March 10, 2005

• In my experience, neutering keep them puppies. Not neutering devlops them into "studs' - distressed by the female cycles they smell out there - and if you let them go out and sow their wild oats, they have a big chance of being injured in fights with other males. My feeling is that you should have your dog neutered (or spayred) inless you intend to start a breeding kennel.
• Terriers are energetic dogs in general - you'll possibly find that having him in an apartment all day won't be feasible, meaning he'll have some degree of access to females in heat while he's out walking, even under supervision. For that reason I'd say yes, neuter him. Unfortunately I'm biased, because I used to volunteer for the SPCA, and I don't see any excuse not to neuter as a valid one unless, as path says, you're planning to breed him.
• Just neuter your damn dog.
• I didn't mind being neutered at all, but then again, I had a vote in the decision. My wife even bought me an ice cream cone afterward (to eat, not to apply to the site of the wound). Roaming may not appear to be a problem, but many animals inevitably run out an opened door or slip a lead very easily. We were overrun by kittens years ago after a homekept cat escaped through a mysteriously broken window.
• I don't know if you'd want to do this, but you can make sometimes $1000 on puppies if you breed them with another dog. I wanted to do this with my lab, but I felt it'd be risky and I have no knowledge of how to take of the pups. Dogs (I haven't experienced it yet, but I have with cats) apparently will go insane in heat, so if you want to avoid that trouble, you have to neuter. I didn't sleep for a week when my un-neutered cat was in heat. But I don't like feeling as though I'm taking away something that is the animals. An unlucky experience of mine was getting a pregnant cat (I didn't know) neutered. Needless to say, the little ones died during the operation.
• Breeding your dogs on a lark is completely irresponsible. Please don't. We've got enough white boxers, deaf dalmations and homozygous merle australian shepherds as it is.
• Sorry, touchy subject.
• I am in favor of neutering all males. It makes them subdued and compliant.
• It is not the sake of convenience. It's about being a responsible pet owner. You cannot be 100% sure that your dog will never encounter a female in heat. The dog will be perfectly fine neutered- don't anthropomorphize him and project your attachment to your own dangly bits onto the dog. As an owner of a pound rescue dog who was neutered as an adult male, I'd encourage you to get him neutered as a pup. Once the testosterone imprints on the brain, it changes it in ways that neutering doesn't undo- he's a great dog, but he can be a willful pain in the ass, more than he would be if he'd been fixed younger. He's also very assertively alpha at the dog run, which can be a bit of a drag.
• I think you have to win dog shows to breed a pure-bred - at least my so my dog-breeding grandmother told me. Unfortunately, her excellent male champion turned out to be naturally sterile - he was such a good dog (personality, everything), maybe he was just too good to procreate. She did get into dog-breeding from just one dog bought as a pet, so it's an option. But it can be a very intensive hobby/semi-profession. If you aren't serious about it, I've never heard of any reason not to neuter - the only reason I know of is that you cannot enter neutered dogs into dog shows (because they are suposed to be about breeding).
• Unless you intend to use him for breeding or dog shows in the future, you should absolutely neuter him. Since childhood, I and many neighbors had many dogs of both sexes, some of which were spayed/neutered, and some of which weren't. In general, the males which weren't neutered were decidedly more aggressive and more difficult to control when they could detect a female in heat anywhere in the vicinity, even the well trained ones would go a bit nuts at times. I vote neuter.
• Ok, let me expand a little on "keeping them puppies." Neutering male dogs doesn't take "away something" unless you were going to send them out to get their rocks off at whatever opportunity. And, even if you do send them out to do that, you'll probably have to deal with injuries experienced in vieing for a chance to pass on their genes. And, if you don't let them go out to breed, they'll be very frustrated a couple of times a year, but don't have the ability, without hands, to masturbate effectively. On the other hand, if you do neuter your dog, he's not going to know or care what he's missing. Plus, he'll still be the beta animal in the pack, more obedient and willing to please. If you do it early enough, he'll also remain more affectionate and playful. Thinking of your pet in human terms will lead you to having to pee on him when he try to stake out his territory. (The thread that relates to was deleted forever and lost us a great monkey but I'm sure someone can fill you in.)
• I have to vote neuter, too. I've noticed at the local dog park that while unneutered dogs are generally more aggressive, they also have an aggravating effect on neutered animals. I've watched people drag their beautiful purebreds out of the park after packs of neutered dogs gave them chase. You can't know whether your dog will ever sneak out, or if a walk around the block with him might incite some other dog to fight. Best to play it safe.
