I don't want to lop off my dogs balls!

If the mutt isn't a thoroughbred breeder there's really no need for the equipment.

I would apply this to all pet owners. The number of ferral dogs (no pure dingos left) in our rangeland is a continuing problem for native wild life.

It appears to me that responsible pet ownership with a (no breed guarentee) is in the minority.

Pets should be desexed as a matter of course.

0 Replies

Well, when he's pissing blood and can't **** right because his prostate is the size of a tennis ball, the only thing to do will be to cut his balls off -- and at that point you probably should cut his big, pendulous scrotum off, too, and an inexperienced and or sloppy surgeon might traumatize the urethra in the process -- not likely, but possible -- and there's a decent likelihood that the big bulbous prostate will be harboring an infection that is difficult to get antibiotics to and may delay healing of the incision...

But, then, I'm a glass-half-empty kind of guy.

It's actually much easier to make the argument for spaying females young. Mammary tumors and uterine infections are nasty things. Come to think of it, so is a bitch in heat...

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Well, when he's pissing blood and can't **** right because his prostate is the size of a tennis ball, the only thing to do will be to cut his balls off -- and at that point you probably should cut his big, pendulous scrotum off, too, and an inexperienced and or sloppy surgeon might traumatize the urethra in the process -- not likely, but possible -- and there's a decent likelihood that the big bulbous prostate will be harboring an infection that is difficult to get antibiotics to and may delay healing of the incision...

But, then, I'm a glass-half-empty kind of guy.

It's actually much easier to make the argument for spaying females young. Mammary tumors and uterine infections are nasty things. Come to think of it, so is a bitch in heat...

Am I going nuts?

I thought people here were saying there was MORE chance of prostate cancer in dogs that were neutered???

Dadpad.........I'm gonna stand up for the mutt.

I think mutts are great....not when allowed to have unwanted puppies, but that's an argument for responsible ownership, not against mutts.

A lot of pedigree animals get ruined by stupid breeders, in my view, as exaggerated features become desirable for some reason. Mutts rule!

And, I am a mutt myself, dammit!

Then there's the designer mixes, for which there are now queues at the breeders......labradoodles, spoodles etc.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I thought people here were saying there was MORE chance of prostate cancer in dogs that were neutered???

Nope.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I thought people here were saying there was MORE chance of prostate cancer in dogs that were neutered???

Nope.

From what I can find (from peer-reviewed scientific publications as "common knowlege" tends to take the other position) castrated dogs show a 400% increase in prostate cancer. Here are the references I cites earlier:

Teske E, Nann EC, van Dijk EM, van Garderen E, Schalken JA (2002). "Canine prostate carcinoma: epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs.". Mol Cell Endocrinol. 197 (1-2): 251-255.
Sorenmo KU, Goldschmidt M, Shofer F, Ferrocone J (2003). "Immunohistochemical characterization of canine prostatic carcinoma and correlation with castration status and castration time". Vet Comparative Oncology. 1 (1): 48-56.

I am not yet convinced that castrated dogs are more likely to have prostate cancer, but would like more than an ipse dixit to support the opposing viewpoint.

0 Replies

I think I'll go with the vet doc and vet student who posted. And my dogs' vet.

That'd be a personal decision of course.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I think I'll go with the vet doc and vet student who posted. And my dogs' vet.

That'd be a personal decision of course.

That's fine with me, I am bothered by the non-personal decisions in America like the law in Los Angeles requiring you to neuter your dog or face fines. And I am bothered by group think that may deter more research and that is increasingly suspect. I don't mind that others take their vets advice so much as I mind so many vets spreading misinformation. Here's a quote from a vet whose article I just found today that summarizes my qualm with the conventional wisdom on neutering very well:

Chris Zink, D.V.M., Ph.D wrote:

This article provides evidence through a number of recent studies to suggest that veterinarians and owners working with canine athletes should revisit the standard protocol in which all dogs that are not intended for breeding are spayed and neutered at or before 6 months of age.

....

A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10)

....

I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes.

