Should I Neuter?

[Carolyn]

I really disagree with most of the things said here. I don't have decades of experience with Danes, but I do have decades of experience with dogs.

The high majority of intact males are NOT aggressive. EVERY DOG who shows in the AKC ring is intact - are the majority of them aggressive? I'd certainly hope not.

Also, aggression is a behavioral and training issue. Every highly aggressive male I've ever worked with has been neutered. Removing testicles does NOT reduce or improve aggressive or guarding behaviors. My neutered males have also marked and humped obsessively, so removing their testicles doesn't eliminate those behaviors, other.

I have never understood the concept of 'my dog might end up behaving poorly, let's cut body parts off!'

Advising to neuter before a year is very poor advice, in my opinion. Having lost early neutered dogs to two of the numerous diseases linked to early neutering, I can safely say that I'd rather have to train my dog than euthanize at the age of six after spending (tens of) thousands on vet bills.

ETA: It's also important to note that a majority of ethical breeders advise neutering after 18-24 months of age (including many of the breeders who frequent this forum), and it's now very common to see that a neuter before this age violates the health guarantee provided at the time of purchase. This is because most ethical breeders who are up to date on the latest research actively acknowledge that early alters invite a host of non-genetic health issues and are bad for giant breed dogs.

Point 1) Most of the breeds in the Working Group, being intact males, will not play nicely together. Intact males of other breeds can interact without issue, though with that said, I have been seeing more and more hunting breeds (particularly Labs) with aggressive intact males. BUT since this is a Dane board, I didn't get into this information.

Point 2) Just because there is a ring full of well behaved intact male Great Danes together doesn't mean, if they had the opportunity, they wouldn't go after the dog in front of them. They do not because they have been taught not too. How often Hiraeth are you sitting ringside at AKC shows to watch eye contact, or just their overall body language?

Point 3) I agree with you on this. Aggression is not just about testosterone, it is also about training. They do go hand in hand...BUT, this is about pet people who want to own a dog who they can take anywhere, have people with their dogs over without fear of male to male aggression. IMO, an intact male is not that dog.

Point 4) Its quite simple, remove the hormone to procreate and you remove that drive from your dog to keep all females to himself.

Point 5) after 20+ yrs of breeding, I have found NO higher incidence of Osteosarcoma in my neutered males than in my intact males.

I stand by MY advice. Neuter before 12 months.

[Carolyn]

[QUOTE
ETA: It's also important to note that a majority of ethical breeders advise neutering after 18-24 months of age (including many of the breeders who frequent this forum), and it's now very common to see that a neuter before this age violates the health guarantee provided at the time of purchase. This is because most ethical breeders who are up to date on the latest research actively acknowledge that early alters invite a host of non-genetic health issues and are bad for giant breed dogs.[/QUOTE]

I must just have a line of healthy Danes :-) as I have NOT found this in now 6 (or could it be 7) generations of Danes.....but I have found (and not just in my own breeding program) the high tendency of aggression with intact males, especially those young adolescents, 12 to 20 months.

I don't know Hiraeth's personal experience in this area, maybe she finds her lines producing cancers with her neutered males, I have not and I keep explicit records of my Danes. And BTW, I am a an ethical breeder, so obviously not all feel neutering early is an issue :-)

What I do know, and I have found time and time again, the majority of pet owners are not ready to take on the responsibility of owning an intact male Great Dane.

[Kumah]

.[/QUOTE]And BTW, I am a an ethical breeder, so obviously not all feel neutering early is an issue :-)[/QUOTE]

Ha! You are like the breeder of all ethical breeders lol. I think all of us here, that don't or haven't already had one of your puppies, wants too!
Glad to see you back

I do prefer waiting to spay/neuter until as late as possible, and I still have not decided if I am going to spay Nala. My feelings are that, they are born and are supposed to have all their parts and pieces, why take them out if I am responsible enough and willing to deal with any issues that may arise. I spayed Kumah because of a scare with pyo, and I am leaning towards leaving Nala intact unless a medical reason requires me not to. However, the general public is in general terms not responsible enough and not willing to deal with an intact female, or male. OP, if you want to keep him intact then do so, if you think you can deal with the times when he might not behave so gentlemanly. It's ultimately up to you.

