure. People just aren’t told the negatives so are surprised to hear there are some.

More people need to ask questions of vets and stuff to get them thinking. I’m not an advocate for remaining entire, or not, but I am an advocate of people making informed decisions! With everything.
 
I’m not an advocate for remaining entire, or not, but I am an advocate of people making informed decisions! With everything.
Exactly! I would love it if there was more researching on the owners side before taking such a decision, but also more researching and instructing of the owners on vets sides. Often there's neither and only a bare knowledge on the vets side regarding different negative aspects (which also differ based on the breed as a further complication), they are often (too) quick to recommend it unfortunately.

Heck, they even recommend (and sell!) bullshit foods for pets with cool / healthy names and descriptions due to gaining shares / profit, which after all consist of 20-40% wheat or other plant products / slaughter industry waste, which is highly unhealthy for carnivores!

Reasons for those surgeries which I fully accept exist, but just "making life easier regarding handling the dog" is not one of those.

Everything the owners -can- prevent them self, to be exactly. What they can not prevent them self, like tumors, inflammations, and so on is a plausible reason for surgery if it is not able to get cured on another way.

But "oh, my dog could run away and get hit by a car if he smells female dogs in heat!", "I wouldn't be able to handle him if he wants to get aggressive regarding another dog!" or "my dog might get impregnated in heat, I just can't watch / handle her round the clock!" ain't plausible excuses. No time or muscle power to handle the dogs in their sexual active phases? Don't want a female dog to leave drop traces in heat or being too needy of attention? Don't get one (that big).. simple. Get a teddy bear instead. 🤷‍♂️
 
There are multiple reasons. For the TL;DR people very quickly described: less risk for side effects related the testicles, health, cancer, impregnating chance 2-6 weeks after surgery, hormone based behavior changes are basically one of - if not the - reason for selecting it (and recommending it from vets side). Combined with full ignorance towards the negative results, which are quite often given to some degree.

If you want to read a bit further:

The most comical aspect: It is still possible that there could be sperms in "front" of the cut, so there is a very, very small chance for a successful impregnation shortly (2-6 weeks on humans, on dogs no idea) after the surgical process. But no, that's none of the vets reasons.

One reason is: the behavior changes through (very early, in most cases) spaying / ovariohysterectomy or neutering / castration is highly wished for. Not only by the owners but also by many vets which assume that it is "easier" or "stress-free" for the animal to be reduced into an oversized sex-less teddy bear without normal natural sexual cycles and hormonal reaction.

Animal "protection" groups and dog trainers are as well playing a role because it's recommended to tell the owners about the possible positive outcomes which are neither guaranteed nor do they often tell the owners about a whole bunch of negative, almost guaranteed results.

Very young female dogs which get ovariohysterectomy will not develop cancer in the mammary glands / ducs as often, it will get highly reduced in risk. Surely enough a removed uterus can't develop tumors as well..

The animals also tend to be more puppy-like in behavior, not marking, less odor, no sexual striving. As they never learned about their natural sexual behavior from hormonal changes and ways too much owners in reality don't want animals as pets which behave naturally, including sexual striving, this is also some recommended and "wished for" outcome. It also works for male dogs to a degree (less territorial guarding, less fights about other dogs (females mostly) and so on).

All those aspect don't count for vasectomy or ovariectomy (even less for leaving them in and just parting the connection which is possible, but very rare with dogs), as the hormones will mostly stay in place and the dogs grow into young dog / "teen" and then mature developments of the reproductive organs. Which might result in cancer some time later in life, some breeds more often, some less often.

But who would accept the removal of his lungs, liver and heart to prevent lung, liver and heart tumors? :ROFLMAO: Why is it important to reduce a risk by taking away a whole part of normalcy for those animals. You won't get this thought into the mind of those who suggest neutering or spaying. No matter the logical argumentation.