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

I found this because I don't quite buy the research that claims neutered dogs are that much more at risk either, and thought that the stage at which the neutering takes place may be an important factor. Perhaps the increased incidences of cancer are due to early neutering and spaying and not the neutering and spaying per se. But whatever the case, the lack of skepticism bothers me, as it always does, but even more so because I think involuntary disfigurement and body modification are ethical issues of importance.

Here's another vet's theory on how the vet community got it wrong, which I'd also been very curious about.

Don P. Polley, DVM wrote:

Veterinarians who graduated more than 10 years ago were taught that prostate cancer is more present in intact dogs than castrated dogs. Prostate cancer is actually more common in castrated dogs than intact ones. Contemporary veterinary textbooks and peer reviewed literature stress that prostate cancer in dogs is hormonally independent and that
castrated dogs have shown up to a four times greater risk of developing prostate cancer than intact dogs.

....

The inaccuracy likely began because there was no data in dogs 30 years ago before the advocacy of spay/neutering. In the absence of that data, veterinary practitioners borrowed data from human medicine.

http://www.lynneljones.com/mastiff/neutering.htm

And that summarizes it very well for me. While almost all vets claim (mine does, even though he admits he doesn't know why he does) that castration eliminates prostate cancer, this is not supported by research. But everyone "knows" this and misinformation this widespread is a personal pet peeve because the lack of skepticism in accepting the claims is an impediment to more honest research.

In any case, it's admittedly pedantic on my part. Because the claims of castration eliminating prostate cancer are serendipitously helpful in that though untrue it may help against even more common problems.

Based on Patiodog's descriptions I think he is referring to non-cancerous prostate problems (i.e. an enlarged prostate) and not prostate cancer specifially. It's a very good point that gave me pause, because that's a lot more common than prostate cancer (100% versus less than 1%) and is, in fact, helped by castration. But even then, the differences in anatomy between humans and canines and the way their prostates enlarge (humans inward, canines outward) make for very different rates of problematic symptoms (the last study I read indicated a 1.5% rate of such symptoms from an enlarged prostate).

Anywho, for my personal decision cancer and these health issues aren't a big factor, that's a qualm I have with the dogmaticism of the must-neuter position. I've found some of the information that I requested earlier in the thread that confirms that the rates of such cancers are as low as I had estimated (though the information is old (60s) and any newer information would be appreciated).

Edit (I found new information already that is within a percentage point from the first data set I found, but as always would appreciate more data if anyone has it).

Right now, what I really wanna know for my personal decision is what kind of urine marking behavior changes I can see. The population issue isn't a factor in my lifestyle (and is the most legitimate reason for neutering) and to get extra percentage points for the dog's health there are more important things I could do (like confiscate Harry's stash of pot).

Unfortunately, I don't think there is any scientific research on the urine marking so I'd love to hear anecdotal evidence from vets and those familiar with urine-marking and neutering. I'd not want to neuter Harry for a small probability of change here, but if the change is significant the balls are history. He's marking several times a day now.

0 Replies

The dogma we're given at the vet school I'll soon graduate from is that the risk for prostate cancer is the same in castrated and intact male dogs. However, benign prostatic hypertrophy is a much more common condition, and is seen exclusively in intact male dogs. And it's only benign in the neoplastic sense -- dogs with BPH hae difficulty defecating, pain on urinating, and are prone to infections of the prostate that can lead to systemic infection and are generally refractory to treatment unless the testicles are removed.

They also drip blood on the couch.

0 Replies

This is interesting...