[Carolyn]

Absolutely.
Everyone has to decide for themselves what they can (realistically) and cant handle, or better yet, what they want to handle.
Having had mostly females I have always spayed/tacked them once they were done being bred which is between 5 to 6yrs old. The risk of pyo is far too high, especially the older they get. If you have a good vet (surgeon), who also knows that after care (keeping them on a warm floor and covered during recovery) is as important as the surgery itself, the risk should be minimal compared to doing an emergency surgery on a geriatric bitch in full blown pyo (not to mention the huge cost).

I appreciate your kind words and vote of confidence in myself and my Danes!

[mnmouse]

We've all felt the wrath of Hiraeth's opinion at some point on here...

As I see it, MORE intact male great danes (in unskilled pet homes) will die from aggression/behavioral euthanasia BY FAR than neutered great danes will die from cancer or other altering-induced problems.

"According to the American Humane Association, the most common reasons why people relinquish or give away their dogs is because their place of residence does not allow pets (29%), not enough time, divorce/death and behavior issues (10% each)."

And then half of surrendered/shelter pets are killed...

An intact, mature male great dane is a marvelous, impressive, powerful, and slightly intimidating thing...Not a good fit for the average pet owner. Not everyone can be an expert on dogs like the obvious internet forum experts we have here

[Hiraeth]

Point 5) after 20+ yrs of breeding, I have found NO higher incidence of Osteosarcoma in my neutered males than in my intact males.

I stand by MY advice. Neuter before 12 months.

Science disagrees with you. Every progressive study that is done shows increased risks of osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, cruciate disease, hip dyplasia, and other cancers.

So, here’s the thing. It seems that your lines are relatively cancer free. Which is great. In order for an early neuter to increase risk factor, the risk factor has to be there. If your dogs’ risk of cancer is close to 0, then you’re probably not going to see an increase in cancers caused by neutering.

But you’re giving general advice to people you don’t know, with dogs from lines you don’t know. Lines that are probably far more likely to carry cancer than your own. Therefore, when we’re talking about risk increase, someone’s dog could go from a 1 in 10 chance of osteo to a 1 in 4 chance with an early neuter (this was the result shown by the Rottweiler survey).

I must just have a line of healthy Danes :-) as I have NOT found this in now 6 (or could it be 7) generations of Danes.....but I have found (and not just in my own breeding program) the high tendency of aggression with intact males, especially those young adolescents, 12 to 20 months.

It seems that you do have a line of healthy Danes, as I stated above. But having a high tendency for aggression in intact males… That’s concerning to me. Testicles do not equal (or cause) aggression. Aggression is a genetic behavioral trait that should be bred away from. A program with a high instance of aggression in males is not a program I’d personally buy a dog from. Especially because I 100% do not believe that neutering fixes aggression issues.

We've all felt the wrath of Hiraeth's opinion at some point on here...

As I see it, MORE intact male great danes (in unskilled pet homes) will die from aggression/behavioral euthanasia BY FAR than neutered great danes will die from cancer or other altering-induced problems.

"According to the American Humane Association, the most common reasons why people relinquish or give away their dogs is because their place of residence does not allow pets (29%), not enough time, divorce/death and behavior issues (10% each)."

And then half of surrendered/shelter pets are killed...

An intact, mature male great dane is a marvelous, impressive, powerful, and slightly intimidating thing...Not a good fit for the average pet owner. Not everyone can be an expert on dogs like the obvious internet forum experts we have here

No need to be rude. My opinion certainly wasn't given wrathfully. I just highly disagree with giving advice in a forum that greatly increases the chances of cancers and other diseases. Having lost a dog to osteosarcoma yourself, I would have thought you’d want to be very proactive in potentially saving other people from that type of heartbreak.