Some disadvantages of neutering / spaying include:
irregular, round-the-year fur growth
irregular fur loosening
irregular behavior in packs with dogs of same or different sex (which can result in less aggression but also less acceptance, both is possible)
less liveliness, more of a depressed state
loss of appetite
fat growing (getting mass even eating the same amount)
risk for heart or organ failures in higher age (missing protective hormones, mostly female dogs)
incontinence (quite often and mostly for the lifetime)
loss of sensual feelings in the area of the surgery
changes in muscle mass or sportive energy levels
changes in behavior, not only positive ones
loss of sexual interest and thriving (surely enough, this is wanted from many owners, less from zoophiles..)
less acceptance of new dogs in the pack in higher age due to no sexual interest feeding curiosity

.. and many more. But like said, for vets the "positive" aspects mostly count more. Spoke about this on an scientific argumentative level with several vets and a good vet friend of mine and you'll hear arguments like: "Your dog is 5/6/7/8/9 years old, if she develops cervical cancer (or if he develops testicle / prostate cancer as example) she/he might be 10-12 and the risks of a surgery in that age are high!". 🤦‍♂️

So lots of "if", "when", "but" as decision pointers on vets, trainers, "protection" groups and so on.. The result of a whole life difference for the animals to get their normative sexual thriving surgically removed gets thrown under the table ways too universally.

TL;DR? I warned you. :husky_wink:
English is not my main language, so there might be wording errors.
I'd like to correct something spaying is thought to reduce occurance of mammory masses which most of the time are cancerous and it's not the removal of the uterus that does this it's not going into heat and out of heat so it's removing the ovaries the uterus has nothing to do with heat cycle regulation but also I'd love to see scientific papers backing up all the negatives you listed not spay coat but the others (spay coat is over/under/ weird growth of the coat after spaying) I've read a good handful of veterinary papers of effects and benifits of traditional spay/neuter and the untraditional vasectomy/ovary saving spay aka a hysterectomy
 
I'd like to correct something spaying is thought to reduce occurance of mammory masses which most of the time are cancerous and it's not the removal of the uterus that does this it's not going into heat and out of heat so it's removing the ovaries the uterus has nothing to do with heat cycle regulation ..
The main effect comes from less hormonal activity (or any at all), which falls mostly away by the removal, that is true. But even just the existence of the uterus is enough for potential hormonal disturbing of balance. False heats through hormonal activity or even just a change in uterus cells / walls can result in almost the same changes regarding the mammary glands / ducs and even milk releasing. There's also an interplay of fur change cycles (under fur) and relevant heat parameters. A simple pyometra as example can trigger both results through hormonal activity even after the ovaries were removed. 🤷‍♂️

I will search scientific papers regarding side effects on the weekend, quite a lot of this is experienced first hand either with own dog, dogs in my care (I was active for two animal shelters / stations without neutering or spaying enforcement and worked with a bunch of wolves at a nature "reservation" / installation over months as well) or dogs I handled / helped with on a befriended vet. A year of veterinary studies which I didn't select to gain a degree, but for direct access to relevant interesting knowledge, also helped.

If you gained different experiences or scientific results, you're free to post them as well. Neither of my knowledge is an universal truth (is there one at all?), but the actual abstraction of what was learned, read, experienced, watched, handled and analyzed.

I've read a good handful of veterinary papers of effects and benifits of traditional spay/neuter ..
I did so as well. Funnily enough those papers seem to always exclude specific breeds if they want to prove something, which is contraindicative to the breeds genetic risks.
There were as example astonishingly few nordic dog breed researches regarding mammary gland / duc preventive pre-first heat spaying, most used other breeds with as well quite high risks for this often carcinogenic tumor types, which had in overall lower carcinogenic than benign tumor results on the papers.

Surely enough I am somewhat biased as my search only occurred in either German or English and there might be enough papers in different languages proving the opposite, who knows. 🤷‍♂️

Back to welding.. one of the reasons for not being a vet after all (beneath the missing emotional distance to the animals that might die under my care) was that there would be no possibility to help animals with lost limbs by replacement robotics then.
 
The main effect comes from less hormonal activity (or any at all), which falls mostly away by the removal, that is true. But even just the existence of the uterus is enough for potential hormonal disturbing of balance. False heats through hormonal activity or even just a change in uterus cells / walls can result in almost the same changes regarding the mammary glands / ducs and even milk releasing. There's also an interplay of fur change cycles (under fur) and relevant heat parameters. A simple pyometra as example can trigger both results through hormonal activity even after the ovaries were removed. 🤷‍♂️

I will search scientific papers regarding side effects on the weekend, quite a lot of this is experienced first hand either with own dog, dogs in my care (I was active for two animal shelters / stations without neutering or spaying enforcement and worked with a bunch of wolves at a nature "reservation" / installation over months as well) or dogs I handled / helped with on a befriended vet. A year of veterinary studies which I didn't select to gain a degree, but for direct access to relevant interesting knowledge, also helped.