• On the one hand, you're not removing anything essential from the dog if you have him neutered. He can grow up to be a perfectly nice dog either way. Everything about your dog belongs to you. It's part of your job to make decisions for your dog, including the decision about whether or not to neuter him. On the other hand, there isn't the same (direct) health benefit to neutering a dog as their is to spaying a bitch, and if you keep him under control *all* the time then creating unwanted puppies isn't much of an issue. Pro-neutering: *He will feel less urge to mark, both inside your house (bad bad) and on walks, which gets tiresome *He will (usually) get along better with other males. If you take him to the dog park and he's not neutered, you'll have to monitor what's going on very carefully if there are either bitches in or near season or, more importantly, if there are other intact males around. *Intact males are gross. They walk around sniffing and licking everything, especially where a very byoooo-tee-full lady had a whizz. *A neutered male is likely to pay more attention to you. Pro-intactness: *Intact dogs generally have better muscle tone and coat than neutered ones, if you care about that. *If you want to show him, he needs to be intact.
• Argh. All of which boils down to: Unless you have some reason to keep him intact, and are willing to do extra work because he's neutered, then off with the goolies.
• Double argh. I'll just start again: Cut his balls off unless you have some reason to keep him intact *AND* are willing to do extra work with him because he's intact.
• A creative solution to a pet-related problem may inspire some course of action not initially perceived as plausible.
• Neuter the dog. He's not from championship lines or your contract from the breeder would have a clause about his remaining intact for show purposes. Roaming: Even if he's an apartment dog (and Russells need a lot of exercise, but you know that), he's going to need to run offleash as much as your community parks allow. A nonneutered dog will blow off any return command if he smells a bitch in heat. This is how dogs run into streets, get run over, or simply lost. Health: His health is far more assured if he's in your sight, responding to you, even if he is offleash (see above). Convenience: Even neutered males will constantly scent everything they pass, but in my experience they're not as likely to, and that counts for something when you want to walk the dog at eleven pm when you have a cold or are tired. Community: Unneutered dogs hump other dogs, whether they are male or female. This can really irritate owners of other dogs in your local park. To the point that a humping dog can become a pariah (which is a shame, as you will be too, and fellow dog owners are a blast). Training a nonneutered dog not to hump is an uphill battle; neutered, not so much. Comfort: A nonneutered dog wants to fuck and can't. Think of the blue balls. Community pt. 2: Tons - landfills - of dogs are euthanized. There are enough dogs to go around. Don't allow your pet to create more. Why I think I have the right to say all this: I've owned two rescue mutts, walked and trained dogs in four different cities in dozens of community parks, volunteered at shelters, and know purebred dog breeders. Holler at my e-mail if you have any questions.
• To throw a wrench into some of the advice offered here, I wonder how many of the people posting here are from 'championship lines' and if they consider that they should be allowed to remain intact because of some silly vanity about potential offspring and 'show purposes'. Not intended as a mere snark, just an observation on the way humans think about pets as property and the idea that our own reproductive freedoms should be sacrosanct while those of non-humans are commodities to be controlled.
• To pick up on coppermac's comment, which may or may not be a derail: personally, I'd never own or breed show dogs because of the expense and the ridiculous amount of work that goes into a show animal. But if Rorschach has a purebred Jack Russell then he may decide to show it, and since neutering is irreversible (how realistic are those neuticles, anyway?), it's a fairly big decision from that standpoint, because then your dog is an investment, not a pet. As for the human aspect, I'm all for neutering - plan to myself after my second child. Humans don't tend to give birth to multiple young, at least, not as a norm. And as parents we're not inclined to abandon an overabundance of babies as we might a too-large litter of pups/kittens, so better to neuter than take that risk. But back to the point, Rorschach doesn't mention anything about wanting to breed or show in his question so presumably that's not an issue, which means there's no real reason not to neuter. And this is the part where Rorschach says he's a she, isn't it.
• He's not from championship lines or your contract from the breeder would have a clause about his remaining intact for show purposes That's hardly true. All responsibly-bred purebreds are from championship lines -- it's just that most purebreds are not responsibly bred, not by a long shot. Most are bred by one or two random people who haven't checked their dogs' bloodlines to see if they're too close, who haven't gotten their dogs OFA'd, CERF'd, and any other breed-specific tests, who haven't gotten a championship for their dog, who haven't checked their dogs littermates and relatives for genetic-related diseases, and so on. Your dog being a show champion doesn't mean it's anything special at all, just that it looks and moves and acts more-or-less like the standard says, and that it doesn't have many glaring conformation faults. It's a very low qualification to meet, and just means that other people think your dog should be not-forbidden to breed. Put differently: a dog that's a show champion isn't special. A dog that's not one is even more un-special.