Prostate. 2007 Aug 1;67(11):1174-81. Links
A population study of neutering status as a risk factor for canine prostate cancer.Bryan JN, Keeler MR, Henry CJ, Bryan ME, Hahn AW, Caldwell CW.
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. [email protected]

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer has been reported to occur more commonly in neutered than intact male dogs in several case series. This study was undertaken to evaluate risk of prostate cancer in a large population database. The hypothesis was that castration is a risk factor for prostate cancer in male companion dogs. METHODS: Data were derived from recorded visits to North American veterinary teaching hospitals. The Veterinary Medical Databases (VMDB) were queried to yield male dogs with urinary bladder transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), prostate adenocarcinoma (ACA), prostate TCC, prostate carcinoma (CA), and prostate tumors. A second query yielded all male dogs over the age of 4 years without a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer. These populations were compared to determine relative risks for developing each disease, singly and collectively, associated with neutering status. Odds ratios were calculated for breed as a risk factor. RESULTS: Neutered males had a significantly increased risk for each form of cancer. Neutered males had an odds ratio of 3.56 (3.02-4.21) for urinary bladder TCC, 8.00 (5.60-11.42) for prostate TCC, 2.12 (1.80-2.49) for prostate adenocarcinoma, 3.86 (3.13-4.16) for prostate carcinoma, and 2.84 (2.57-3.14) for all prostate cancers. Relative risks were highly similar when cases were limited to those with a histologically confirmed diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Breed predisposition suggests that genetic factors play a role in the development of prostate cancer. The risk associated with being neutered is highest for TCC, supporting previous work identifying the urothelium and ductular rather than acinar epithelium as the source of these tumors. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Looks like neutering ain't so good on the tumor front.

I still think BPH is the much greater problem, though easier to address after it's arisen.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

The dogma we're given at the vet school I'll soon graduate from is that the risk for prostate cancer is the same in castrated and intact male dogs.

I don't think that's dogma. I think the contention that intact canines have higher rates of cancer is unfounded dogma and wish people would stop repeating it (it's so prevalent that I barely thought to question it till recently).

Quote:

However, benign prostatic hypertrophy is a much more common condition, and is seen exclusively in intact male dogs.

This is supported by my research (or more specifically, the research I found in my research). In fact you seem to understate it even as it seems to be a 0% to 100% difference in dogs above 9 years old.

Quote:

And it's only benign in the neoplastic sense -- dogs with BPH hae difficulty defecating, pain on urinating, and are prone to infections of the prostate that can lead to systemic infection and are generally refractory to treatment unless the testicles are removed.

They also drip blood on the couch.

I read that such symptoms occur at a 1.5% rate, which seems low to me. Do you know of a study or have anecdotal evidence to the contrary? I find that statistic hard to believe.

And more importantly, what can you tell me about the age at which the dog is castrated? My gut tells me that doing so before puberty is likely what causes many of the downsides because of the role the hormones play in development. But I've also heard you advocate doing so early and don't know enough about the disadvantages of doing so after puberty.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

I still think BPH is the much greater problem, though easier to address after it's arisen.

Can a dog be castrated after it has arisen?

0 Replies

Yes, but castration at an advanced age is more prone to complications than juvenile castration. The testicular arteries and veins are far more developed and more prone to hemorrhage. Connective tissues surrounding the testicles are similarly more developed and must be broken down during surgery, often leading to extensive post-surgical swelling, which can complicate wound healing. Also, it is often necessary (or at the very least aesthetic) to remove the mature scrotum in addition to the testicles in an older dog, as leaving the scrotum leaves a potential space that can fill with fluid (or form a "seroma"), which can delay healing of an incision and promote infection. Removal of the scrotum and peritesticular connective tissue in an older dog requires extensive dissection during surgery, and much of this dissection takes place in close proximity to the urethra, increasing the likelihood of urethral injury during surgery.

Which are only the mechanical issues involved in the surgery. Additionally, as I've previously alluded to, enlarged prostates are prone to bacterial infection, and this bacterial infection can spread before and especially after surgery, slowing wound healing and potentially leading to systemic infection.

Now, most older dogs who are castrated do just fine, but complication rates when castrating an older dog are going to be considerably higher than when castrating a puppy.

All that said, I'm primarily a proponent of spaying and neutering pets because I've worked in shelters and seen the effects of pet overpopulation (especially in cats, but also in dogs) first-hand. And at this (very early) point in my career I've seen thousands of animals suffer in shelters for every case of urogenital cancer I've come in contact with.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Now, most older dogs who are castrated do just fine, but complication rates when castrating an older dog are going to be considerably higher than when castrating a puppy.