If you gained different experiences or scientific results, you're free to post them as well. Neither of my knowledge is an universal truth (is there one at all?), but the actual abstraction of what was learned, read, experienced, watched, handled and analyzed.


I did so as well. Funnily enough those papers seem to always exclude specific breeds if they want to prove something, which is contraindicative to the breeds genetic risks.
There were as example astonishingly few nordic dog breed researches regarding mammary gland / duc preventive pre-first heat spaying, most used other breeds with as well quite high risks for this often carcinogenic tumor types, which had in overall lower carcinogenic than benign tumor results on the papers.

Surely enough I am somewhat biased as my search only occurred in either German or English and there might be enough papers in different languages proving the opposite, who knows. 🤷‍♂️

Back to welding.. one of the reasons for not being a vet after all (beneath the missing emotional distance to the animals that might die under my care) was that there would be no possibility to help animals with lost limbs by replacement robotics then.
I agree that some of the reaserch is conflicting and the mammory thing is just a theory so I never try to state it as fact the only things spaying or a hysterectomy has proven to elimate is pyometras, pregnancy, and uterian cancer (which is very rare to my understanding)
 
Spaying has been shown to affect the incidence of mammary tumors and survival times of dogs that get them. Mammary tumors are common, roughly 50% benign vs 50% malignant. There was that old study done decades ago on spaying before first heat vs after 1 or 2 which may not have been the strongest. People in the veterinary community have kinda just gone with it, probably because it's very easy to appreciate the difference in occurrence of these tumors on intact vs spayed dogs (more frequent on intact dogs).
They're doing more studies these days to see the effects of breed, timing of spay, etc. Also the effects on longevity, behavior, different kinds of diseases. It took a while to get to it, but they're getting to it.
That being said, many of the studies still have limitations (small number of dogs, dogs of only 1 breed, etc), and conclusions that aren't as clear cut. The most convincing and conclusive thing to come of them so far has been the effect of early spay/neuter increasing the incidence of orthopedic problems like cruciate ligament tears on large/giant breeds, which seems to have moved many to recommend spaying or neutering later then they used to.

To be clear, hysterectomy, or the removal of the uterus, will leave the ovaries and therefore the hormones there. You won't have the benefits or drawbacks associated with spaying. You will have a dog that can't get pregnant, but still goes into heat, shouldn't get pyometra (though if the cervix wasn't removed, could definitely get stump pyometra), could still have sex but could be at risk of getting injured if mated with by another dog. Ovariectomy on the other hand will have very similar effect to spaying. No more oestrus, no hormones, suppressed libido, can't get pyometra, no false pregnancies. The uterus just doesn't produce those hormones.
 
building off strayward: neutering will reduce the risks of some cancers. so we can preform a vasectomy now at a year old for $1,000 then spend another $500 in diagnostics later and $2K in treatment which will most likely include a neuter... or the vet can charge you $800 neuter and not worry about the cancer later in life when the dog doesn't need the testicles any longer...
 
Spaying has been shown to affect the incidence of mammary tumors and survival times of dogs that get them. Mammary tumors are common, roughly 50% benign vs 50% malignant. There was that old study done decades ago on spaying before first heat vs after 1 or 2 which may not have been the strongest. People in the veterinary community have kinda just gone with it, probably because it's very easy to appreciate the difference in occurrence of these tumors on intact vs spayed dogs (more frequent on intact dogs).
They're doing more studies these days to see the effects of breed, timing of spay, etc. Also the effects on longevity, behavior, different kinds of diseases. It took a while to get to it, but they're getting to it.
That being said, many of the studies still have limitations (small number of dogs, dogs of only 1 breed, etc), and conclusions that aren't as clear cut. The most convincing and conclusive thing to come of them so far has been the effect of early spay/neuter increasing the incidence of orthopedic problems like cruciate ligament tears on large/giant breeds, which seems to have moved many to recommend spaying or neutering later then they used to.