• Coppermac: The difference is that dog breeds are purely and utterly human creations, completely un-natural, and like a lot of other human creations they require ongoing maintenance. Selective breeding, nowadays done primarily through conformation (and performance) showing, is how we do that maintenance (though there's not nearly as much emphasis on performance or working trials as I'd like, for breeds where that's appropriate). Without selective breeding, we don't have Labs and Dalmatians and Lhasa Apsos and Greyhounds, we just have 25--40 pound vaguely jackal-like dogs with coarse fur and a curled tail. Doesn't mean that we need to keep the breeds around, I suppose, but it's not just some "silly vanity." When it works, selective breeding through shows (and performance trials) is what keep German Shepherds looking and acting like German Shepherds and Border Collies looking and acting like Border Collies instead of looking and acting like whatever. Also, when it works, showing and selective breeding are great ways to eliminate or reduce genetic maladies; the English Springer people have (IIRC) done a good job of this WRT "Springer rage," on the other hand, the Cavalier people blithely continue to have appalling mitral-valve defect rates that could be (again IIRC) almost eliminated in 10--20 years.
• To clarify: I'll presume that since the Russell's breeder didn't have a clause in the contract, the dog isn't of the lines that breeders require. Rorschach has an option to neuter - which means the Russell isn't of the lines that championship requires. I'm not an apologist for breeders. I just understand how they think (good for the breed vs. not good for the breed). Pets are property and assets to some breeders. I don't agree or disagree. My post was meant to give Rorschach what s/he asked for - experience and personal info. One point I forgot to add: a humping dog, if he chooses to hump the wrong dog, might get tore up by the humpee.
• coppermac - because people are people, and dogs are dogs. Lovely creatures, deserving of kind care and attention, but not human rights. They don't vote either.
• Pro-intactness: *Intact dogs generally have better muscle tone and coat than neutered ones, if you care about that. *If you want to show him, he needs to be intact. Neutered dogs that are regularly exercised and played with, eat a good diet, and have their coats cared for (brushed, bathed, etc) will have better muscle tone and coat than intact dogs that are not. If you want to show him, you have a show dog, not a pet. Get ready to spend a lotta bucks, send the dog away for training and handling, or give up the rest of your hobbies and interests to devote yourself to learning about training, handling, and dog showing. It's doubtful you'll win much with this first dog, and only after you've spent a mint and done a lot of traveling, will you begin to reap the rewards of showing. Better have him evaluated first, and then make a decision if you're going this way. Neuter. You won't regret it. And neither will he.
• We never neutered any of our family dogs, but we lived on a farm, a good long way away from any other dogs. We didn't see the catastrophically gross behaviour described here, but if I lived in town, I wouldn't be willing to risk them fathering unwanted puppies.
• Like coppermac - my two dogs were getting sick of me humping their legs every spring, so they had me neutered. It worked out great! I can still reach those really high notes, and I got an award from the human genome project for not pissing in their pool. I'm also electrically neutral, so I don't attract stray ions any more.
• Personally, as a dog lover and owner, I believe the responsible thing to do is neuter, unless you are seriously interested in breeding, which is not a commitment which should be taken lightly. But some information you might find useful... My family and a good part of our circle of close friends have, for a variety of reasons, always preferred a particular breed of dog. I've had exposure to a wide variety of examples of this particular breed as a result, and the varying personalities of the dogs involved. The interesting thing is this - One couple we know have very distinctive personalities, and their dogs have also shared distinct similarities over the years. They don't believe in neutering. My family's dogs have also shared distinct personality traits, despite decided differences. My family does believe in neutering. These same personality traits showed up in my sister's dog, and she chose to change breeds. This has led me to conclude that environment has a lot more impact than retention of gonads, at least in dogs.
• don't anthropomorphize him and project your attachment to your own dangly bits onto the dog. I think this bears repeating. Thank you. I love dogs, and dearly wish I could have one (can't, lease restrictions) - but they are not human. This does not make them unimportant, chattel, enslaved, objectified, or anything like that. Please, let's not get hysterical. They are treasured companion animals, but they don't think the same way we do, they don't have the same emotions we do, and they don't live under the same circumstances we do. They are different. Good. But different. My reaction to the concern "I don't want to take anything that's his" was, "If you're so concerned about your dog's property rights, perhaps he should get a job and pay rent, too." - which is snarky, but illustrates my idea that we simply cannot equate dogs and humans that way. If it's not already obvious, I'm in the "neuter unless you intend to formally breed or show him, and then, be prepared to be responsible for everything" camp.
• we just neutered finley two weeks ago. here's a point not yet discussed: finley LOVES socializing with other dogs. but he couldn't get near the neighborhood dog park without being attacked -- castrated males smelled his testosterone and immediately went after him. it was ugly. i was there once with one other dog whose owner said, "oh, he's VERY gentle, there won't be a problem." so i put finley down and BOOM the other dog was attacking him, growling and biting and lunging. "that's weird, that's never happened before," the owner said. if you're in a city and will be encountering other dogs -- most of whom are neutered -- PLEASE neuter yours. yes, it's healthier. google neutering and cancer for more info.