I'm certainly not a “forum expert” on dogs. I'm not even a professional. This is just my opinion, bluntly given because that’s how I write. I am fairly sure that opinions and education are what this forum is for. And I’m fairly sure that eye rolling and sarcasm are not good ways to convey opinions or education.

Being neither an expert nor a professional, I shockingly have two intact males in the same house who have no aggression issues, or other behavioral issues because they still have their testicles, whatsoever.

[emeko]

I'm in the later spay/neuter boat as well, with the caveat being only if you can do it safely and responsibly prevent litters. There is mounting scientific evidence for leaving the sex hormones intact until all the growth plates are closed, which is closer to 18 months in a giant like a Dane. Each breeder knows their own line best, so if a certain line seems to be pretty much cancer free, that's great, and speaks volumes to the benefits of buying from a breeder who highly values health. BUT. Other lines are not cancer free, and a great many Dane owners own dogs who come from known poor breedings and situations, so that line of thought won't work for them. I'm always glad to hear that someone has a great track record and has had very healthy dogs, but the plural of anecdote is not data. Only scientifically derived data is data, and Hiraeth is correct-- the most current research shows otherwise. By all means, continue to recommend what works best for your lines to your puppy buyers! You know them best.

My girl came from a puppy mill. I have no idea what health problems her parents, grand parents, great grandparents, etc carry. I hope for the best, but I prepare for the worst. I'm doing everything in my power to stack the odds in her favour, as much as I can control. Including delayed spaying. She's two and a half now, and I will probably leave her intact until she's four or so to eliminate the pyometra risk in older age.

[Hiraeth]

..the plural of anecdote is not data. Only scientifically derived data is data...

Oooh, I like this! I might steal and use this in the future

[emeko]

Oooh, I like this! I might steal and use this in the future

I went to school for nutrition, we had this burned into our brains in every single course for 4 years. Because everybody knows somebody who had something!

"I know someone who ate healthy and died young of a heart attack, ergo my crappy diet is justified!"

"I know someone who ate like crap and lived to 100, ergo my crappy diet is justified!"

"I know someone who ate cake every day and never got diabetes, therefore I can eat cake every day and I for sure won't get diabetes!"

"I know someone who breastfed til their baby was two and a their baby still had every illness imaginable, therefore breastfeeding doesn't matter!"

....

"I know someone who neutered young and never had a problem, therefore all dogs can be neutered young without issue".

Case studies are case studies. Data is data, carefully curated from representative samples of appropriate size using the scientific method.

[mnmouse]

Look at the data for euthanasia for aggression, or other behavioral problems, and see what conclusions you come up with, based on those facts.

I did work with a dane rescue for quite some time. I did the intake data entry. I don't have the cold hard percentages, but MOST surrenders were for behavior. MOST of the danes were intact. If danes had to be euthanized it was for a)overwhelming health problems or b)aggression.

I lost a dane to cancer. Echo HAD her ovaries, or enough of them to come into heat every few months. Again, that's not proof at all for either argument, but I am an experienced dog person, and having a giant breed come into heat every four months was awful. Mouse is neutered and it drove him crazy. My other two spayed females had to put up with a giant female in heat. I had to endure through the hormones and wonky emotions, and false pregnancies, and poor Echo had to constantly endure it all too.

If the results of not altering dogs and those affects on their inexperienced owners makes even one dog wind up in a shelter or a rescue, it's one too many in my book.