To be clear, hysterectomy, or the removal of the uterus, will leave the ovaries and therefore the hormones there. You won't have the benefits or drawbacks associated with spaying. You will have a dog that can't get pregnant, but still goes into heat, shouldn't get pyometra (though if the cervix wasn't removed, could definitely get stump pyometra), could still have sex but could be at risk of getting injured if mated with by another dog. Ovariectomy on the other hand will have very similar effect to spaying. No more oestrus, no hormones, suppressed libido, can't get pyometra, no false pregnancies. The uterus just doesn't produce those hormones.
Yeah. It is a significant benefit to getting the procedure. I’m pleased they are recommending later ops for large breeds cause the research into it was done a while ago. There are lots of pros and cons for everyone to consider for something like this.

Exactly! I would love it if there was more researching on the owners side before taking such a decision, but also more researching and instructing of the owners on vets sides. Often there's neither and only a bare knowledge on the vets side regarding different negative aspects (which also differ based on the breed as a further complication), they are often (too) quick to recommend it unfortunately.

Heck, they even recommend (and sell!) bullshit foods for pets with cool / healthy names and descriptions due to gaining shares / profit, which after all consist of 20-40% wheat or other plant products / slaughter industry waste, which is highly unhealthy for carnivores!

Reasons for those surgeries which I fully accept exist, but just "making life easier regarding handling the dog" is not one of those.

Everything the owners -can- prevent them self, to be exactly. What they can not prevent them self, like tumors, inflammations, and so on is a plausible reason for surgery if it is not able to get cured on another way.

But "oh, my dog could run away and get hit by a car if he smells female dogs in heat!", "I wouldn't be able to handle him if he wants to get aggressive regarding another dog!" or "my dog might get impregnated in heat, I just can't watch / handle her round the clock!" ain't plausible excuses. No time or muscle power to handle the dogs in their sexual active phases? Don't want a female dog to leave drop traces in heat or being too needy of attention? Don't get one (that big).. simple. Get a teddy bear instead. 🤷‍♂️
I have to agree that owners not wanting to deal with the issues of an entire dog should desex them. Usually if someone is getting it done just for “don’t want to deal with it” then it’s better to let them because the dog’s well-being won’t be better if they’re told just to deal with it. It’s not an outcome I’d like to have but it is a reality of life.
 
At the moment missing the time for long answers unfortunately, but one small comment:
.. then it’s better to let them because the dog’s well-being won’t be better if they’re told just to deal with it. It’s not an outcome I’d like to have but it is a reality of life.
I recommend them an animatronic robot. Wholly sex-free if they want, starting from $ 30.000 upwards. That's cheaper than a dogs life over time.

or the vet can charge you $800 neuter and not worry about the cancer later in life when the dog doesn't need the testicles any longer...
Yes, but it still doesn't take the side effects and time / annoyances those cause into thought. Why should they, as it is not their problem. 🤷‍♂️

Ovariectomy on the other hand will have very similar effect to spaying. No more oestrus, no hormones, suppressed libido, can't get pyometra, no false pregnancies. The uterus just doesn't produce those hormones.
My dog had pyometras twice through malign tumours, removed ovaries, removed mammary glands / ducs, still almost same hormonal blood and tissue probe values as a healthy female dog in heat, so this is not the whole truth. There are (and that's a study in process right now on female humans - which also suffer from side effects through Ovariectomies later in life) different hormonal producing organs, potentially as well tumors and also changes in brain, bone tissue (older age) and so on.

For male dogs it's a bit different story. But it's not as easy as one tends to believe it is.

Neither does an ovariectomy, nor including removal of the uterus suppress libido if the dog actually knows what sexual properties and feelings are. As well climaxing is still possible for females wholly, no reduction in it. Just are there no real studies in this field because.. find a group of loving zoos caring for the dogs sexual interests in studies, d'Oh.

For young dogs which undergo this surgery I assume it is possible to never develop such an interest, true.

Back to work, have a good weekend! :husky_happysmile:
 
My dog had pyometras twice through malign tumours, removed ovaries, removed mammary glands / ducs, still almost same hormonal blood and tissue probe values as a healthy female dog in heat, so this is not the whole truth. There are (and that's a study in process right now on female humans - which also suffer from side effects through Ovariectomies later in life) different hormonal producing organs, potentially as well tumors and also changes in brain, bone tissue (older age) and so on.
I'm sorry your dog went through that. However, I stand by what I said. Pyometra requires progesterone to occur. Progesterone is secreted by the corpus lutem (in the ovary), the ovaries and the placentas (which require babies, which require ovaries), and to a small degree the adrenal glands. Functional adrenal tumors secreting progesterone in dogs are not common. Maybe because the vast majority of dogs here are spayed, I dunno. Not sure what happened to your doggo. Don't know if I'm reading that wrong, but it sounds crazy to me that they would perform ovariectomy and not ovariohysterectomy on a dog with pyo.