• Xeny- Your recollection is dead wrong when it comes to Springers. Because the championship line of a single breeder had (long concealed) genetic predisposition to Springer rage, nearly every Springer in the world has it. Ours did, and it's terrible. The dog was the smartest dog I've ever seen (easily a vocabulary of over 1000 words and hand signals), and loved us very much, but had the defect. It's like psychotic epilepsy, to draw a parallel. He was possessive about food and territory, and would occassionally just snap and attack whatever was near. He put a gash into my mother's hand that required about ten stitches, and that was when he had to put him down. It about killed my mother with grief, since she had been the one to rescue him from the pound (where he was most likely placed because of his tendency to attack). It was only after he started having problems that we researched Springer Rage, and it's definitely something that was inadvertantly bred into the dogs, and since their bloodlines are very narrow, it's in pretty much every Springer you see. (Which is why the breed has pretty much died out).
• Huh? Springers have hardly died out -- they remain more common than Weimaraners or Cavaliers or Collies. I don't know when you had your Springer, but the changes I'm thinking of would have been inside the last ten years at most.
• To respond to the initial question, I'll just note that my sister & her boyfriend have two dogs, a male purebred staffordshire terrier, and a female mix breed that they think may be part pit bull as she plays just as rough as the staffordshire, but who is built more elegantly, so might have some kind of hound in her... anyway, neither of the dogs is neutered, and they don't have problems. However, they live in the country, and rarely see other dogs, and they crate the critters when nec. When the female is in heat they have to keep 'em separate, and they are also willing to deal with her menstruation, so they might put up with more than some. Still, I stayed with them for a week or two a couple years ago, and the dogs were great, not troublesome at all. Again, country living, no dog community, so it's wise to be very aware of the context. But just thought I'd give some anecdotal info for the other side.
• Our golden retriever got testicular cancer at ten yaers old because my step-dad didn't want him neutered. They caught it earely enough that it's fine, but I don't think it's worth the risk.
• Neuter. Please. Don't turn your dog into an obnoxious, anxious social outcast for reasons that relate far more to how you may feel about human castration then how they relate to a healthy happy dog. Your dog deserves better than being that asshole dog nobody wants to be around. They are social creatures and you'll be depriving him of social interaction with other people and dogs. That's what you should be concerned about removing. I am concerned that I am removing something essential (and something that belongs to him, not me) from my pet for the sake of convenience. And there is such a thing as mental convenience as well - not neutering etc. because of a conveniently anthropomorphised view that, in my opinion, is something not to be indulged by responsible dog owners. I don't think you're doing that - but a lot of people do (carrying small dogs constantly, feeding dogs loads of 'people food', disregarding obesity because it's cute, and diets 'suck') and it's selfish and ugly behaviour.
• I'm going to have to throw in a "neuter" vote as well. My experience is with our cat, not a dog, but it has parallels. We got our kitty from the shelter when she was 2 1/2, and unspayed. She'd been given up for "peeing on the kids' toys". Now, I think they let the kids abuse the cat (she is still scared of kids) but I also think she was probably going into heat and basically causing havoc. She was in heat for five days before her scheduled appointment for the spaying and omg, it is not, not something you want to live with. Or the animal - she was in serious discomfort and extremely unhappy. I always now worry that people will think they can handle their unneutered/spayed pets, but in the end it will prove to be too much and then they might just give them away. Ada is just easily the best cat I've ever met but if we hadn't taken a chance on her they'd have put her to sleep because she was an older cat with a history that no one else wanted to take. I am NOT suggesting you will be an irresponsible pet owner, but you do have to really honestly assess your capabilities. Also, if you ever have to give the animal away, you might be dooming their ability to get re-adopted. On the total derail above, it's just rather interesting that this came up the day after we discussed animal rights in my theory/policy law course, and discussed extending rights. In some respects there's a real disconnect - if you help someone die, you'll go to jail for murder, but if you don't put your animal down when they're old and suffering, I've seen people be accused of animal abuse. We have a very different relationship with our pets than we do with other humans, and, to a certain extent, I don't think that's a bad thing. I certainly don't fall in favour of giving animals positive (human) rights, as I just don't see them being able to exercise them, let alone practice the responsibilities that come along with all rights. I am in favour of stricter laws and restrictions upon humans to treat animals more humanely, etc. To move somewhat back on topic, in this case I see neutering the dog as the humane thing to do.
• Tell you what - let's compromise: just cut one of his nuts off. Then EVERYONE will be happy.