How much older are you talking? I would feel much more comfortable neutering post-puberty when the hormones have played their development role. You aren't talking about that early are you?

And do you have a ballpark figure on complication rates for castration? Or even a decent guess? That's some data I've been meaning to look into to see how much the risk of the procedure itself offsets some of the other risks it's supposed to help with.

Quote:

All that said, I'm primarily a proponent of spaying and neutering pets because I've worked in shelters and seen the effects of pet overpopulation (especially in cats, but also in dogs) first-hand.

I really do think that this is the essentially the only good argument for spaying and neutering as a rule and I plan to spay my cat mainly for this reason. But because Harry is a Maltese and there are immediate dangers if he ever gets free (e.g. he wants to attack a neighbor's bulldog due to his ignorance of his size) I am very careful to make sure this won't happen. Additionally my dog costs several months of an average salary here so there's no "unwanted purebred" problem and this realization is what made me question my own position on neutering.

But while you are here I am very curious to hear your opinon on a debate that has been going on in my head since I started this thread.

Let me explain. Yes, feral cats and dogs don't have a great life. A look at an old stray or some roadkill will tell you as much.

But I wonder if the putting down of the strays has more to do with the nuisance they present to humans (a reason I do not dismiss lightly as that alone is a threat to the animals) than legitimate care for their well-being. I'm very interested in your take on that.

0 Replies

Patio, Cowdoc, since you're here, I wonder if I might ask a cat neutering question?

I mainly buy Siamese (though I am considering an Oriental), and I note that all the breeders I am currently considering buying from only sell pet quality cats that are already neutered, male and female.

As these cats are passed on to owners at about 3 months, the operations must be being done before this age.

I have always had my animals done at about six months, which tends to be about puberty for Siamese (a couple of times this meant my girls had had a first season.)

I am a bit concerned about their having this surgery as young as under three months.....

Would you happen to know if there is any reason for this concern to be valid?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Would you happen to know if there is any reason for this concern to be valid?

I'm not patiodog or cowdoc but a very well done study by The University of Florida, The Winn Feline Foundation, and the American Veterinary Medical Association (sorry, no link right now, I read that on paper) concluded no "ill" side effects.

But it does make a difference. The hormones do things like slow down growth and pre-puberal spaying and neutering causes physical changes in the animals like increased growth.

0 Replies

Robert Gentel wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Would you happen to know if there is any reason for this concern to be valid?

I'm not patiodog or cowdoc but a very well done study by The University of Florida, The Winn Feline Foundation, and the American Veterinary Medical Association (sorry, no link right now, I read that on paper) concluded no "ill" side effects.

But it does make a difference. The hormones do things like slow down growth and pre-puberal spaying and neutering causes physical changes in the animals like increased growth.

That's interesting and helpful, thank you....I've long known of the increased growth of boy cats, but not of females.

Currently, I have a midget, am I gonna have things the size of pumas?

0 Replies

I agree with Robert. However, for dlowan's benefit, I feel compelled to point out that cats - at least the queens - reach puberty by the time of year as well as by age. Cats are seasonally spontaneously polyestrus, which means that they pop in and out of heat early in the spring. At my latitude of 45 degrees north, that usually means they start in late January or early February. Interestingly, I began to notice more than twenty-five years ago that they tended to predict the onset of spring pretty damned accurately. The earlier they came into heat, the earlier spring arrived. I started planting my greenhouse according to the hot cats, and I quit getting my transplants frozen. Who needs wooly bear caterpillars when you get to spay cats every day? And by the way, patiodog, I never noticed complications from castrations of older dogs, even when prostate hyperplasia or testicular tumors were the reason for the procedure.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I mainly buy Siamese

From one Siamese lover to another: get a doll-faced Himalayan.