Neither does an ovariectomy, nor including removal of the uterus suppress libido if the dog actually knows what sexual properties and feelings are. As well climaxing is still possible for females wholly, no reduction in it.
You're right, I didn't express myself clearly, I meant to say negatively impact, not completely eradicate, libido. Suppress wasn't the right choice of words. You're right that dogs are still capable of sexual pleasure without testes or ovaries, but they definitely won't be the same. It would be interesting to have a poll for people who have had to have their dogs spayed what effects they noticed on the dog's interest/experience with sex. Would probably answer a lot of the recurring questions around here. as good of a study as you'll get.

I recommend them an animatronic robot.
I've recommended that both for people who want pets or children, how come it never works....
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry your dog went through that. However, I stand by what I said.
No problem, I think it is positive to tell your opinion from experience and knowledge. Thank you in behalf of my dog, but it's just misfortune, nothing to change about. After more than a dozen surgeries there's no more tumors (so far), so it does not necessarily mean the end for a living being, even without chemotherapy being financially usable for animals.

Functional adrenal tumors secreting progesterone in dogs are not common, there's a few case reports that's it. It's less frequent then pieces of the ovaries being left behind during surgery.
Yes, it's quite rare. I guess I can exclude the remaining of ovaries tissue in my dog after I helped the lightly drunk befriended vet with the surgeries (those regarding the ovaries / uterus and one of the tumor / mammary gland removal ones). He knows his job well.

Not sure what happened to your doggo. Don't know if I'm reading that wrong, but it sounds crazy to me that they would perform ovariectomy and not ovariohysterectomy on a dog with pyo.

Oh, don't get me wrong. First pyometra was fully intact, where a tumor (two near together) was identified on one ovary. The remaining development I won't post here, but recurring, uterus tumors, all malign, second pyometra and so on followed. As someone who had and still has curiosity and interest on being able to perform veterinary tasks through myself (initially wanted to become one, but have reasons not to) as well I basically helped with all of those surgeries, opposing the first ones with small tumors in mammary glands / ducs.

From what I found out of curiosity there are more ways to result in a pyometra than hormone dependent ones. As the cervix was basically all-time widened through specific zoo-related consensual activities together this does not really wonder me, as for a bacterial infection - even if not strictly under the label of pyometra, but with exactly same outcome - pus infected inflammated uterus, just different origin - through a weakened immune system and the given tumors which as well threw the hormonal balance and blood values in chaos, this is not unusual.

There were very active autoimmune reactions in the area of the newly formed tumor, which resulted in fluid collection of broken down cells as well.

But doesn't matter, important is that she's still alive and kicking with her old age. And still -
.. but they definitely won't be the same. It would be interesting to have a poll for people who have had to have their dogs spayed what effects they noticed on the dog's interest/experience with sex.
she was the same, is the same. Not everything is as unisono as the analysis of "most cases" tries to prove. Even as I see it more rare than the opposite - loss of sexual interest, it's still existing. I could basically post videos and you would wonder, most vets would probably wonder and ask them self if their idea of "dogs sexuality is based on instinct and hormone" still counts. She shows very clearly what she wants and how, just without human language. Still clear to understand.

For me at least it proves what I thought to know from analysis of expressions and behavior since my childhood: that most mammals actually can enjoy and love sexual activities all year around, but are somewhat hindered by their anatomy and not precise / careful handling or toy abilities (still almost all of them find ways around to get their satisfaction).

So for me.. no study or poll is needed as we have basically multiple live sessions per week, which mostly are due to her sexual requirements, while I find rarely time for horniness from my side, haha.

So far, so good. This dog cost me more in healthcare than fifteen new pure breeds would've costed, but I don't care.

I've recommended that both for people who want pets or children, how come it never works....

I always laugh, if I see parents with children. 8 billion are more than enough to ruin everything already. For me as exclusive zoophile both the animatronic and the living being (dog) are interesting ways of life and I make sure they can coexist in the near future.