• We had two springers (same parents, different litters), one of which developed rage. It was godawful. He attacked my dad while they were curled up in his recliner together. Dad nearly lost an eye, and for a while his face looked like he'd gone five rounds against a guy with a cricket bat. That dog was the only one out of five or six good-sized litters to get it, though. It's true that rage is far more common in springers, but it's a minority occurrence from what I've seen. On topic, have him circumcised while you're down there.
• I've been wrestling with why declawing cats (and debarking dogs) skeeves me out when I'm 100% pro neutering them, but that's how it is. Anyone else feel this way?
• I do, furiousdork (but I know why I feel that way, which I tried to write out here, but it came out sounding like a lecture, so I skipped it). /bad grammar
• 2 cents worth? I think because claws are intrinsic to a cat; they're required for climbing self-defence. Dogs need to bark, whine etc... for communication. Conversely, genitals are not required for the pet's existence, only for the passing on of his/her genes. There is no reason to have or use genital organs if there is no need or opportunity for procreation. Compare the pet's situation with those of beta wolves in a pack.
• eecckk... sorry, should be "climbing and self-defence". preview preview preview! *smacks self*
• Also, because they cut genitals nicely, and they don't walk on the severed bits. Declawed cats are forced to walk on their knuckles. Also they are defenseless if they get outside.
• Yeah, I stick at de-clawing. And, de-barking? Wow, what a bad concept. There comes a point where, if you don't want to deal with a pet's nature, you shouldn't have a pet. Ok, left myself open for those who thing neutering/spaying in not natural, but you're wrong.
• If you are truly concerned about retaining your dog's natural characteristics and are willing to deal with the associated issues, a vasectomy may be the way to go. It may also be reversible (in theory).
• Oh, and what path said.
• I think it's because cats use their claws and dogs use their bark every day (and the self-defense issue for cats; but then you get into the whole do you let your cats outside thing and that is always contentious) - and also, cats' and dogs' natural sexual characteristics are bloody obnoxious... but neutering them does, arguably, change their nature a lot more than declawbarking them does, and you know, I'd rather be declawbarked than face one of these... I'm not sure, it's interesting how we draw these lines. (Debarking, BTW, doesn't necessarily remove a dog's ability to bark entirely (here's a kind of biased link) - I still think it's pretty gross.)
• Well, first off, thanks to all who replied, and a great many replies there were. I learned about some people's experiences, some people's prejudices, and a good bit about why breeders do what they do. A special thanks to those who felt up to presenting pros and cons. I didn't think we needed to present much more information about ourselves, but I suppose there were some blanks that could have used filling in. We do not at present intend to breed or show, though we've had comments (from those in the industry) that our lad is above-average in looks for his breed, so it has come to mind. We exercise him regularly, but do not take him off-leash outside of the (4th floor) apartment. He is getting professional training, plenty of play and exercise, and not a speck of human food. We believe that animals have rights (not priveleges) but we aren't part of the PETA crowd by any stretch. A few observations: I don't know if you'd want to do this, but you can make sometimes $1000 on puppies if you breed them with another dog. Ouch. We have no such delusions. There are easier wasy to make money. Everything about your dog belongs to you. I'm particularly grateful for your thoughts, Xeny, but I can't agree with you, there. That kind of thinking leads directly to the kind of owner who bobs tails for fashion. I am responsible for everthing my dog does (morally if not 100% legally), including impregnate another dog, but I don't think he's mine to do with as my whims dictate. Neutered dogs that are regularly exercised and played with, eat a good diet, and have their coats cared for (brushed, bathed, etc) will have better muscle tone and coat than intact dogs that are not. Zowie. And we could neuter him but keep him in a closet all day and forget about professional training. Or neuter him and beat him with a stick. What kind of logic is that? This is zealous rationalization. Please, let's not get hysterical. Ok then. Don't turn your dog into an obnoxious, anxious social outcast Really now. I'm tempted to turn the "shinier coat if well-fed" objection on its head and speculate that there are a lot of owners out there who don't neuter because they don't really give a damn *and* they can't be bothered to put the time and effort into training their dogs properly, either. The information others have provided on how neutered dogs treat an intact animal, however, was very helpful, as I have some influence over my pet, but not over others. Islander, like minds. We asked the animal hospital today about it, wondering why a vasectomy wasn't offered, since presumably it is reversible while the proferred option is not. Turns out they don't offer it because it is more expensive (but it appears that owners balk at an extra $20 for fluids during their dog's operation -- we are not in that camp, sheesh) but that appears to be due to lack of frequency rather than intrinsic cost (hardly less invasive). Added to which they get that question ALL THE TIME. Well, go figure, jeez. So we have scheduled the regular op and are looking into the alternative. Thanks, again. Rorschach
• Here's to your pup, Rorschach. I wish all pets had such involved and interested owners. Here's one book I found very useful when I was training my (albeit adult) dogs. There's a puppy edition, too. Training a dog is so much fun!