[emeko]

"Relative to intact female dogs of at least 1 year of age, the odds ratio for having bitten a member of the household was highest for neutered male dogs (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.83–5.71), followed by neutered female dogs (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.21–3.75). Similar trends were seen for growling and possessive aggression. Our results indicate that excellent response rates can be achieved in behavioural research by utilising general veterinary practices and their clientele, that canine aggression in a household setting is a frequent problem, and that the relationship between neutering and behaviour warrants further investigation."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...68159101001538


"Dogs at an increased risk for surrender were sexually intact, obtained at little or no cost, older than 6 months old when obtained, spent most of the day in a yard or a crate, and were more work than expected. Dogs were more likely to be perceived as more work if they were sexually intact, exhibited frequent problem behaviour, and were obtained from a shelter"

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...7604jaws0103_2


I was trying to find actual number statistics, they must exist somewhere. It seems to me though that the bigger issues are people who are generally unprepared for a dog and unaware of the work involved. Many owners who don't care that much wouldn't care to do a neuter because it's an extra cost, so it could be more of a confounding variable than a causal relation.

[Hiraeth]

"Relative to intact female dogs of at least 1 year of age, the odds ratio for having bitten a member of the household was highest for neutered male dogs (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.83–5.71), followed by neutered female dogs (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.21–3.75). Similar trends were seen for growling and possessive aggression. Our results indicate that excellent response rates can be achieved in behavioural research by utilising general veterinary practices and their clientele, that canine aggression in a household setting is a frequent problem, and that the relationship between neutering and behaviour warrants further investigation."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...68159101001538


"Dogs at an increased risk for surrender were sexually intact, obtained at little or no cost, older than 6 months old when obtained, spent most of the day in a yard or a crate, and were more work than expected. Dogs were more likely to be perceived as more work if they were sexually intact, exhibited frequent problem behaviour, and were obtained from a shelter"

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...7604jaws0103_2


I was trying to find actual number statistics, they must exist somewhere. It seems to me though that the bigger issues are people who are generally unprepared for a dog and unaware of the work involved. Many owners who don't care that much wouldn't care to do a neuter because it's an extra cost, so it could be more of a confounding variable than a causal relation.

Yes, there are too many confounding variables to even attempt to draw causal relations when it comes to behavior and altering and surrender rates.

In the last two decades, spaying and neutering has been the accepted 'responsible' way to own pets in the US. Therefore, the intact animals most people have experience with are the animals owned by people who not only don't alter, but don't train and don't exercise their dogs.

Now that culture is changing, more and more responsible pet owners are deciding to keep their animals intact. Which means there are more and more intact animals around who are also trained, appropriately exercised, and responsibly handled.

It's difficult for me to believe statistics released by rescues concerning behavioral issues in intact dogs being the reasons for surrender. Those numbers can't be corroborated, and rescues have a very pointed agenda when it comes to altering animals (all of them should be altered and the sooner the better).

In many countries in Europe, large percentages of companion dogs are intact (I think it's over 90% of dogs in Sweden are intact?) These dogs don't all have problem or aggressive behaviors - in fact, Sweden's shelter population is quite low. I was in Scotland for 10 days last year, and I did not meet one neutered dog (though there was a Sheepdog who was so fuzzy I couldn't see whether he had testicles or not). Yet all of these intact dogs were friendly towards people and each other, and were openly invited into pubs, restaurants, public parks and commercial stores.

So why the difference? Why are dog owners in America so unable to handle intact dogs, and why the myths that intact dogs are more likely to have behavioral issues? I know people in Europe, and they can't fathom the blanket rule that 'every dog should be altered' and they scratch their heads when they read that intact dogs are more likely to have behavioral issues.

Those are rhetorical questions, but food for thought.

[lisacp75]

I agree with pieces of what everyone has said here, and I see this thread as an interesting conversation and not a bashing of anyone so I hope it continues as such. Anyway, as Emeko and Hiraeth have stated, anecdotes are not sufficient to make informed decisions. My experience with Zoomer is nothing more than an anecdote. My decision not to neuter him was not based on anecdote. In my current grad program, evidence based practice is hammered into us from day one. This may bore most of you, but there is what is called a "hierarchy of evidence" that is used in science to determine the quality of the research, reliability/validity of the studies, etc. Guess what level our veterinarians fall under? (And our MDs and pretty much all professionals in a science field). The last level - level six. That is not to say they can't provide support for level 1 evidence when counseling pet owners by citing valid research, but researchers they are not, unless they have a PhD after their DVM. Again, I'm not trying to bash anyone, but unless you have the ability to analyze and correctly interpret the data, it's best to seek advice from someone who can.