Have a good weekend!
 
I believe, at least here, it’s only a castrate option because the main reason to do a vasectomy is prevent pregnancies, which a castration will achieve while giving the added benefits of hormone reduction ( less aggression ) and preventing prostate cancer. There isn’t really a good non-zoo reason for choosing vasectomy over castration 😔
that the dog is less aggressive following a castration is an unproven myth which in my opinion remains a big joke as well as the so-called cancer / tumor. having them 8 dogs 2 females and the rest of the males all intact except one and none, I mean none to them problems of this kind, except a shitty veto which decided to neuter my first dog at 5 months and which in the end caused him a lot of damage to his health, torn ligament, osteosarcoma and urinary incontinence with the final euthanasia at 1 and a half years old. so in the end I prefer vasectomy than early castration and 100% unnecessary.
 
that the dog is less aggressive following a castration is an unproven myth
Many people seem to think that, but it's been proven to actually not be the case. Testosterone regulates the intensity of behaviors, it doesn't cause them. Intact dogs tend to get more hyped up and agonistic behaviors (like chin up, mounting, teeth chattering, butt sniffing), thus they tend to be less good at playing with other dogs and get into squabbles. They come off as stand-offish, which people assume is aggression, when it actually is not. In many studies, certain types of aggression, as well as fear/anxiety was higher in neutered groups. The age of neutering had an impact on the results. Spaying aggressive females also was at risk of increasing aggression. Still lots of research required in this regard, but with some luck that myth is eventually going to come apart. So much legislation they're passing these days is unfortunately going in the wrong direction.

torn ligament, osteosarcoma and urinary incontinence with the final euthanasia at 1 and a half years old
Damn, that's brutal, poor guy. Urinary incontinence in males following castration and bone cancer at that age are both exceptionally rare. He really won the shit lottery.

so in the end I prefer vasectomy than early castration and 100% unnecessary.
To the OP's original question, if you're looking at an individual dog, you're well informed on the consequences of your choice and willing to live with them, you should be able to make a decision on what's best for your dog. If you're going to make a generalization like "100% unnecessary", you need to keep in mind that in today's society, there's a much lower chance for pets to be discarded if they're neutered. Until there's a social shift towards accepting pets the way they are made (that's not what the average person in North-America currently wants), and being more responsible owners (Also, not what people want), it's probably going to remain the general recommendation for that reason.
Many vets are moving towards a more individual approach, Hope you can all find acess to one you get along with.
 
@Strayward
urinary incontinence is frequent during castrations, this is what is often reported to me, I do not know if it also affects females.
for the rest, I prefer the vasectomy than the castration which for me is useless and abject.

Until people establish a population control ethic for themselves, I think we are hypocrites to castrate non-human beings under the guise of doing what is right. With more than 7 billion humans on the planet, human population is increasing by one every two seconds, i think mankind needs to clean their own house before believing himself wise enough to manage the populations of other animal nations.

quote copy in this group and that suits me perfectly...


the side effects concerning torn ligaments, osteosarcoma are established when castration has been established on certain breeds such as Labrador. Golden Retriver. dachshund because they are castrated too early is equivalent to doing it on a growing teenager, hence the term a castrato which will inevitably influence his future life. for mine and according to an expertise, it was done too early.
 
Last edited:
Cancer / tumor related it's logically proven that non-existing (anymore) body tissue can't grow faulty cells, but it just leaves potential cancer risk to other organs / body parts. Cutting out those body parts of high risk in the breed line does not reduce the risk to zero, while even if the risk is around 25 to 45% in some breeds (for as example mammary gland tumors, both malign and benign), there are easy ways to check for those and even treating is possible.

I've seen a lot of dogs which got kidney tumors, lung tumors, brain tumors, bone tumors.. it's a never ending list of risks and nobody can "prevent" it completely by any measures, just check for it regularly and treat / use surgical means if possible.

This is as well the way established at humans, even those which don't want to bear a child later in life: preventive checks and ways of treating / surgical removal of tumors. Not "we castrate everyone who doesn't want offspring later in life for risk reduction measures", even as the female human risks for breast tumors are not that much lower than those of most breeds. From my opinion people have to learn how to check, take precautions before it gets non-treatable.