• What kind of logic is that? This is zealous rationalization. Just because I hate being misunderstood myself, but BlueHorse's comment was a reply to Xeny, who had said that unneutered dogs have better muscle and tone. She was just pointing out that that wasn't much of an argument for the reasons you stated - it's about a lot more than just that. Also: Don't turn your dog into an obnoxious, anxious social outcast Really now. I think this is about more than just training, as you suggest. Not that I know much about dogs, but from this thread it seems that unneutered dogs have experiences that simply can't be dealt with by just training - for example, as you noted, interactions with other dogs. Sorry, but I think this is the sort of topic that will bring up strong opinions, and it doesn't bode well for discussion if people get misunderstood or if people are hostile towards other opinions. No need to get shirty with anyone who gives a reply you don't like or don't agree with. /two cents
• Rorschach - it stikes me from your responses that you had made up your mind before you posted this.
• "you had made up your mind before you posted this." No shit. I love tell me I'm right or I'll get pissy posts. Don't waste my time.
• No shit. I love tell me I'm right or I'll get pissy posts. Don't waste my time. 99% of the advice: get him neutered. result: getting him neutered. Piss off.
• Oh wait, yours was one of the comments I took issue with, mj. I love don't take issue with my advice or I'll get pissy replies. Doubley piss off, from me and the pup.
• Starts with B, ends with E :)
• And my apologies...to your dog.
• Livii: Thanks for setting the record straight. I figure sometimes gritting my teeth is better than trying to explain something--especially as I thought it was fairly clear. Obviously it wasn't, so next time I read twice, post once. Glad the pup will be getting fixed--IMHO everyone will be happy with the solution. So let us be happy, and end this thread with cockpunch and bananas all around. (and a pup treat or two)
• There are easier ways to make money Yeah, but if you get him neutered he won't be able to star in those German movies... You know, with the girl... And that, my friend, is the easiest way to make money.
• Starts with B, ends with E bee?
• Xeny, my comment about the silly vanity regarded the 'championship lines' myth, not about keeping specialized breeds intact (though I do find that a silly vanity as well). As well, I was attempting to poke fun at the wholly foolish idea that we humans think breeding is our right and central to our dignity, but we feel free to control other animals cavalierly. jb: though not human, dogs, cats and all other non-human animals still deserve respect. To discuss their rights to breed and the mutilation of their genitalia is not possible without some expression of care and shepherding, else we are just the unthinking monsters we appear to be. As for voting, I can't see that they'd do a worse job than those humans who bother to show up at the polls.
• Animals have a "right to breed" now? I get the point about mutilation and inflicting pain, but a right to breed? Are we really ready to believe that the cat cares if she can ever have kids (or that she cares at all?), that the lower animals have the same sort of capacity for reason as humans do? Should I be worried about my dog's life plans when I make decisions for him?
• Should I be worried about my dog's life plans when I make decisions for him? Hey, if you buy a dalmation, and he wants to act insead of being a fire dog, you d*mn well better send him to drama school.
• Yes, Smo, animals do have a right to breed. Why would you think otherwise? If you don't think that animals (you cited cats particularly) care about their young or about breeding at all, you've clearly never had any sort of decent relationship with an animal. That's amply revealed by your toss-off dismissal of anything non-human as a 'lower animal'. What capacity for reason do you have if you cannot see past your vain species biases to actually note the ability of non-human animals to care for their young?
• *wanders in late* I don't think there are any generic statements applicable on this. I have a six yr. old p/b German Shepherd, male, that I had planned on neutering at one year, so as to allow for more full development of secondary sexual characteristics. I hadn't counted on my older GSD developing medical problems that tapped out the budget for the next four years and it was never done. Although an aggressive breed, he still is the most silly and loving boy imaginable and totally manageable. I must admit he has never been exposed to 'active' females; that might make a difference. He loves to be told he's mommy's baby and play dress-up. He's also over 100 pounds of lean muscle, and very loud when he does decide, as they will do, that someone should not come near his mommy in the car or such. It's all show, though. People are scared of him until I introduce him properly and then they are charmed. I am, however saving the mega-bucks necessary for neutering him, due to concerns of future testicular cancer. It just all depends on so many things. Considering how hyper-active Jack Russell's tend to be, I'd probably be of a different mind. A female I would not hesitate with as I once bred setters for a few years and would never have a bitch in heat around in the city. *meanders off again*
• coppermac, a fundamental part of the interaction between humans and domesticated animals is that the human determines whether (and often with which mate) that domesticated animal will breed, how many offspring are desired, and decides the fate of those offspring. If no offspring are desired, it is better to prevent them from being created, i.e., contraception is preferable to infanticide or abandonment. Disputing the notion that domesticated animals have the right to breed at will does not equate with disputing the notion that animals care for their young. Are you really saying that humans shouldn't domesticate animals at all?