0 Replies

CowDoc wrote:

I agree with Robert. However, for dlowan's benefit, I feel compelled to point out that cats - at least the queens - reach puberty by the time of year as well as by age. Cats are seasonally spontaneously polyestrus, which means that they pop in and out of heat early in the spring. At my latitude of 45 degrees north, that usually means they start in late January or early February. Interestingly, I began to notice more than twenty-five years ago that they tended to predict the onset of spring pretty damned accurately. The earlier they came into heat, the earlier spring arrived. I started planting my greenhouse according to the hot cats, and I quit getting my transplants frozen. Who needs wooly bear caterpillars when you get to spay cats every day? And by the way, patiodog, I never noticed complications from castrations of older dogs, even when prostate hyperplasia or testicular tumors were the reason for the procedure.

Thanks CowDoc. Lol!!! I had sister cats who came into first (and last) heat simultaneously and unexpectedly.....the household had strict instructions to keep them inside, but, while my bluepoint hid under my bed trembling and screaming for her mummy, my sealpoint escaped, and I came home to find her disporting herself shamelessly on the footpath with an extremely sexy tuxedo tom! She refused my invitation to come home, and finally lobbed in at about 4 am, stinking, bedraggled and ecstatic, and loudly (as only a Siamese can) told me ALL about it until she finally fell into the sleep of the thoroughly debauched.

She had to have a morning after thing.

Robert Gentel wrote:

dlowan wrote:

I mainly buy Siamese

From one Siamese lover to another: get a doll-faced Himalayan.

No way!!!! It's not just the colour I like, it's the lovely lithe shape, the ridiculously long legs, the alien little face.

I really do not like the puggy face and the cobby build of longhairs. (And I am violently allergic to them.)

The big thing, of course, is the Siamese personality.

I know the Himalayans (as we call them) must have been bred to Siamese originally, do they retain any of the passion and intelligence and talkativeness of the Siamese bit of their heritage? What is Fiona's personality like? You hardly ever mention her, it's mainly Harry.

I know half-Siamese do.....though the colouring is recessive to most other colours....hence my possible interest in Orientals when Miranda dies.

Edit:

Ok, now I am completely confused.

I just looked up "doll-faced Himalayans".

Himalayans have the traditional pug-faced look, but "doll-faced" seems, by definition, to be less puggy.

What the heck does Fiona look like? How is she different from an ordinary Himalayan?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

No way!!!! It's not just the colour I like, it's the lovely lithe shape, the ridiculously long legs, the alien little face.

I really do not like the puggy face and the cobby build of longhairs. (And I am violently allergic to them.)

The doll-face (as you later note) means they don't look like they ran into a wall. And Himalayans are somewhat "hypoallergenic" (I put that in quotes because I'm not too sure and because I am also not sure such a cat exists).

Quote:

The big thing, of course, is the Siamese personality.

That's the part I like the most! Best personality I've ever seen in a cat.

Quote:

I know the Himalayans (as we call them) must have been bred to Siamese originally, do they retain any of the passion and intelligence and talkativeness of the Siamese bit of their heritage?

Yes! Maybe a little less active but as Fiona is as playful, talkative and intelligent as any cat I've seen.

Quote:

What is Fiona's personality like? You hardly ever mention her, it's mainly Harry.

Well it's changing a lot, she is less shy and has become much more affectionate in the last two weeks.

She talks very reliably. If I "meow" at her she nearly always (I don't remember any instance where she didn't) answers with a "meow" of her own.

She now comes when called and is very intelligent and playful. It seems like she's warming up more and more so it could get even better (e.g. the gal didn't like her initially but she's already been won over by Fiona's more warm personality from the last few weeks).

Quote:

What the heck does Fiona look like? How is she different from an ordinary Himalayan?

She looks almost exactly like a Siamese right now, but that should change. A friend of mine said her (Persian?) cat looked just like Fiona as a kitten and her cat looks very Persian. I didn't bother waiting for her pedigree (she was brought to the store from a sister store across the city for us and I didn't care to pick up her documents) and I've wondered, at times, whether she's a Siamese (she's clearly not, but very close).

If you do get one, find a lilac-tipped one. Those are BEAUTIFUL!

0 Replies

I don't want to lop off my dogs balls!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know