There are even in 2021 still a lot of plain kidney failures or overgrowing in size of those and liver tissue from unfitting diets with high amounts of carbohydrates and 15-40% of wheat as a cheap mass substitute, people don't care enough and are not open for the thought that they adopted / got an animal including all normal, natural traits like sexuality. In this term I am on par with:
Until there's a social shift towards accepting pets the way they are made (that's not what the average person in North-America currently wants), and being more responsible owners (Also, not what people want), it's probably going to remain the general recommendation for that reason.

Still can't accept this, just tolerate it to a specific level. I have an urge to hit people with my fist in real life if they tell me that they let their young dogs below their sexual teen age castrate or spay, it makes me sick. But on the other hand it is not fixable by violence.

I prefer the vasectomy than the castration which for me is useless and abject.
It is not 100% unnecessary, neither without alternatives. In case your dog develops malign tissue tumors at their reproductive organs a castration / spaying could save their life. There's always, in each case the misfortune possibility that faulty cells are already traveling through the body or surviving the surgery, reoccurring tumors might follow. But it does better on saving the life compared to "just wait and let them die from organ failures or broken down life-dependent functional tissue" surely enough.

.. I do not know if it also affects females.
It does. Quite often as well. But changes in fur growth, irregular loosening through the affected fur change times (hormone dependent and often linked to heat as example) are more regular. From what I saw in around 250-300 dogs in my time on animal shelters and even some cats, it hits almost two thirds of long- or double-furred breeds. Even short fur ones might be floofs afterwarts.

Until people establish a population control ethic for themselves, ..
No panic. I won't generate offspring. Just AI based robots resembling animals which might (hopefully?) take over the world. :husky_wink:
 
Cancer / tumor related it's logically proven that non-existing (anymore) body tissue can't grow faulty cells, but it just leaves potential cancer risk to other organs / body parts. Cutting out those body parts of high risk in the breed line does not reduce the risk to zero, while even if the risk is around 25 to 45% in some breeds (for as example mammary gland tumors, both malign and benign), there are easy ways to check for those and even treating is possible.

I've seen a lot of dogs which got kidney tumors, lung tumors, brain tumors, bone tumors.. it's a never ending list of risks and nobody can "prevent" it completely by any measures, just check for it regularly and treat / use surgical means if possible.

This is as well the way established at humans, even those which don't want to bear a child later in life: preventive checks and ways of treating / surgical removal of tumors. Not "we castrate everyone who doesn't want offspring later in life for risk reduction measures", even as the female human risks for breast tumors are not that much lower than those of most breeds. From my opinion people have to learn how to check, take precautions before it gets non-treatable.

There are even in 2021 still a lot of plain kidney failures or overgrowing in size of those and liver tissue from unfitting diets with high amounts of carbohydrates and 15-40% of wheat as a cheap mass substitute, people don't care enough and are not open for the thought that they adopted / got an animal including all normal, natural traits like sexuality. In this term I am on par with:


Still can't accept this, just tolerate it to a specific level. I have an urge to hit people with my fist in real life if they tell me that they let their young dogs below their sexual teen age castrate or spay, it makes me sick. But on the other hand it is not fixable by violence.


It is not 100% unnecessary, neither without alternatives. In case your dog develops malign tissue tumors at their reproductive organs a castration / spaying could save their life. There's always, in each case the misfortune possibility that faulty cells are already traveling through the body or surviving the surgery, reoccurring tumors might follow. But it does better on saving the life compared to "just wait and let them die from organ failures or broken down life-dependent functional tissue" surely enough.


It does. Quite often as well. But changes in fur growth, irregular loosening through the affected fur change times (hormone dependent and often linked to heat as example) are more regular. From what I saw in around 250-300 dogs in my time on animal shelters and even some cats, it hits almost two thirds of long- or double-furred breeds. Even short fur ones might be floofs afterwarts.


No panic. I won't generate offspring. Just AI based robots resembling animals which might (hopefully?) take over the world. :husky_wink:
about the vasectomy, apart from default I would use it as a means of contraception on a dog, of course if problems with the prostate too large share examples or other tumors. I would choose castrations as a last resort (medical) .. but always as a last resort and not the top most vetoes who only see castrations as miracle solutions .. if I make myself understood. a veterinary assistant wanted to convince me to neuter my dog by claiming as miracle solutions for many things .. I answered her ... I don't need your lies after my first bad experiences on this subject ...
 
Back
Top