• coppermac, I don't believe animals have a right to breed because I don't believe they can reason about the future the same way we do. This is what I mean when I say that the lower animals (or whatever term is PC, you know what I mean) have no life plans. The cat is not disappointed that she can never have kids. She can't even begin to reason whether or not she is capable of having them. So, no, I don't think animals have a right to breed. Notice this says nothing about whether animals can care for their young. I don't think they do in the same way humans care for others. But even if you disagree with me on that, it doesn't follow that animals care (right now) for their future young (who are not yet born), so there is not harm done by removing the ability to do so.
• Following up on this conversation, neutering does not deny critters the ability to nurture. When I brought my male home as a pup, the old girl, who was neutered, immediately pronounced 'mine' and protected him, raised him and taught him his manners. There was no doubt at all that she immediately assumed the role of mother. She came flying at me one day when I was trying to play stick with him, in the belief that I was going to hurt him. She had been a rescue case who had been abused. I dropped that stick very fast.
• My parent's neutered male dog adopted our cat's kittens (yes, we had a non-neutered cat) and would carry them around the house in his mouth, and sleep with them at night. So I guess I agree with dxlifer on that particular point.
• ambrosia, my point was the cavalier attitude being displayed toward non-human animals, not in questioning the existing relationship between pets and livestock and humans. Those are separate points, and most distinctly I feel that any decision made by a human with disrespect ought to be identified and labeled as such. Domestication rights are debatable, but I see no reason to leap into that argument until we can agree that non-human animals are not simple property that can be treated with no more concern than lumps of iron or a handful of coins. Reasoning about the future is possible for 'lower' animals, Smo. Why assume that it is not possible (or not comparable to the manner in which humans do so) unless there is compelling evidence to do so? Your assumptions may be correct, but I doubt that they are. And, even if they are, what compels you to draw a line between humans and non-humans regarding a right to breed based on this issue? There are many, many people who really have no right to breed using your (or similar) logic. Are we to take your word for it that only the selected chosen ones should be allowed to bear young? Such elitism could very well be justified: it has in the past, after all. As for caring, we cannot know that non-human animals don't care for future offspring. We can't know, because we have no ability to communicate with non-human animals, and emotional analysis and motive study is pretty much impossible without common language. We do know, however, that many non-human animals have the ability to make plans for future events and that they care for their young after they are born. Why, therefore, would it follow that no non-human could ever care about or understand procreation as a concept? As for my using 'PC' terms, I prefer to show respect and not be callous than to jump on the anti-PC bandwagon that so many self-proclaimed cultural critics have done in the last twenty years just so they can wear their prejudices as a badge of honour.
• Why assume that it is not possible (or not comparable to the manner in which humans do so) unless there is compelling evidence to do so? When I think to myself, "I should practise the piano if I want to get better," I have a goal in mind (i.e. to get better). If I believe that goal is desirable enough, then I'll practise. If not, then I won't. I take it that the animals can't do this sort of reasoning. My dog doesn't think, "Well, I could eat all my food today, but I should probably eat slowly because last time I developed lots of gas. Then again, I'm starting to get fat, so maybe I'll lay off it a bit. I wonder what I should do." He doesn't have the grammar hardwired in his head to make these sorts of thoughts and therefore can't make proper judgments.* This is why, I think, we don't hold animals responsible for their behavior. They can't possibly understand why certain actions are wrong. I don't think this means my dog is at the same level as a lump of coal. He is, after all, capable of feeling pleasure and pain. This is enough to show him respect, and even to assign him basic rights. But I think you go too far in granting him the sort of rights you do. And, even if they are, what compels you to draw a line between humans and non-humans regarding a right to breed based on this issue? There are many, many people who really have no right to breed using your (or similar) logic. A good question. I'm inclined to bite the bullet on this one. I'm not religious -- I don't think humans have some God-given "special status" among all the animals. But I do think the capacity for reason is what makes the difference in how animals ought to be treated. So, no, I don't think severely mentally handicapped humans who lack the capacity for reason ought to have the same rights as everyone else. (I'm even tempted to say that these people aren't really people in the same sense as you and I are, but that's another discussion.) They have rights, just not the same ones. I think this is really the most plausible view in light of the facts of evolution. *Although there is evidence that lions can count, so it's not like they lack any kind of reason. But I'm not convinced that even they can represent events in their minds and think through the consequences of their possible actions.