At any rate, I feel there are two arguments going on here - what is best for the "typical" pet owner, and perhaps some of us "atypicals" here on DOL. Additionally, breeders who live with intact animals of both sexes are going to have an entirely different experience than the majority of the dog-owning population. If you just think about the show ring experience itself, it is a highly unnatural and highly charged environment. The dogs are on leash, in a closed-in ring, in very close proximity to one another. I'm shocked that altercations don't occur with greater frequency, but the individuals handling these animals are experts in dog body language and training so that obviously goes a long way. I went to check out the latest position statement from the Society for Theriogenology (veterinarians dedicated to animal reproduction). I'm not certain how many PhDs are among their ranks, so perhaps the info should be taken with a grain of salt, but they have a list of 164 references for those who have the time to delve into them. It should be mentioned they reference both dogs and cats in this position statement.

This was one section I'd love to look into further when I have time - my summer break, perhaps! Note the use of the phrase "may be" when describing risk for aggressive behaviors. Sounds pretty wish washy to me, and suggests the research might not be backing these statements up. That said, check out the full link as it outlines the health benefits/risks as well:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.therio....uter_basis.pdf

"Behavioral concerns
a. Research has shown that there are positive effects of the sex steroid hormones on behavior.
i. Advantages of remaining intact:
1. There is a decrease in shyness and hiding behavior in intact male and female
cats.
2. There may be less aggression towards people and animals in intact bitches.
3. There may be a decreased incidence of cognitive dysfunction in intact male and
female dogs.
b. Research has shown that there are negative effects of the sex steroid hormones on behavior.
i. Advantages of being spayed or castrated:
1. Inter-dog aggression may be due to competition for available territory or
availability of cycling animals.
2. Urine spraying and inter-animal aggression is increased in intact male cats.
3. There is a decreased risk of wandering and being hit by a car in neutered
animals."

[Carolyn]

We've all felt the wrath of Hiraeth's opinion at some point on here...

As I see it, MORE intact male great danes (in unskilled pet homes) will die from aggression/behavioral euthanasia BY FAR than neutered great danes will die from cancer or other altering-induced problems.

"According to the American Humane Association, the most common reasons why people relinquish or give away their dogs is because their place of residence does not allow pets (29%), not enough time, divorce/death and behavior issues (10% each)."

And then half of surrendered/shelter pets are killed...

An intact, mature male great dane is a marvelous, impressive, powerful, and slightly intimidating thing...Not a good fit for the average pet owner. Not everyone can be an expert on dogs like the obvious internet forum experts we have here

Wow....glad its not just me. And this is why I left DOL, looks like things haven't changed.
I don't mind a difference of opinion. Differences are good. It gives readers more information. State your differences and move on.....obviously Hiraeth likes to badger. And I don't have time to waste on that.
Enjoy Hiraeth, its all yours

[Carolyn]

But having a high tendency for aggression in intact males… That’s concerning to me. Testicles do not equal (or cause) aggression. Aggression is a genetic behavioral trait that should be bred away from. A program with a high instance of aggression in males is not a program I’d personally buy a dog from. Especially because I 100% do not believe that neutering fixes aggression issues.

No worries I wouldn't sell you one anyway!
I have a very long line of past buyers who buy my pups....its why you have never, nor will you ever, see me advertising for homes for my pups. They are sold before they are born.
That alone tells you a little something about my Danes, my breeding program AND their temperaments. My breeding program, which includes more CHIC champions than anyone in the country, BOB Westminster, National awards, therapy, and yes, those cherished couch companions (that I require to be neutered by 12 months) are bred to be gorgeous, healthy, temperamentally sounds Danes.
So yeah, that's it in a nut shell Hiraeth.