castration dilemma

First topic message reminder :

Hey all. me again. My boy is over 9 months now and he is not castrated yet. And I dont know what should I do, because he doesnt lift his leg, there is no symptoms of his activity and I hope that later on it would not be worse if he is not castrated. few of my friends who are breeders said that they wont do nothing at the moment but also said that late castration could be more dangerous. have no idea what to do. so i am just waiting what will happen. any opinios. what you did in this situation. thanks.

What a nice thing to say.

That is right nice Xx

A really good thread, thanks for all the links

Just an update on my boy who was neutered at 4 months. He is now 9 months.

He has turned out to be an absolute star. The lack of testosterone has not dentrimentally affected him physical or mentally. He is the most balanced and social dog at the park and all the other owners keep on commenting how they wish their dogs were more like Harley. He greets other dogs well, has a sniff and let's them have a sniff also and has never instigated any aggression towards other dogs. When he meets another dog who seems aggressive or growls at him, he casually says goodbye and goes back to his pack. His humping of my children and his toys stopped immediately after being neutered and has never humped anything since. He has not lost any of his energy and enthusiasm for life. The lack of testosterone has not delayed his muscular development as his chest, shoulders and hind are starting to muscle up nicely.

I'm am so happy that my boy has turned out the way he has, he is balanced, energetic and has a lovely nature. I am writing this to illustrate that neutering has its pros and cons, and each situation is different and therefore an individual choice.

Harley wrote: The lack of testosterone has not dentrimentally affected him physical or mentally.

You cannot possibly know that. The fact remains that the growth plates close later (yes, I know we've argued about that before), and the lack of hotmones will affect his eventual mental maturity, whether you notice it or not.

Harley wrote: The lack of testosterone has not delayed his muscular development as his chest, shoulders and hind are starting to muscle up nicely.

Nobody has ever said that early neutering affects muscle developement.

Harley wrote: I'm am so happy that my boy has turned out the way he has, he is balanced, energetic and has a lovely nature. I am writing this to illustrate that neutering has its pros and cons, and each situation is different and therefore an individual choice.

Yes, it has its pros and cons. But a balanced view must be given by all parties. Your dog, in my opinion, was neutered much too early, even for an early neutering!

Caryll, at the moment I don't see any "dentrimental" development issues. Sure, his growth plates may close later and his legs may be 5mm longer than they would have, but to me this is not detrimental. Also in terms of maturity, I would not be fussed if his temperament stayed the way it is now. Again, it may be different to what it may have been but in my eyes not "detrimental". He has a lovely nature, is confident energetic and non-dog aggressive. So I can't see or for-see any "dentrimental" issues due to being neutered early. On the other hand there have been numerous positives. So I guess we do have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes we have been over the pros and cons of very early neutering ad nauseum and don't need to do it again, especially as in Harley's case no amount of arguing will change his particular case.

It's good to hear that Harley is doing so well, enjoy your pup!

Harley wrote:Just an update on my boy who was neutered at 4 months. He is now 9 months.

He has turned out to be an absolute star. The lack of testosterone has not dentrimentally affected him physical or mentally. He is the most balanced and social dog at the park and all the other owners keep on commenting how they wish their dogs were more like Harley. He greets other dogs well, has a sniff and let's them have a sniff also and has never instigated any aggression towards other dogs. When he meets another dog who seems aggressive or growls at him, he casually says goodbye and goes back to his pack. His humping of my children and his toys stopped immediately after being neutered and has never humped anything since. He has not lost any of his energy and enthusiasm for life. The lack of testosterone has not delayed his muscular development as his chest, shoulders and hind are starting to muscle up nicely.

I'm am so happy that my boy has turned out the way he has, he is balanced, energetic and has a lovely nature. I am writing this to illustrate that neutering has its pros and cons, and each situation is different and therefore an individual choice.

Loki is 8 months old, un-neutered, has only ever humped his monkey teddy (stopped a long time ago), and has never been aggressive, nor reacted aggressively to an aggressive dog. He's not the most well-behaved dog, he's cheeky and over-excitable, but what I'm saying is, neutering isn't the be-all end-all to those things. Harley might just have that kind of personality, whether he'd have been neutered or not. But what's done is done, and regardless of whether he was neutered too young or not, I'm glad he's doing well

Thanks Tara. The reason I posted today was to illustrate that there are pros and cons and each case is different. It's an individual choice based on individual circumstances that achieve different results in different dogs. I'm glad my boy is thriving both physically and temperamentally despite being neutered young. And I'm glad a lot of you have entire dogs that are thriving as well.

Harley, I'm not going to go over this again with you. However, this forum cannot & will not support neutering at 3 months of age.

Just a bit to add on, if Harley had not been neutered he could still have turned out to be a very balanced dog and you have no evidence to prove otherwise, humping is usually a puppy thing that they grow out of, bitches do it as well. The problem is owners treating neutering as the be and end all in dog development.

Caryll wrote:Harley, I'm not going to go over this again with you. However, this forum cannot & will not support neutering at 3 months of age.

This a million times!

Done at 3 months! What sort of back alley vet would do that! His little nuts would hardly even be out.