• I think the fact that I eat animals caged for their entire life should be of a lot more concern than whether an otherwise loved and well cared for dog or cat is getting their rocks off. If you aren't going to breed a pet, and maybe you shouldn't, because there are way too dogs and cats in the world as it is, unless we start eating them, then it is far crueller to leave them at the mercy of their hormones, and unable to ever do anything about it. My poor cat is over there on the floor, in heat, whining and in misery because she cannot take care of her needs on her own. (Yes, we've called a vet, but they haven't called back, and they have our humane society voucher). My previous cat, who lived to be 18, was so much much happier after she was spayed. Of course, I can't read minds, maybe she was pining after the children she never had. But considering that she went through a visible change in demenor, to much more happy and relaxed after she was so cruelly snipped, I doubt it. Also, she showed no interest in the little kitten we later had. And it would have been much crueller not to spay her. Respecting animals is one thing. But that doesn't mean you should anthropomorphise them. They do not have the same ways of thinking as humans, or the same interests. We don't have heat cycles, and can live happily (more or less) for years without sex. We also have hands. Animals are not simple property - you cannot be charged with a crime for neglecting an object, you can be for neglecting or being cruel to an animal, working or a pet. But part of taking good care of that animal can include neutering or spaying that animal.
• Well, I for one, think that HUMANS don't have a "right" to breed. Too damn many people can't even care for a dog properly, let alone care for children. Every child should be wanted, loved, and cherished. Idiots who breed without thinking and then abandon or hurt their children should be sterilized and not allowed to breed again.
• Right on, Gran'ma. /departs hastily..
• coppermac: here are some reasons why I think that making that decision for pets is a good thing. Years ago, I was married to a guy who thought that spaying our female cat was a problem, and being a good little wify, I went along with it. She was the most fecund animal I've ever known, (and I grew up with lots of functional cats.) So, she had a couple of kitten for her first litter, and we kept them. Later on, she became pregnant again, and shortly after she had the next litter (5 or 6) and, I was in an automobile accident which kept me from being able to deal with the resulting kittens - and for even longer. So she had another litter, and some of the females from the first came into heat. So, we wound up with 24 cats by the time I was able to function again. Way more that we could give away. But, if I'd bucked the decision, I wouldn't feel guilty 30 years later for having to get rid of some really charming animals. We were responsible for the health and well being of all those cats, but I couldn't live up to my responsibilties. You never know what's going to happen.
• I think the fact that I eat animals caged for their entire life should be of a lot more concern than whether an otherwise loved and well cared for dog or cat is getting their rocks off *applauds jb, and points out that Whole Foods only offers free range, cage-free, etc., meat.
• Update, not that anyone would be paying attention this far from the front page... Alas, only just got ahold of some very good, impartial information on the pros and cons -- and its much as dxlifer mentions, above: the choice of when to neuter, if you do, has much to do with your preference of developmental characteristics. If you want a guard dog, a show dog, any kind of behaviour that takes much discipline, it is better to neuter late. As it is, our boy was just beginning to display particularly male behaviour (lifting leg when peeing, scenting behaviour, sexual behaviour) so I am pleased that we did not move on this earlier than we did. As it is, he has gotten the op done, and for my reward I am staying home for the four-day weekend looking after him while the sig other goes off to see family -- the pup is not up to travelling. But he seems well if a little out of sorts. The whole discussion, in retrospect, reminds me of the current FP post on smegma (and attendant circumcision comments). So much is done out of ignorance or because "it's what's done". I will say that the evidence seems to be that males and females have *tremendously* different difficulties in dealing with intact-ness, so that it would not be such a difficult choice had we a female. Good discussion after I left the board. Sorry I missed it. (and I've a background in psych with some work in ethology -- anthropomorphizing my pet was never a real danger -- I know exactly what he comprehends and doesn't -- and that is exactly why I take his development so seriously) Cheers, Rorschach
• Glad to hear your pup is fixed and all went well. See, we do read the post additions ;)
• The sidebar is our friend.
• I think it really depends on the dogs sexual orientation and whether the dog is a top or a bottom.
• I'm glad for you both, Rorschach. My big lump, for all his intimidating blowing and posing, often still doesn't lift his leg more than an inch many a time yet. He actually can embarass me in public, although when in 'appearance' mode he isn't thinking about it. After an 'appearance' fit, he will need to let off a good one, high in the air. It's funny what the rise in testosterone can do to male behaviour. *little snickers*
• Uh, just because it's still here - Rorschach, I'm glad you got this done. It's the first step in the Uber-feminist New World Order of cutting off ALL your balls! Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! Oop! Whoiops. Sorry. Really, I've never heard of anyone being regretful. I do suspect that male dog owners have a clench-the-knees reaction to neutering their dogs, as opposed to spaying their bitches, and almost all female canine owners I've known had no problem doing either. For what it's worth. A colleague pulled a bunch of journal articles about the effect or neutering on dogs, which I think I still have at work (she owns Belgian Turveens, one dog and one bitch, both show). I thought this thing was over, but I'll send you the cites. You don't have anything to worry about re your dog's health.