Hayley wrote:Done at 3 months! What sort of back alley vet would do that! His little nuts would hardly even be out.

I know! seriously don't understand why anyone would think it's ok!

guys you need to remember that most vets are there to make money for them and the practice,
probably on commission, so they see neutering as easy money. yes if a dog comes form a kennel then they will have it done before it goes to its new home as it makes sense in this situation.

you can read for ever and a day about this subject and you will still not get a true answer.You need to look at your own situation for you and your dog.

3 points to clarify some points raised in the above posts

1. Harley was neutered at 4 months not 3
2. He was not neutered at a back alley vet, but at one of the larger vet clinics in Sydney
3. Although a lot of vets are motivated by money, the vet I take my dogs to is not. Their only motivation is the welfare of all animals and in fact are a not for profit organisation. They are the RSCPA in Yagoona and spent quite some time with me discussing my situation before allowing me to go away and make a decision.

Thank you.

Harley wrote:3 points to clarify some points raised in the above posts

1. Harley was neutered at 4 months not 3
2. He was not neutered at a back alley vet, but at one of the larger vet clinics in Sydney
3. Although a lot of vets are motivated by money, the vet I take my dogs to is not. Their only motivation is the welfare of all animals and in fact are a not for profit organisation. They are the RSCPA in Yagoona and spent quite some time with me discussing my situation before allowing me to go away and make a decision.

Thank you.

Four months is no better than three. And the quality of the vet is nothing to do with it.

I cannot abide the R$PCA in any country - they are mainly motivated by money & publicity.

It really doesn't matter how much you defend it, to many people the neutering of a puppy at 3 or 4 months old is bad. It causes far more problems than it solves. Maybe you will be lucky & get none of the drawbacks associated with early neutering - I really hope so for your dog's sake - but the drawbacks are there all the same.

Harley wrote:3 points to clarify some points raised in the above posts

1. Harley was neutered at 4 months not 3
2. He was not neutered at a back alley vet, but at one of the larger vet clinics in Sydney
3. Although a lot of vets are motivated by money, the vet I take my dogs to is not. Their only motivation is the welfare of all animals and in fact are a not for profit organisation. They are the RSCPA in Yagoona and spent quite some time with me discussing my situation before allowing me to go away and make a decision.

Thank you.

I'm sorry but the RSPCA in Australia is the reason for BSL laws being brought into this country.. They are the biggest organisation trying to have our Staffies added to the DDB & controlled by BSL.. And where on earth did you get the information that the RSPCA is not for profit

As for the castration topic I have no input, I personalloy believe that 4 months is too young unless due to a medical condition, I just needed to clarify that the RSPCA here is no better than anywhere else and are money grubbers..

Kylie below is RSPCA policy on BSL

The RSPCA does not support breed specific legislation, also known as BSL. Our view, based on the available international scientific evidence, is that any dog may be dangerous and that dogs should not be declared as ‘dangerous’ on the basis of breed. While we recognise that there is a strong genetic component in a dog’s propensity for aggressive behaviour, their trigger point for aggression and capacity to inflict serious injury, these factors are not isolated to any specific breed. The RSPCA does not believe that BSL is in any way effective in preventing or reducing dog attacks or in protecting the public from dangerous dogs.
For a full explanation of the RSPCA's position please read the Information Paper - Preventing dog attacks in the community attached below.

http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCAs-position-on-breed-specific-legislation_497.html

Also to clarify, it is a not for profit, please refer to their website.

Thanks.

Don't believe everything they put on their website. They are all about high profile, money making. Very little of the money they make is used directly for animals in need. The majority goes on administration. They don't come out when you call them unless there's something in it for them. They will neuter dogs from10 weeks of age. Total mutilation.

I could go on, but this isn't the right place.

The hundreds of homeless dogs they house, feed, clean and nurse to good health is a great money making venture.

To run such an organisation requires expenditure not directly expended on animal welfare. I believe a great deal of funds would need to be spent on admin, some highly paid upper management, political lobbying etc etc etc. This is no different to other not for profit organisations. Yes not all funds go to the animals, but without the organisation animals would be far worse off.

Sorry to stray off topic, no pun intended.

Really? And you feel it's ok for them to refuse to come out to deserving cases because "it's too far"? Because that's what they do.

Harley wrote:The hundreds of homeless dogs they house, feed, clean and nurse to good health is a great money making venture.

I'm not a fan of the RSPCA. I phoned them once to report an elderly, injured Staffy bitch loose on the streets, right next to a busy road. She'd been there for days without a collar. All I got was "We'll check our database to see if anybody has lost a dog". No thought whatsoever to the fact that she needed medical care and was right next to the road, posing a threat to herself and motorists. She was still there for ages after I phoned them.

Harley wrote:
Sorry to stray off topic, no pun intended.

Harley wrote:

Caryll wrote:Really? And you feel it's ok for them to refuse to come out to deserving cases because "it's too far"? Because that's what they do.

Do you think it's fair that some Starving African children are sponsored when there are equally deserving starving children who are overlooked because the charities have not targeted their village yet?

What the hell has that got to do with this?

The RSPCA are there for animals in the UK & Australia, not for African children.